Quote: Raggytash "The NRL has 16 top flight clubs producing and developing players, we have 13 (Cats not included), and are going to cut down to 11. This will be disastrous for any hopes of us competing with Australia or New Zealand. It's a selfish move by our clubs, entirely motivated by self interest, and not what is good for the game. All reducing teams will do is drive up players wages, and we'll be in the same situation, but with less players to choose from. Disgusing move imo.'"
That "self interest" is necessary to keep the game viable here. How would having 16 teams here help us to "produce and develop" players? Produce and develop average players perhaps. It's intensity of competition that will help develop the right standard of players and the only place to get that is in the NRL currently. Would George Burgess have developed the way he has over here? Our competition has to reduce in size and improve in quality and intesity. It's a tough ask but if it can be done it may stop some of the British talent going over to the NRL. If we can't do that then ultimately the NRL is quite capable of surviving without us especially with SOO already being deemed by many , probably rightly , to be the biggest RL series on the calendar. The one thing that may make the likes of Sam Burgess think twice about that sort of future where there is effectively no international competition beyond the Southern Hemisphere is that they will have to be content to have the NRL Grand Final as the pinnacle of their careers and ambition because , even with all of these nationality bending modern interpretations of rules I can't see them ever being allowed to play in SOO. Perhaps the fear of Union and it's ability to attract players because of it's international stage may persuade the powers that be in the NRL that they need to help the English/European game survive and improve but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
