That's the problem. The game will never move on because we're sh*t scared of upsetting the little guy.

Spot on. A very good argument that ought to be listened to by the powers that be.

What a quality article.

Shame about the responses which basically plead poverty for the lower clubs.

Sometimes I wish Thatcher would have been a rugby administrator than a PM.

Sick to death of those with zero ambition holding back the people with the vision to shoot for the stars.

At the end of the day, of course, it's in the interest of the poverty row clubs to see the game's top stars keep defecting. It gives them more of a chance to compete.

I sympathise with their predicament to a degree - I hated it when Wigan were in the Second Division, I despaired when we were facing relegation all over again - but I totally agree with Peacock that the game as a whole is losing its gloss, and maybe soon will lose its appeal to our TV benefactors.

This idea that there shouldn't be winners and losers is ridiculous frankly, and alien to the basic concept of professional sport. Why everyone the game as a whole has to suffer because three or four clubs continually can't get their act together is beyond me.

Spot on.

It's fanciful, head in the clouds bull cr@p from the RFL to think we can seriously move the game forward with a level playing field.

All it ever does is create a situation where the teams that could be world class become simply good and the average teams remain average but the gap they have to bridge becomes smaller. BTW none of them ever go on to win anything anyway.

What the RFL should be doing is backing the sides that could be world class and creating British power house clubs like Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Saints & Hull FC. If clubs like Salford get sound financial backing then let them come along for the ride as well.

That's where our game should be. It should be a game where everyone strives to be the best club in the world and not simply satisfied they are in the top flight.

Well said that man! Someone who knows how the future of this league will go if we carry on down this path!

Someone needs to bite the bullet and risk upsetting the status quo for the future of our game.

Spot on, except I'd have everyone playing each other thrice, which would result in the same amount of games as we have now hence no lost revenue

How do you decide which teams get the drop to initially set-up the two ten team leagues? Would they all agree? Would Sky fund both? If so, that's a further dilution of tv money, not an increase. If Sky only funded the top league where does that leave the second tier? We've struggled for sponsorship for the league now, what happens when you double the problem?

I see the draw of a smaller top tier with regards to playing 'big' games. There's no indication that the Club's at the lower end of that league will not form the exact same thing that happens currently. Strugglers and and non-strugglers. If it was to be drastically changed in structure how do you level the playing field so that the initial top ten teams start on equal footing? If you don't give everyone an equal start you're left with 'Big' Clubs and 'Smaller' Clubs, just like now. A smaller number of teams will have exclusive access to the already small pool of quality players available in the UK resulting in stronger squads. How does that level the playing field for teams that gain promotion? How does creating a ten team SL not isolate every other professional RL Club? SL is already elitist in its current form, reducing the teams makes it even more distant and selective.

Testing times.

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?