You nosy 8ugger!

I think that's too negative, we should be looking at more ways to increase that talent pool. The "8 club-grown players" rule that the RFL introduced recently is a step in the right direction, and hasn't yet had time to show results, but it needs to go further.
Too many clubs are just paying lip service to it at present (Wakey, for example, who have the mandatory Academy products in their squad, but all outside their starting 17).
Force (or encourage) more clubs to produce more players, and some of them will inevitably turn out to be top quality. Stricter rules about producing and using their own players, plus perhaps salary cap allowances for them would be a good next step.

If we cut the number of clubs, we're discouraging youngsters from taking up the game, as we're reducing their opportunities to find a full-time job in the game.

I agree we need to reduce the amount of teams in the top division, for example - how many of our teams would stand a chance for a top 8 spot over in the NRL?

I'd hazard a guess at... 2? Even then its a maybe.

Don't think anyone can say that Ellery's comments have come as a surprise. I think a system needs to be put in place where each club has to produce a certain amount of its players through their own youth set up. That might stop clubs going for mediocre ozzies as a stop gap as well giving new blood a chance.

And that should be encouraged by making the salaries for 'home grown' talent exempt from the salary cap.

I hope someone at Redhall is listening to what Ellery has to say about McBannana. Every club fan has said it but they didn't listen.
Ellery should be England's boss, but he'd tell those who run the game exactly how to fix it and it would scare the crap out of them, with what they'd have to do.
The problem with the Rugby league is the same problem which affects the majority of Super League clubs. Mediocrity is adequate and just taking part is enough.
The culture has got to change. We shouldn't just play. We need to compete!

To an extent that would help. What would worry me about that is the money 'saved' by the club would then be thrown at some ozzie who is not the super star everyone thought and we end up back to square one. Over paid ozzies and young talent being over looked. Not all clubs would do this, but rather than use the money to invest in their youth system, many clubs would go for a quick fix.

That's already in place, as I pointed out earlier. The rule is that each club has to have (at least) 8 players in their squad that have come through their own academy. Problem is, there's no rule that says they have to play them.

8 out of a squad of, say 25 is still poor. If you're going to challenge you'd want to be blooding a few every year with the hope that 2 or 3 will make the grade and be making the side on merit. The league needs to say that you've got to produce 8 out of each weeks 17. It would be harsh at first but eventually we'd have more competition for places at international level.

Agreed, and I'm hoping the RFL gradually increase that number, in the same way that they reduced the non-federation-trained quota. One of the few good initiatives they've introduced, IMO.

As it stands now, it's 8 club trained (minimum), and 5 "non-fed-trained" (maximum), in the 25-man squad, which is a lot better than it was a few years ago, but still needs to improve. I haven't seen anything about further changes for next season.

Start at 5 playing next year, and increase by one each of the following years. Not fook!ng rocket science.

The issue of how many teams there should be in SL is a minor one.

The major problem facing the game is financial failure and mismanagement.

The licensing system and the SC have failed to do their job properly. Licensing has allowed clubs with desperately weak finances to be awarded franchises - Bradford and Crusaders being recent examples. It is a scandal.

The SC has not been raised in line with inflation. It's value in real terms is at least 30% lower than it was it was brought in (£1.6m in 1999, would after 12 years of inflation at 3% p.a. now equate to almost £2.3m). Despite this, there are few clubs that could afford to overspend the current SC level if they were allowed to. This is a disgrace and a damning indictment of the inept management of the game.

The failure to secure a better TV deal is astonishing. RL is pretty low profile on Sky: Sky news in their sports round up I saw earlier today made no mention of the Exiles game, but did talk about the RU, golf etc. The reality is however that RL delivers very good TV audiences on Sky, despite the low priority Sky give to promoting the sport. Competent management would be pushing Sky a lot harder, particularly on financials. BT's interest in the football is a sign of how the rights market is likely to evolve and I'd be saying to Sky that the RL wanted them to do more.

The Stobart sponsorship fiasco is so appalling I can't actually bring myself to say any more than that it speaks for itself.

I'm afraid that the 10/14 club debate etc is a bit of a sideshow - the fundamental issue is the incredibly inept financial management which threatens to reduce the game to the level of the domestic RL competition in France. Long term, with these idiots in charge, that's where we are heading.