Sorry, I haven't been on here since I posted so haven't answered the questions raised. I won't answer every one individually but I'll answer this one and hopefully it will make clear the points I'm making.

First of all, the 'every game counts' was not referring to the winners alone. The playoffs are still in existence so everyone is still playing for a playoff place. The difference being that it would remove the farce that we currently have where the league is nothing more than an extended pre-season to a cup competition! the ONLY way to stop this ridiculous situation is to have the championship won by the team finishing with the highest number of points. It works fine in Football and did for over a hundred years in our sport. I can't see anything but a devalueing of the season and, by default, the game by changing this in the manner we have. For me (and an increasing number of supporters) it's making our game a farce. If you are happy with the situation as it stands, then that's fine. That's your right. However, I find it interesting that the people who are happy with the situation are, in the main, the supporters of the team who have won it twice after finishing fifth. No coincidence I would wager. You'll never make 'every game count' in an absolute sense. You can, however, make the season more than an 8-month training run! I know which I prefer.

Why would anyone care about being named Premiers? Are you being serious? That's like saying why would anyone care about being named Challenge Cup winners? It's a title, a trophy, a big event final at a major sporting venue and an automatic entry into the WCC....not to mention a lucrative money spinner on both counts! I can't believe you actually put this forward, but hey! you're entitled to your opinion as I said earlier!

I haven't swapped round minor premiers and premiers. I have given due credit to a competion that is currently regarded as second rate when it should be the most important! But let's, for the sake of argument say I have 'just swapped them around'. What is your argument against that? I would say that is the correct way they should be regarded and anything else is merely a falsehood. There is no way on earth that the playoffs should be regarded as the 'ultimate' achievement in the sport as it currently is. The situation is laughed at by fans of other sports (I visit many football strongholds in the course of my work and, without exception, they find the way our competition is run a joke) and, if I was being honest, I find it a joke too. Winning the title (i.e finishing first) is universally regarded as the toughest achievement in the sport. It should be recognised as such. In fact, I object to the term 'minor premiers'. As for awarding the plate to mark the achievement; well, the often used nickname 'The Hubcap' tells you all you need to know.

Someone else mentioned I was putting a lot of emphasis on the WCC. I wasn't. The emphasis was on recognising that the team finishing first should be champions. As champions you would play in the WCC. QED. I'm sick of hearing that the season no longer matters. Take a look at the season ticket thread on this very site for a taste of where we are as a sport.

Bury your head in the sand all you want. I'm a season ticket holder and have been for decades. If supportors such as myself are questioning the validity of our competition (and have been for some time) I think it's fair to say that something is badly wrong with it. I can honestly say I wish it was just me who was disillusioned. The truth is it isn't. Not by a long way.

I have a passing interest/intense dislike of other sports, but apart from football they all seem to be regularly re-inventing themselves or introducing new competitions - cricket/yawnion. I haven't a clue who the league winners were in either of those last season but was fully aware of the media frenzy around their respective cup competitions. Interestingly, & I am not sure there is any relevance, but both of those sports appear to have a select bunch of players who never/hardly ever play league games, being reserved for international duty as that is the big money earner.

Hadn't half our team played for Great Britain the day/week before hence the changes? Don't think it was done out of dis-resepect or the like. I'm sure it was forced.

You're right it is irrelevant, let's look at centrally contracting RL players to an international team to play against whom?

No disrespect to the World Cup and the teams in it, but, seriously how many competative teams are there at the moment, would Austrailia and NZ fancy going down the same route?

There isn't a market for it surely? Not even on planet tigertot

You sir, are a right Charlie.

English Clubs haven't done too badly on the European stage over the years. In fact, in the last eight tournaments there have been seven finalists including three winners, one of which are the current holders, not a bad return?

Perhaps the national team is being hampered by the money getting thrown around at foreign imports? Something we need to be aware of?

I said the quality of the teams in the PL has decreased accross the board in the last couple of years, as has the quality of the English teams in the CL. Citeh have spent nearly half a trillion and can't get close to qualifying for the knockout stage, Chelsea have been exposed this season in the CL, and Man U didn't get out of their group last season. Yes English teams have done very well in previous years, but it seems clear to me the quality of the English teams involved is decreasing despite the millions of £££s being thrown around.

I'm not convinced the weakness of the national side is down to the amount of imports playing in the PL, even when English clubs dominated Europe in the 70/80s England were still pretty gash.