I agree it was but let us not forget that winning the league below didn't make it certain that you were promoted Hudds are a testamant to that (No disrespect Hudds fans)

Like paying creditors 10p in the £ and selling your ground twice over?

I know.

Hardly simple when the RFL still made the final decision, but don't let the facts get in the way.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Whilst some clubs are in a better state than others (largely because of big investors whose permanence is not guaranteed by any means) the game as a whole is in a financial mess. Is this question disputed any more?

Are we better off with 14 teams? I can't say what financial benefit the inclusion of additional sides offer but I've not seen much benefit on the field so far.

When we shifted over to the salary cap and tweaked the rules in order to promote junior development I had hoped we'd see an influx of high quality youngsters across the board by now. Of course, I didn't expect to see the kind of competition for international places the Australians perpetually seem to possess but I did think we'd be able to put together 13 players of a pretty high standard. Yes, we are able to field a decent pack but over the past ten years we've put out some of the worst back lines I've seen in years. And I won't even begin to mention the halves.

Ahhh your problem is you think everything would be fixed instantly. It's a common problem in RL.

We are starting to see a backline that can challenge that of the Aussies, maybe halves too (though this is dependant on the coach not picking the Leeds loose forward at stand off)

But of course, it the fix isn't instant effective we need to return to the system that's never worked. Ever.

I agree, we are now starting to see the products of encouraging better youth development. I can't see what benefit reducing the current number of SuperLeague clubs will bring in further encouraging that development. Even London Broncos now have some decent local talent entering their ranks, not too bad seeing as most of the rest of the league had nearly 100 years start on them.

Despite the efforts of the RFL & BARLA to foster closer relationships between the professional and amateur ranks (thanks mainly to Richard Lewis), there are still problems. Amateur clubs see their best young players getting cherry-picked, often en-masse, by pro clubs. Many of these players are then often discarded as not being "good enough" and all too often they are then lost completely to the game. There's no doubt that more needs to be done in relation to player development and retention (in the game as a whole) but I'm convinced that we've been heading in the right direction.

What we currently have may not be the best we can hope for but the solution does not lie in going backwards, we need to progress further. Reducing the number of Superleague teams is not the solution, it is a retrograde step, one that is designed to offer a short-term fix to what a small number of clubs see as a way to cover their own lack of effort and expertise in promoting the game.

Quote: Tre Cool "Neil Hudgell sounds like a moron.'" And Mcmanus? www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Quote: Tre Cool "Neil Hudgell sounds like a moron.'" And Mcmanus? www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

No, my PROBLEM is with fans who consider "Progress" unquestionably beneficial provided it is solely on their terms on no one else's.



You'll forgive me for waiting until we do start sticking it to them rather than agreeing exclusively on the evidence of a crystal ball.



Yes, because that's precisely the course of action all fans advocate. Aren't you clever.

rfl isn't bankrupt, its the clubs who over spend on players, mainly sub-standard, don't get the crowds they hope for then go whinging to the press in hope of some compassion and handout! imo of course

spot on.

you can't make a silk purse our of a sows ear. The game needs to be strong, in the publics mind and perceived as an exciting sport to follow as much as clubs need to market better and attract fans to their clubs.

And that would be better achieved by foregoing Sky money and giving the game away to FTA?