Why not make them........an 'A' team.

Radical, I know.

Fringe players will have a decent standard of rugby to play in, recovering players can get a 'decent run-out', younger players who are 'good enough' can be better tested, team support would raise due to the increased quality on the pitch.

Even more radical is having relegation and promotion so we could see National league teams amongst S/L teams.

Win, Win.

What's your thoughts.......

Nope, have the nl act like feeder clubs.

Absolutely , the ambition of the NL clubs should be to produce players that become SL standard rather than to emulate and replace SL clubs. The arrangement needs to be reciprocal with those recovering , out of form players , squad players in SL teams getting game time in the NL. Every SL club should have a connected NL club and a responsibility to support it to a contractually agreed standard. SL down to 12 teams and some of the extra money to be used in that NL development through the SL clubs. NL players should be aspiring to play for their "parent" SL club and be encouraged to have affinity from an early age. Which I think is more or less the way it's done in the NRL? We've got a finite number of players and supporters in the UK and dividing them up into ever smaller units that compete with each other just spreads the resource thinner and thinner.

hey im new to these forums so would like to say hi first, great win for us on Monday night so thats a nice start !

I think an A team would be much better, the gap between under 20s and superleague is way too big. Then it wouldn't be necessary to loan players out to NL teams. It makes abit of a joke of NL that 5 or 6 players may be recalled to the parent club at the drop of a hat.

NL clubs should aim to be a superleague team themselves which could only be done by promotion relegation and as the franchise system clearly hasn't worked I think this would be a good option, with certain criteria attatched. They could even have a play off between top of NL and bottom of superleague. SKY would love that.

Plus many players don't mature until past the age of 20. Especially forwards. Having an A team means they could still play and not be cast aside before they've had the chance to mature physically.

I dont think we should compare ourselves to the NRL all the time, its different, were different. Scott Deruoe came from 2nd grade NRL their standards are obviously way higher as they have a bigger pool of talent.

Scholarships getting scrapped and there will be an under 19's and a Hull academy. No more under 18's 16's and 15's. Going back to the service area I've heard.

It would be the same as dual reg but all your players go to the sane club for continuity and if your running a bit short you can take a few of their players if your young guns aren't ready.

It gives them a chance to put themselves in the shop window.

A teams are not a good idea. they dilute the lower leagues talent pool and increase the sl clubs wage bills. that is why 21's has replaced it. simples.

The Under 20's will be changed for next year. RFL and SL have already said so.

It's prob going to be U23's and 5 over age players..

NL isnt really much of a shop window though. With regards to the wage bill I think a good idea would be to have a certain amount that doesen't count towards the salary cap. Say for all players who come through the academy and are under 22 ? A minimum salary for younger players that's reasonable wouldn't be a bad idea either.

It wouldn't dilute it that much because players could go to NL teams if they dont make it at SL.

Just think it makes abit of a joke of NL to have aload of academy players playing against each other. Its not really a proper competitive league, the emphasis is on making SL players not for the team winning. A good competitive league with promotion and relegation would be better.

They wouldn't have a load of academy players playing against each other.

The academy players would be playing in the U20's.