So the idea is to increase to 20 FT teams from 14 and split into two leagues? Sounds a good idea until you consider;

Since moving to 14 FT teams 4 years ago, 4 have gone "bust", 1 is currently facing a WUP, another has admitted it's really struggling, and another has been offloading players to cut the wage bill as the business isn't sustainable. Then you've got at least two more which can't survive without an owners input, and another 3 who aren't spending the current SC just to balance the books. Leaving (at best) 6 teams capable of supporting their own activities.



Do we really think that introducing an extra 6 teams to take a share of current income will resolve the issue?

Will they generate enough extra income as a renamed Championship with 4 "relegated" SL sides to make up the current deficiency and enough to cover the extra 6 FT teams?

Sky won't renegotiate their deal for SL until 2015 so that's out the question. Will they pay for a renamed Championship when they didn't want it this year?

The gap between SL & SL2 would still be too big to consider P&R. Until we can efficiently support 20 FT teams where the SC difference is no more than say for example 20% different, this shouldn't even be considered.

Many complain the player pool isn't big enough for 14 teams which is obvious due to the difference between the bottom and top sides consistently so where's the extra 150 players (25 for each 6 teams) coming from?



On the plus side -

A fixture list can be made up to 27 games with 13 home games each no problem. We've done it before when we had 12 teams so its no issue doing it again.

This would probably see an increase in crowds on the whole but still not enough enough to support the extra clubs.

P&R keeps both ends of the table in SL anyway meaningful right up to the end of the year. Bottom of SL2 would still have nothing to play for unless a big weighting is put on the on-field performances of a club when licences are renewed.

Making an extra 150 players FT will increase the playing pool and the quality of them individually no doubt but in reality will this be of any real quality compared to the current elite? Probably not.



It seems a very ambitious move which could potentially ruin the game financially. I don't believe we should be trying this early to go for this, and wait until the top level can support itself successfully before we look at expansion plans which this is.

Current clubs should be working towards what Warrington have achieved and make sure their venue is used all year round therefore making the club sustainable. Easier said than done, especially for those that don't own their own stadium.



The only way this seems possible is if the WC over here really takes off in the media and national spotlight that it attracts major sponsors and players to the table to readily invest in the sport. Can I see it happening? An increase in popularity and income yes, but to support these proposed changes? No way.

So how then?



How about putting 20 of them out on season long loans to a 10 team , full time, highly competitive, very intense competition with P and R at both ends of it, then a ' draft ' system at the end of every year with fixed prices for any players not wanted by their original club?

Really even loosing all those games. Now thats crazy. The salary cap was a good idea when it came out and a club that brings in a certain amount of money should be able to spend a percentage of it in the perfect cap regime. Just putting a cap where certain clubs will struggle with it is bonkers. Every club should only be allowed to spend what they can afford and nothing more. Just like the RFL said it would be.

How do you now if a payer is ready or not, is it because the coach says so, i have seen some very good talent not given the chance and never see Super League rugby, they end up playing in the Championship, or totally disperse from the game its pathetic, , clubs pay massive amounts of money on so called big named Aus & NZ players, they have a crap season and all the coaches say is there just settling in, if ALL the clubs had to have a set number of there academy players in the first team squad what do you loose, if 50% of the academy players brought through to SL made the grade it would be worth it, its only the same as doing what some clubs do, by flooding the team with foreigner's and hoping that there good enough, we have had years of Super League now so how long have academy players got to wait before there given a chance to prove there ready, we were supposed to be brining youth through and not relying on over paid foreigner's . But for some clubs its always easier to buy, rather than produce there hone players

Simple, licencing would take away the ' Fear ' factor we were told, coaches and BOD s would not need to chase Aussies and Kiwi s, we were told , and as we non believers said ' bollox', coaches wont risk their jobs and club officials wouldnt risk the wrath of their fans to benifit the game, so who was right?



Its human nature, look after yourself, sod the rest, cheat if you have to, anything as long as you win, be that salary cap fiddles, dodgy visa s, off shore payments, anything as long as you get the results, even cheat on the pitch if you have to

Some supporter's will just say were is the proof, there the ones with blinkers on, all the teams have got the stability of three years so why wont they just do what is best for the game, some players don't get enough field time, instead of having the squad of 25 they have more than they can quota for so the talent stays at the top 4 & 5 clubs if they get Cort breaking the salary cap they should loose funding, if they have more players than they can fit under the cap they need to be allocated to other clubs, & not duel reg