if we have 14 teams we'll have lots of hammerings and even more meaningless games. The current format give everyone something to play for up to round 23 then all but 2 or 3 a chance of making either the top 4 in SL or avoiding the drop in the middle 8's.

With 14 team the season will be over for half of them by round 14

But attendances are lower in the super 8's compared to rounds 1-23, so the having something to play for theory doesn't fit.

Why not just leave it 12 teams in SL get rid of the 8's automatic 1 up 1 down 11th SL v 2nd Champ. for million pound.

Why are people obsessed about a million pound game?

13 teams, one straight up and 1 down. Not fair on any Championship club to play a full season just to get smashed in one game.

Can't help but think this is all to protect Catalans and embrace Toronto.

We moved from 14 but didnt try to consolidate the talent we had. When we cut from 14 to 12, Bradford and London carried on being ostensibly full time, and Leigh became full time with Halifax and Sheffield and fev get a bit nearer to it. So we went from 14 to 12 in SL but went from 14 to 15 full time sides with a couple more playing at it.

Since then we have seen Hull KR and Leigh swap, Bradford Fax and Sheffield are probably further away from full-time but we have seen Toulouse get pretty close full time and the addition of Toronto.

I dont think the move to 14 would have the detrimental effect of spreading the talent that much more thinly because we never got the benefits of consolidation. However: A return to straight P+R will see what we have already seen, clubs overspending and going bust trying to go up, and youth development being ignored by those trying to avoid going down, short term thinking and the drop-off in crowds in the 'relegation battle'

I don't really know what the further investigations they are doing are for, we know what P+R does we know what 14 sides does. We have had them both pretty recently and lets be honest, nobody is looking back at 2014 as the shining city on the hill are they?

There is only one answer and we knew it 20 years ago and the quickest way to get where we need to be: Merge with the NRL.

I like it how it is.

if it increased to 14 or even left as is then all teams in SL must be made to have an academy and also look to setting up a reserve team league in the near future. We really need to increase the player pool and not just jettison the players over 19 yrs old who are not quite ready for 1st team rugby week in week out

How about up to 14. Top 8 in a playoff system similar to the NRL. Bottom 3 super league and top 3 championship, similar to the current middle 8's. Top 3 of mini round robin take super league spots the year after.

It means 11 of the 14 teams are involved all the way through and 9th, 10th and 11th are going to be in the mix right up to the end. It also gives those teams in the lower league a good chance to build as does the middle 8's now and give them a good chance to step up as Leigh have.

The ideal is for hopeful Hull KR and laudable London to get promoted to Super League in 2018 at expense of lowly Leigh and witless Widnes.

Then in 2018 end P & R and reintroduce licencing.

Finally in 2019 it will be necessary to promote terrific Toulouse and turbocharged Toronto into Super League and make it 14 clubs.

Leeds
Huddersfield
Hull FC
Hull KR
Wakefield
Castleford
Wigan
St Helens
Warrington
Salford

London
Catalans
Toulouse
Toronto


Then in 2019 put woeful Wakefield and silly Salford on notice that unless they get a modern stadium (Wakefield) and average home crowds over 5,000 (Salford and Wakefield) they will be relegated in favour of Montreal and perhaps Avignon or Sheffield. At least one of those clubs will have to go to make way for Montreal by 2022.

Personally, I would prefer a 12 team league producing 22 games plus Magic Weekend, a six team play-off system and more breaks for international breaks. As for relegation, I'd need to be satisfied that we won't simply end up with a promoted team picking up the voided contracts of the team that comes down, as happened under the old one-up, one-down.

I must be honest and say that I don't have a lot of sympathy for this "we need 27 games a season to be viable" argument. We shouldn't be looking to put more pressure on our players by making them play more games and reducing the quality of the competition - we should be pressuring the clubs to make more from the fixtures that they currently have. A tiny fraction of Super League games sell out, so the effort should be on filling that spare capacity, rather than creating more capacity to be filled by the same people.

Since Super League was introduced, we've increased the number of games, we've got more central funding, the real-terms cost of talent has gone down (by account of a salary cap that doesn't keep pace with inflation) and yet we still have clubs complaining that they need the thick-end of 30 games a year, to cut their academy systems and to scrap their reserve grade teams to remain viable because they are incapable of marketing themselves on both a supporter and corporate level.

No changing of the structure is going to save clubs from problems of their own making.

ER I think your team has had a few hammerings just lately and you playing in 12 teams so what would be different

You may be right about Catalans Toronto 2019