Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a change of general opinion towards a 10 team SL.
A few weeks ago Jamie Peacock was advocating such a change and now, whilst listening to commentary on radio5l,
John Wilkin mentioned the same thing.

No change - the top clubs want the whole world to themselves. The other clubs need to justify why it's not all theirs!

The thing is, although I can see the advantage of a ten team league, the salary cap will still need to be employed so lets say the teams are pretty much the level they are no......someone will be bottom.
They seem to be keen on getting rid of the bottom teams, regardless of how many times they beat the top teams.
If they keep going with that logic they'll end up with 4.

One day the have to be happy that some will win and some will lose. It's not like the teams at the bottom are not competitive.
It won't change the fact that the top teams will still end up at GF.

You're right TRB, my concern is that JP is England captain and Wilkin is heading up the players union.
Whatever we think of them as individuals, their opinion is sure to have some sway with the general public and
as a lifelong Trinity fan (and having been jettisoned once) we do not want this type of change to the top flight, especially as
we are on the brink of (hopefully) having the go ahead on a new ground and with momentum finally going with us as a club.

Is Wilkin then advocating that he thinks 35% of his members should be out of work? Strange comment IMO.

It was a "only" a passing comment, not discussed at all, but matbe it shows how some people are thinking ?

Ten teams means less fixtures, something that Peacock has banged on about for years. It also means less income for clubs, less fixtures for Sky to broadcast so less money from them and less exposure for sponsors, so less value equating to smaller packages. So obviously all the players will have to take significant wage cuts and lose some of the other benefits they get like team meals at the clubs, free training kit etc. I'm sure then messrs Peacock & Wilkin will have no problem with that and will receive no resistance at all from there unions members who will understand fully why they now will struggle to pay their bills. Yep, sure they'll all be more than happy with that.

yes its an old tactic. use every opportunity to continously mention something in passing, so that people keep the topic alive until it becomes "the big issue"

and you are correct about the fact that people like peaCOCK and wilkin are doing this, it certainly suggests that they have an agenda.

I think this is disgusted they are infact saying they want to reduce SL professionals, they don't want players earning a living. Peacock and Wilkin its ok for them as they are good players. When Wilkin is past it he will be glad of teams that haven't the same notorioty as Saints and he will be earning a good wage at a lesser fancied team.

In a nutshell.

To combat player fatigue perhaps its time to limit the number of games the players in the elite training squad can play to 20 regular SL games.

In a nutshell.

To combat player fatigue perhaps its time to limit the number of games the players in the elite training squad can play to 20 regular SL games.

I don't recall Mr Peacock having such strong feelings about his when he was a younger, fitter man. He seems to have an agenda about player burn-out that isn't shared by his younger colleagues; has anyone heard, for example, Ryan Hall, Zak Hardaker or Ben Jones-Bishop banging on about it?

If this was really about player welfare, he'd be talking about compulsory squad rotation and limiting the number of first team games each player can participate in; that way, coaches would have to exercise more robust squad management disciplines and take a more structured approach to developing young players. It could also have a positive effect on competitiveness, as clubs in the lower reaches of SL wouldn't necessarily have to face a full team of sugar-daddy funded starlets every week.

This argument isn't about competitiveness however - if so, the whole thing seems to be based on the premise that no team should lose, which is clearly ridiculous. No - this is about pulling up the drawbridge and attempting to get more of the Sky millions to fewer clubs - ironically, to those who need it least.

It's not clever to make massive decisions about the future of the game based on a snapshot in time; if that had been the approach some years ago, there'd be no Warrington or Huddersfield in the top flight. I guess there's a reason JP is a prop-forward and not the CEO of the RFL.

There will always be winners and losers in sport, changing the structure of the leagues will not change that. What it will change however, is the income of clubs, the wage's of players and reduce sponsorship.

It will almost certainly reduce opportunities for youngsters to progress which since the introduction of franchising and a 14 team comp has thrived but still needs time to further develop. It will also take away that opportunity for clubs to move up.

Some suggest this because a few clubs have been mismanaged, but i do not see what this would change? Clubs will continue to be mismanaged regardless of alterations made. You cannot control this by putting constraints on them, it is their mentality and approach to the situation that causes the problem. Clubs continue to spend well over what they can afford, they knowingly do this even with the salary cap in place. It's the entire RL attitude and mentality which needs to change, not the structure's in place

Just googled Jamie Peacock and according to Wiki, he has averaged (inc internationals) 34.5 games per season over 12 seasons, 6 at Bulls 6 at Leeds.
Now I'm no expert, but if a prop can sustain that level of fitness in SL, so can anyone else.
As Bren has said the clubs are in control as to who plays where and when, and the clubs (certain clubs) are the one's who seek to benefit financially by a) being successful in the first place and b) wanting more of the pie for themselves.
I think Jamie needs to speak to his employers about their duty of care over himself and his colleagues at Leeds if he has concerns, rather than trying to push the responsibility elsewhere.

will mr peacock be taking a big pay cut as his club will have less gate and sponsorship revenue?