It's not rocket science to us but it would be to the rfl. The problem i see is the rubbish coming out of certain academies bringing the league standard down (even further) at some clubs. Wire would be stuffed too.

Wood, Riley, Harrison, Cooper and O'Brien are regular first teamers now so it wouldn't make a massive difference to us, also Blythe, Williams, Evans, Currie etc have played a fair bit this season too.

However I agree with you that a lot of what comes out of most teams academies is not good enough so all the people that say we should increase the number of players to increase our chances of beating the Aussies, are missing the point. Players that are not up to the job are never going to be up to the job....how many first team games do they need to 'get experience' and become international standard?

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life... It's on telly tonight.

When Rugby League was re branded into "Super League" what actually changed apart from changing to summer rugby and a few rule changes? To call it Super League is an absolute farce and the RFL have missed the boat to develope the sport and make it what it should be. The opportunity was there to take the sport to a greater level but not enough was done. They say Rugby League is a game played by professionals and run by amatures, well how true is that!!. What should have happened is smaller teams should have merged to create one "super" club. Teams such as Salford Oldham and Rochdale could have been branded as Manchester and Yorkshire clubs done something simular. Obviously people would bang on about tradition and that there'd be no way supporters would join together. But where's the traditon when these teams supporters dont seem to be there anymore?. Besides, the individual clubs wouldnt just fold and fade away, they could still play in a seperate comp known say as league 1 and be feeder clubs to their Super League club. Up and coming players from those town would have something to aim for and aspire to play in "Super League". Also players coming to the end of their career could step down and teach these kids the things they've learned over the years.

So who would go watching these new teams? Well apparently Super League is the second most watched sport on sky after football, so the audience is there. Obviously the clubs would need marketing right and finances play a big part in that, but the chance was there to at least try it.

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.

This is something that I have always argued. Unlike yourself I actually like the salary cap and think that it is a good idea that just needs tweaking a little. However one must is that it should be linked to inflation so it doesnt decrease in real terms. If this was the case and we had a salary cap of £2.3 million we would have certainly kept a lot more players in the game and could compete with RU much better. It is a joke that some players from the 90s got paid more than players today when TV deals, sponsorship deals, crowds, ticket prices etc have all gone up considerably. Where has all the money gone? It doesnt make sense or add up to me.

[iPoor on field product = lack of mainstream interest off it.
[/i

And that explains why RU is so well viewed? The club rugby is very poorly viewed and the quality is whatever the opposite of elite is. How players like Farrel go from barely able to make the team to international is beyond me as an example.

[iA league where ever game is of the highest quality and you've got 5 top games played over a weekend and fans are spoilt for choice.
[/i

Just like the football? They have a number of good games (or so I hear, I don't like watching) but they have a bigger league where the decent clash happens more frequently because of the size of the league. Imagine the premiership with 10 teams.

[iThat's how you market British RL as having the most competative league in the world. If it raises the level of the championship then even better for us.
[/i

I don't! We don't have the most competitive league in the world, and if we did who actually cares in the world? Are the Aussies tuning in en mass? How about the Germans?


[iI'd also go one step further with SL clubs linking up with league two sides and having A teams in that league mixed in with some others.
[/i

So you would reduce the size of SL and make L2 feeder clubs? So that's 1xSL and 1xL2 squads rather than 2xSL and 2xL2? Reducing the oppertunity to shine isn't the way to encourage improvement.

The SC is a great way to cap the achievement of the top teams and level the league. The associated rules were a good way to prevent insolvency.

I'm not sure that the RU competition actually matters on the whole, look at the players that have been lost. Has RL lost a player that has the media's eye gone? Not in my opinion, because RL hasn't had the media focus nationally to start with. How much of a loss to RL was Andy Farrel/Paul Sculthorpe (not RU) at the time? Is anything Scully was worse due to his Gillette sponsorship loss.

Raising the cap may make more Aussies arrive, but the UK a players have to compete against them to play. Does this make the league improve or get worse?

No but having the current concept is working right?

You talk about RU because YOU think its boring. I personally like the game and love the six nations/world cup tournaments as its competative and will hold your interest.

British RL is in a desperate state due to a lack of high level RL being played every week like it is in the NRL.

I don't believe that the crops of quality youngsters we produce season after season who beat their Aussie counterparts at youth level suddenly turn poor before they hit their peak.

What happens is their development is hindered as they stop being tested to the level NRL players do each week.

I'd love a comp as big and as good as the NRL but sadly we don't have the playing pool to achieve it. Instead of reducing the teams, cutting away the also rans and raising the weekly intensity level we instead dilute the comp with championship level players who we pretend are a lot better than they are.

It baffles me how blind some people are. We can watch standards slip further away season after season but yet some RL fans have their head in the sand.

Linking the cap to inflation and letting it rise with that isnt raising the cap though in real terms. The cap may be the same as 10 years ago but players today are being paid far less.

a point that most fans fail to understand.

players are getting poorer in real terms, why would they chose to stay in the competition.

You can't believe this, surely.

How many small clubs have won the SL in the SC era?

How many clubs have gone bust or had serious financial difficulties in the SC era?

Are you actually a member of the board of directors of the RFL?