When Rugby League was re branded into "Super League" what actually changed apart from changing to summer rugby and a few rule changes? To call it Super League is an absolute farce and the RFL have missed the boat to develope the sport and make it what it should be. The opportunity was there to take the sport to a greater level but not enough was done. They say Rugby League is a game played by professionals and run by amatures, well how true is that!!. What should have happened is smaller teams should have merged to create one "super" club. Teams such as Salford Oldham and Rochdale could have been branded as Manchester and Yorkshire clubs done something simular. Obviously people would bang on about tradition and that there'd be no way supporters would join together. But where's the traditon when these teams supporters dont seem to be there anymore?. Besides, the individual clubs wouldnt just fold and fade away, they could still play in a seperate comp known say as league 1 and be feeder clubs to their Super League club. Up and coming players from those town would have something to aim for and aspire to play in "Super League". Also players coming to the end of their career could step down and teach these kids the things they've learned over the years.

So who would go watching these new teams? Well apparently Super League is the second most watched sport on sky after football, so the audience is there. Obviously the clubs would need marketing right and finances play a big part in that, but the chance was there to at least try it.

Am I alone in thinking that the problem is not totally with SL? For me the quality of competition in the Championship is not strong enough - this should be a proving ground for young players - how many in the last five seasons have made the switch up to SL level? Barely a handful if that. Most of the teams in this league are filled with journeymen / 2nd rate imports and over the hill players.

Perhaps there is a case for having either SL clubs fielding a 2nd team in the lower levels of the game or having feeder/tie-in with teams below SL level to encourage player development. With a formal arrangement between clubs this would open up the possibility of shared training/development and player exchanges/loans.

Whilst there are many positives in the game what is needed is a thorough look at the structure of the game from reserve/U18 right through to SL level to try and produce a more structured/cohesive game. Of course this is never going to happen.

Just reduce the size of SL, that will move players down and raise the standard of the Championship, or am i being too simplistic? That would also give you a more intense SL.

Your all asking for a smaller league, dont bite my head off, but what about a bigger league?

You're all saying that clubs like widnes, cas and wakey are embarrasments, but yet all 3 of them have either beat, or run a big club close this season. If we could put 2/4 more clubs of that strength there, surly it would give more room for huge upsets, more teams for young players to break through and more competition at the bottom of the table.

ATM, the poorer clubs have about 4/6 games a season which they look at a possible win with a few upsets in there. If there was a few more clubs there, that could be doubled into 12 games they were looking for a win.

With this, surly more supporters would be attracted to these games which would increase income and popularity of the game.

But hey, thats just me, fire away

Just google NRL footy show then go on the video tab. They have the highlights of each weeks programmes