rl...according to Tony Smithrl

Would he be saying this if Warrington were as pants as they have been in previous seasons?

I just don't agree with him.
But he does join a growing line of people in agreeance

I disagree with him. Surely the more teams that play means more players play, more reserve teams, more junior teams which makes for a larger pool for elite teams to pick up talent?

I was thinking exactly the same. Don't think he would be so eager to make statements like this if Warrington were as bad as the last few years.

If our result at Leeds doesn't show that there is room for all the teams then nothing does. It is just up to the other cluibs, us included, to step up to the plate and look to match and better sides like Wire.

Why not two leagues of ten (super league 1 and 2) with all teams full time. Promotion and relagation between the two leagues and francise into league 2.Imagine how tough these two divisions would be.But i guess it won`t happen because the sky money would have to be shared out a little more.

He doesnt like the number of teams, doesn't like the magic weekend, doesn't like England playing France, doesnt like being an Aussie.

Tony we dont like your dull voice and inability to look at what you are talking to. I bet his wife has a miserable time

Top 6 in SL1 playoff for the title, bottom 4 in SL1 and top 4 in SL2 playoff for 4 remaining SL1 spaces for next season. That would allow teams to quickly move between the leagues and hopefully prevent a gulf in talent between the leagues.

Maybe Smith has a point?

rlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/warrington/8753275.stmrl

Two leagues of 10 teams? I reckon it could work. 20 teams capable are listed below:

1. Catalans
2. Toulouse
3. Halifax
4. Bradford
5. Wigan
6. St Helens
7. Warrington
8. Castleford
9. Harlequins
10. Salford
11. Leigh
12. Widnes
13. Leeds
14. Hull
15. Hull KR
16. Barrow
17. Crusaders
18. Huddersfield
19. Wakefield
20. Featherstone

I agree with him and have felt this way for quite a long time. We simply play too many games in this country at the elite level.

I disagree, i think its been far better with 14 teams, having to see the same teams twice at home was ridiculous and dull.

I agree, clubs should only be promoted when they are good enough for the league IMO. This would make the league below alot stronger and those clubs would have alot more urgency to better themselves, up untill now we just havn't seen that.

Wigan
Leeds
Saints
Wire
Hull FC
Bradford
Hull KR
Catalans
Hudds
Crusaders

The other 4 can go down the the next league which would only include teams who are good enough to apply for super league.

This would create genuine competition in the league below and more games in super league would be far far better.

Castleford
Wakefield
Salford
Harlequins
Leigh
Widnes
Halifax
Featherstone
Sheffield
Toulouse

This creates two leagues stronger than we have now.

The teams from the league below this would then have to better themselves to get into the 2nd league so they could potentially apply for super league.

I didn't like this idea at first, but as a Leigh fan at least there's still some hope and something to play for. If this happened we could also find free weekends for Internationals too.

I think most clubs are seeing an increase in the number of half decent youngsters coming through. They may not be world beaters but we are at a stage were we can develop youngsters physically and train them to a level were they can do a job while the bigger stars shine. I think in 3 years the % of home grown players starting each game will be a lot higher and defences tend to be a little sterner when lads are palying for "their" club.

I don't think now's the time to be talking about that sort of thing.