If Super League was reduced to 10 clubs.....

Quote: TrinityIHC "So your solution to there not being enough quality players to go around is to reduce the amount of training facilities and outlets for the talent at the highest level?

Ridiculous.'"

So why dont we have more teams at SL level then? why not 20? 40? Why limit the amount of training facilities and talent at the highest level at all and just have every team playing at SL level? You havent made any argument showing why 14 is better than 12 but not worse than 16/20/100

Quote: TrinityIHC "14 clubs is enough for the current franchise system as it stands, I repeat other than ourselves (who have been in administration and had to field youngsters and journeymen all season) and Crusaders (New expansion team) who has really been whipping boys?'"

So out of 14 we have two clubs who are whipping boys, one of them a team who has been at the elite level for 14 years but this shows 14 is the right amount? How many whipping boys does there need to be for there to be too many? 3? 6?

Quote: TrinityIHC "Yes the league may be divided by the top 6 who are clearly outstripping the lowlier clubs at the moment, but the youngsters coming through at these clubs that you would so casually dismiss, benefit enormously by playing against the top clubs and players. They then go on to be the England stars of the future. The licensing system should iron out quite a lot of these problems if we give it time to work properly.

All your doing by creating this 2 tier system is further damaging clubs that are trying to catch up with the top 6, and its totally counter productive for the sport.'"

But again, this doesnt address the reason why 14 is the optimum number? and your argument works both ways. Yes it is a good thing that players are exposed to a higher level because it makes them better, but conversely the top players are being exposed to players below their level which lowers their intensity and makes them worse players. Kallum Watkins hasnt improved by being part of a team which has just won 56-0, Joe Arundel wont improve by playing against teams so clearly superior and losing 56-0. Both will have improved by playing in a close, tight, intense game which finished 8-10 between two fairly evenly matched teams. But Castleford couldnt repeat that performance because they havent got the depth to compete in two games like that back-to-back. The lose a few players and what they bring in simply isnt good enough. And they cant get the depth they need to compete because we 12 clubs all fighting for the same players from the same areas.

Whereas if we were to bring the number of clubs down to 10 or 12, then the club which survived in the WMDC would have more youngsters to pick from, be able to pick more of the highest quality, put out a team which could compete week in week out rather than every so often. This would result in more games, of a higher intensity exposing the best players to a high quality game making them better players and improving the quality of the league.