Quote: jimlav "there are some interesting things here, but its as if you have started to think about the answer before you have fully understood the problem.
Money makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player.
It also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.
In addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there.
there are a thousand more reasons for less teams.
Ps, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.'"
I think you have misunderstood my point, I certainly haven't thought about any answer before the question.
[iMoney makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player[/i
I agree, money is the reason that everyone goes to work etc. It's what puts food on the table and a roof over our heads. However, having less teams means less opportunity for the up and coming player. Lets take this to the smallest league of two - the academies are making near perfect players but the perfect players still hold the number one spot and the cash.
[iIt also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.
[/i
No it doesn't. It means that Sky have less games on TV. WHy would Sky give the same money for less games? If there was more money, surely the first team would ask for more or would the new found glut of tallent be preventing this but providing more supply than demand?
[iIn addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there. [/i
Why? As a former player and with hindsight with knackered knees I would take the financial security of RU over RL. At what point in your business plan does the RL salary cap eclipse the PPP of RU?
[ithere are a thousand more reasons for less teams.
[/i
Such as?
[iPs, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.[/i
Feel free.
I'm sure that having a large gene pool for competition of the fittest is better than artificially narrowing the pool. Lets make the SL a group of 10 teams with more money, it just makes it easier to buy from Aussie imports that are just outside top 90% (being generous) of their game (which is better that the SL by how much, 10-15%?) rather than taking a gamble on the young lads on the way though.
