Those sound like interesting ideas. I guess the real barrier at the moment is that not all SL clubs could afford to run the teams.

If you have an A team comp where players have to be under 22, then what happens to older first teamers who have had an injury lay off and need to come back to get match fitness, can you have say 3 players per team over 22?

A draft would be good and would make the championship interesting. Again I fear the problem would be the disparity of resources amongst the Championship teams. For a draft to work well you would want to have all players released from SL clubs to be put in to an off season draft and then the lower Championship clubs get first pick for the better players. The problem would be, if the lower Championship clubs could only offer meagre match fee payments, whereas there was some team at the upper end of the Championship willing to offer full time terms or nearer. So the better players are never going to go for that.

A team is out dated. It rewards mediocrity. Investing in the youth is the key.

So what happens then to fringe players aged 23 like Patton....does he just get discarded and given up on so we can focus on youth?

Get rid of the scholarship - leave players with their community clubs until they sign professional with a club. That increases the quality and number of junior teams and avoids players becoming disenchanted with the game if they miss out on scholarship whilst creating a pathway to open age amateur rugby and an affinity with an amateur team, hopefully increasing the numbers playing at that age.

One academy age group at u18's. Avoids three age groups contesting spaces in one team which restricts game time for young players.

Have an u23's or u21's league with say 5 overage players permitted - in effect a reserve league in all but name.

Compulsory running of the two teams for all Super League teams. Abolish dual registration, use the loan system (minimum one month) if you need to.

The recent "reserve" fixtures were generally low quality with Warrington often resorting to borrowing Rochdale's squad players to make up numbers. I seem to recall in the last season we ran a team our match against Wigan was cancelled twice (and never actually played) as Wigan couldn't raise a team!

Need to bring back under 23 sides, with allowance for older players returning from injury etc like it used to be.

But as has been said some teams won't/can't pay the money it will cost

The high volume of injuries and suspension in the modern game supports a large squad but not 2 teams worth.
'A'team has no place today.
To have a squad big enough to run 2 teams means bringing in mediocre players to stock it or risk not having enough players to raise a team.
A first team squad of quality and a team of youth with spots for squad members out of selection IS the way.

I was a fan of 'A' team too!

no you wouldn't. the first team squad is 30 strong. Those not in the 1st team 17 would play in the 'A team' youd need another 10 lads on the books at the very most. or give lads from the U19's a chance.

You could also employ ex players in development roles, the likes of Lee Mitchell/Matty Blythe etc who could combine a role playing in the reserves with going out to local amateur clubs and schools to promote and develop RL in the town.

'Yes you would'
30 you said....is that not an increase of our Base 1st team squad of around 25 players?
I'm pretty sure you can do the maths.... they will come off the cap no?

We currently have a squad of 30 players, with allegedly room for one more.

Some points around Salary Cap and the reserves

- The highest paid 25 players count on the cap, whether they play a game or not.
- A player outside of the 25 would count on the cap if they played a SL or Challenge Cup game (but note the two exceptions below).
- A player under 21, who isn't one of the top 25 earners does not count on the cap.
- A player who earns less than £20k does not count on the cap.
- Also a player not in the top 25 earners, who never plays a first team game, will not count on the cap.

So while there is obviously a financial cost for running a reserves side, it need not impact on the salary cap.

Then why bother if we are trying not to play those exceptions

Our squad is currently 30.

"I'm pretty sure you can do the maths", take away a match day 17 from 30 and that means the 'A team' would need to find 4 more players. take into an account of injuries ect, an squad of 40 players could sufficietly field 2 teams a week.

30 from 40 is??? 10 players like I said.

We want to play the exceptions, the likes of Wigan must have done very well with U21's coming in to the first team squad and not counting on the cap, but we need them to be ready for the first team when they are called upon.

The club believe a reserve competition is the best way to turn 19 - 23 year olds in to regular first team players. As a bonus it also keeps fringe players match fit and allows players returning from long term injury somewhere to play rather than being thrown straight back in to first team action.

I think the reason we have seen a plunge in the quality of rugby league in the UK is down to the low numbers of school age kids playing the game. Fewer players coming through results in fewer SL quality players at the top of the pyramid. For some time there have been club reports of matches being played with only 13 aside and even a few with 11/12 a side. I think releasing the Scholarship players back to their clubs will help somewhat, but lets remember that they only play 6 competitive games for the U16's during the year anyway. And of course ideally we also want the best quality coaches (Wire ?) overseeing their development if possible such that we at least get the full potential from the smaller numbers that continue to play.

If we had plenty of youngsters we could have U16, U18, U21 and Reserve sides, but we don't. So the problem we face is not really about what age groups we need, it's how do we get more local youngsters playing the game. Until we ( all RL clubs) solve that one we will continue to see 35/36 year old players extending their contracts and more poor quality matches being played out. If the sport fails to hold the interests of the viewing public we could easily see a fall in the Sky monies that underpin the game over here, or as has recently been announced with the Sky cycling team (with Froome and Thomas), Sky could pull out altogether.

I think to be successful and not come up short towards the back end of the season injury and fitness you would need 45-50 players in the squad. We got 30 now for one team and still get headaches injury wise through the season how will ha bing another 17 members of the squad playing a competitive game help this? We will have 34 players in a 40 player squad playing competitive games every week how many will be fit come the end of the year.

I want every team to have a reserve team but not if its not practical financially.