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.

Raising the cap may well go some way to helping - in reality the cap has not increased since it was introduced, so in real terms player salaries have gone down. Now suppose the cap was raised to a level where players could earn a reasonable wage - that could well persuade some players to stay in the game in this country.

At the moment the difference between here and Aus/RU is getting larger and larger with every passing year making it more and more attractive to players to leave. Doing nothing is not an option as it will only get worse as SL falls further and further behind.

I am not sure JP's suggestions are the best ones but at least he is openly saying that something needs to be done and that is to be applauded.

Sadly i fear that the head in the sand brigade will continue to win the day at the meetings/decision making points and things will continue to slowly stagnate.

I agree with what you say, but if the money isn't their to increase the cap what's the point. Why is it the likes of Wigan, Leeds and Warrington continue to vote against raising the cap? Afterall they'd probably be the clubs least likely to be effected by an increase in the cap.

Well said JP.
However, as already stated, each club to play each other 3 times. Thus not compromising gate revenue.
Salary Cap. Not raised [iper se[/i, but to make the salaries of all 'home grown' players exempt.
Put's the emphasis on youth development, which will ultimately benefit the national game. A successful national team = more interest both from media and public outside of traditional RL heartland = higher profile = more success.
i.e. an upward spiral, rather than the current downward helter-skelter approach to the game that Red Hall seems to be content with.

I agree with what you're saying to a degree. It may be a temporary solution, but that's all it will be. The esteem and level of competition, plus lifestyle would still drag British players overseas. Their cap will always be much larger than ours as the money that is thrown at their National Game dwarfs ours. That will never change. I can't really offer any solutions, which is frustrating, except maybe that the RFL should make sure its grassroots and heartlands are hives of youth talent and the structures are in place to increase the playing pool for the UK as a whole.

We may want to accept that our game will be second fiddle to the NRL in scope, size, talent etc That doesn't mean we can't carve out a strong game in the UK but things really need to change drastically over the short and long term for that to happen.

Okay, let's do nothing then.

Because that seems to be the alternative solution from quite a few people in the game.

We're so good at finding reasons why new ideas won't work. Pity we can't employ our gray matter to suggest some that will.