But as you have just said 90% of your team will be changed anyway so i cant see how that will be relevant.

The choice (based on your logic) is between a club which has won the league and as such has the best first team squad, who will then change 90% of the squad for likely one season and a club which didnt win the league but was best placed of the field to maximise its potential in SL who will then change 90% of their squad for at least 3 years

If you want to talk about odds, i think its clear which of those you would back


Or perhaps you look at what you did wrong last season, improve on it and try again.

Well let's see shall we , anything more than 1/2 clubs will just make the Championships weaker , and further widen the gap between SL and the rest

What about the teams already in SL - that can't function in SL? Clubs that have gone into administration, clubs that are not drawing in enough crowds and clubs that are still struggling with stadia? Does that mean that the current system which allows them to remain in SL is a bad thing?

Ah but !

what the RFL do to improve SL isnt necessarily anything to do with what they do to improve the championships.

I see no reason to limit the amount of clubs who can apply, if a club wants to apply, fair enough i dont see what we, as a game, lose because of this.

No. If those clubs are building towards being able to do the things we need them to do, then giving them the time and space to do it is a good thing. If it becomes apparent they cant do these things we have facility to remove them.

Where have I stated that 90 percent would be changed , that is the point , if you build the Championships up to a reasonable level you would have teams taking 60/70 percent of the team up with you as HKR did , they competed from the start , yes they dropped off near the end of the season as they're squad didn't have the strength in depth of the established clubs , but they built a squad in the Championships and the bulk of that squad did compete

absolute nonsense to say there is not enough quality to support more teams, of course there is.

how many players are on dual contracts?
how many juniors will be lost to the game because there is so little chance of going pro?
how many championship players could potentially make the grade with full time coaching?

as for "elite" players. get a grip . there are probably a dozen outstanding players in superleague.(if you're not sure who they are, they will be the ones heading for rugby union or australia in the near future)

after that there is hundreds of pretty average players all at about a similar level.

I never said it was , so what point are you trying to make ?

The game won't ' lose ' , the Championship clubs will , that is what I said

But we won't , because there will be nobody to replace them

What a load of crap. For a couple of clubs that won't happen and that's what hacks people off. No matter how much you cover it in Smokey flavoured candy floss I'm not buying it.

Read post no 2 on page 1 slugger

But there is an argument going on, on this very thread, stating there isnt enough players to go around in SL, never mind asking for 30/40% of championship squads to be of SL quality. There simply isnt the players to go around.

as for your example at HKR, they didnt build a team in the championship. For the 2007 season they brought in Vella, Ward, Ford, Bauer, Lovegrove, O'neill, Dyer, Hardman, Lennon, Cooke, Tandy, Gannon, Chester.

In fact only Murrell, Fisher, and Cockayne featured with any regularity and are still there now.

If that is the case why did Wakefield feel the need to enter this season with 9 overseas players and try and sign Hickey and HKA at one stage have 11 overseas players?