What JP's proposal does is allows the big clubs to use their money to buy/retain quality players rather than letting them all go to union/Australia. I'm convinced there's enough money at Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Hull FC and Salford to make this work. Will it be 6 great teams and 4 strugglers? Possibly, but that's no worse than what we have now. This is our best chance of stoping the rot IMO

the problem is we are not letting successful teams retain the best players. In sport there are winners and losers, not everyone gets a gold medal for just entering the olympics. Sponsors like to be associated with winners, it is up to those that are not winning to improve and raise the profile of the sport as a whole. The way we are being led by the RFL is to drag the best teams down to the level of the worst in order to create this "eutopia" of a level playing field for all teams to be able to win the Grand Final.

I wasn't suggesting it was a bad idea, I could just think of lots and lots of reasons why it would never come off. As it currently stands anyway. Raising the cap to 2m would barely make any difference with regards to the exodus of talent. The cap is already way bigger for both NRL and Union. Although, imo, the big reason British players will always go down under is the fact that their product is simply better than ours and they want to play at the top of their game. You couple this with a raise in cap levels in the NRL, and now you have teams looking to bring in the cream of British RL because it's value for money. It's almost as if raising the cap has helped richer Clubs retain the world-class pool of players to everyone else's detriment. Who'd have thought it eh?



So the knock-on effect is that lesser NRL teams skim-off our best players. Raising the cap over here will have to be done to stop the rot, but it will have the same effect of pooling the best players to a small elite of clubs. Therefore passing the problem down the line again. There's no real solution I can think of, but part of me feels like neglecting teams lower on the rung will only ultimately bring about our own downfall.

Im sorry but I dont agree with all this reduce to ten teams idea. Are clubs going to reduce season ticket prices by a third considering you would now get a third less home games and what would it do to their revenue streams, yes they will get more money from the RFL but this will be spent on increased salaries to retain players.
We should not reduce the number of team to fit the money we need to increase the money coming in so we can expand the league, like it or not media/fans are more interested in top flight clubs, you get the glory supporters when you are in the top flight and therefore more income.

We need to improve our profile in the national media to gain more interest from sponsors, I watch BBC1 in the mornings and you will often see sections on minority sports such as womens hockey etc. you very rarely see an item on rugby league, until we increase our profile in main stream media we will always be second to union.

Also why is everybody obsessed with the whole league being classed as a level playing field, that any club within the league will win the title/cups, do you think the minnows in the premiership start the season thinking they are going be top over united or liverpool, no, they aspire to be the best they can be and finish as high as they can, if they manage to get to a final along the way then they cash in on it. I can't see any league in any sport having teams which are considered equal, the clubs with the better profiles will always attract the better players creating a stand-out team.

I don't have the answers of how to increase income but I think a market that we rarely tap into is the celebrity market, the sport is loved by many high profile actors/sports person etc. why are we not trying to get these people to promote the game on national TV, anyway rant over.

Very impressed with Jamie Peacock on this one.

Speaks with passion and intelligence over the future of our game and he's also absolutely correct.

I hope the RFL take heed but i wont hold my breath!!

No need to reduce the number of games, just have everyone playing each other three times and you get the same number of games as now. They'll be better games too with higher average attendances which means more revenue for the clubs.

Just like the SPL?

If football was on in my back garden I would shut the curtains. Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the problem there that there are 2 rich clubs that the rest can't compete with? I'm not suggesting abolishing the cap or setting it at a level only two teams can afford so no, not like the SPL

I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.

Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?

As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?

I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.

The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.

There's no quick fix here unfortunately.

This is head-in-sand stuff and typical of the mentality that results in us doing nothing more than sitting and watching.

The problem is not the ones who've already gone, though I notice you craftily forgot to mention Hape, Eastmond, Harris, Paul and Robinson from your list - not all from the same era and not all English, but they were all players who lit up the British game in their day, and all went before they should have (you could also add Owen Farrell and George Ford, and if you include losses to the NRL, Ellis, Graham, the Burgess brothers, with Hock and Mossop on their way,) - the casualty list doesn't look quite so light then, does it?

But I reiterate the problem is not the ones who've gone, but the ones who may yet go. Likely on that list, according to strong rumour, are Sam Tomkins and Watkins (according to his club skipper), and it'll be an absolute miracle if Hall isn't being tapped up - so that's three of your proposed replacements.

What happens then?

Okay, we replace them too ... until those replacements get pinched as well.

Seriously ... how long can it go on that the British game is an open market for any foreign club with a bit of cash?

It infuriates me when British fans adopt that silly Aussie-type bravado about 'it doesn't matter who goes, coz we can always replace them". We haven't got the player resources the Aussies have, and even they gave up that policy in the end.

While the NRL continues to grow and pump more money into itself, raise its cap, spend millions on their amateur and semi-pro game, and generally show us how the game should be run. So in answer to your question, indefinitely at the moment. Raising our cap wont do a great deal either.

Harris and robinson left more than 10 years ago so that's why didn't include them. The answer to the 'problem' isn't a quick fix such as simply raising the salary cap by 5%. I remember when Graham moved to the Dogs and everybody was saying 'I wish more players would go to the NRL, it would really improve the England team' now that seems to be happening people don't like it. Players come and go, they always have now, we can either panic and put in place some short term fixes that could be bad for the game long term, or we can improve our infastructure at all levels to try and increase the conveyorbelt of quality players coming through which makes it easier to replace players who leave to the NRL/RU.