I would say not many as most of them are semi pro's masquerading as pro players

I agree with TheElectricGlidingWarrior (never thought that would happen)

Plus even if the bottom 4 clubs had fantastic players and the bigger clubs are already spending at cap how do they fit them in?

In the Mail today, (I know), the RFU are selling naming rights for Twickers to fund improvements in the second tier of rugby.

Just saying

Warrington's boss is certainly all for it :- www.loverugbyleague.com/news_105 ... eague.html

Warrington's boss is certainly all for it :- www.loverugbyleague.com/news_105 ... eague.html

Its disappointing that the two reports in to this have managed to get the quite important, and quite basic fact of when the TV deal ends wrong.

Our TV deal runs until the end of the 2016 season, not 2014.

I might be wrong, but for some reason seem to recall that we can renegotiate after three years.

There are a lot of very good players in the bottom four clubs that would benefit the other clubs, and have intact been signed up by many of them already. The gap between the top and bottom would not only be smaller, but the team in 10th would be stronger in a 10 team league than a 14 team league.

The increase in the (quality) talent pool would also not need to be so large with less teams.

So we are clear the issues at the clubs you mentioned weren’t caused by, or exacerbated by franchising and as such those clubs would have had those problems, under P+R aswell

Well we know you don’t think that those clubs found it harder because of franchising, are you trying to say that they didn’t find it easier to deal with those problems because of franchising? Are you saying the lack of relegation and the lack of threat of relegation didn’t make it easier for those clubs to solve those issues?

You need to learn the difference between a demonstrable fact and an opinion. You keep trying to give us facts, then when they are proved wrong, you pretend its ok, its an opinion and all are as valid as each other. Well they aren’t. You could say in your opinion LSV is the biggest stadium in the world. It would be an opinion, but it would clearly and provably wrong.

So even knowing you will avoid the question, because your answer will expose the fact your opinion is based on the fact it fits your narrative and not because of a logical conclusion, I will ask, What evidence led you to the conclusion that the bottom of SL is stagnating?

You hope it cripples them. Because a strong and growing Salford would prove the value of franchising and expose your nonsense.

That’s not Sky’s view, or Barney Francis’ and I have no idea what benefit that would bring. If only we can re-negotiate why would sky agree to that? If both can re-negotiate then we don’t have a 5 year deal we have a 3 year deal.

Hmmm. Off the top of my head I can think of:
Hanbury
Cahill
Shenton
Chase
Howell
Robertson
Gower
Dixon
Broughton
Moon

Who would improve the top 10 clubs. I've probably missed a couple but I really don't think there are all that many, certainly not to warrant getting shut of 4 clubs in the belief that simply getting rid of the less intense games would somehow suddenly make the rest of the games more intense and competitive.
As EGW said, the way to improve the league and the intensity of games is to improve the quality of the young players that we produce, and you don't do that by reducing pathways to the top level.
Plus no-one has effectively answered the questions on finances.

Chicken-and-egg though innit?

That's exactly right. It's often said that the premiership is boring, but in fact there are very few clubs who have nothing to play for in the structure. The premier league is actually a very good example of a structure that works well given the gap between the top and bottom sides. ( You can argue of course about whether it should be made more equal with salary caps, etc. but *if* you're forced to accept the idea of big clubs and small clubs, then they've got it working well).

The big thing of course is getting into Europe at one end and relegation at the other. Mid-table is actually quite a small place and it's usually very late into the season before any club gets into a 'nothing-to-play-for' situation.

As I've said before I'd like to see something akin to the Champions League ( but sadly I can't see the Aussies being motivated to take part ) to help with the top end, making the top 4 a great target.

( as an aside, at the very least, let's make the WCC game for the top placed regular season side - that would slightly rebalance the league/playoff importance. Only slightly, mind.)