Okay, we'll change 'empty hyperbole' to 'empty rhetoric'. The point stands. You've got the job.

Doesnt seem anything empty in it either.,



Which bit do you disagree with, that a better salford would result in a better tv deal? That a better TV deal is good for everyone?



That we wont have 14 teams worth of SL level players if we only have 12 SL Clubs?

Your lack of overall realism is the bit I disagree with.



Everyone wants 14 top teams. Everyone wants a strong Salford, strong Wakey, strong London etc. But whether those things can ever be achieved in the current state-of-affairs is the issue.



The argument that we can only strengthen by concentrating the talent and funds in a hardcore of 10 or 12 teams is a valid one, because it's constructive and it offers a viable way forward. Hollow shouting about how we can never have 14 great teams if we only have 12 to start isn't much of a rebuff. In fact, in this context it's about as useful a contribution as saying pigs won't learn to fly until they get wings. Both are true, but neither actually means very much.

Why would we ignore that fact though? Its quite important. If we only have as many teams as we have players right now, then the league is never going to grow.



And having a strong Salford, Wakefield, London etc is obviously what everyone wants, and yes there is a question over whether we will ever get there, maybe we will and maybe we wont and I accept that, but I also know that Salford, Wakefield, London etc wont ever be strong SL sides if they aren’t in SL.

I don't think going back to semi-pro will increase quality but it is the only way you could have P&R given the amount of money in the game now.



As to fewer teams = less players exposed to the top flight that isn't the reality. It would mean less players exposed to SL but SL isn't what I call top flight at the moment and the motivation for reducing the number of teams is a higher percentage of games are of better quality. Fewer games, yes, but each game is more likely to be a sporting spectacle as opposed to a one sided bore-fest.



Also the reason we have a top eight system at the moment has IMO little to do with the quality of the RL on offer. It is all to do with trying to coin more income from the extra round this format gives. The fact the attendances for round one are basically rubbish shows the fans are not fooled.



Similarly if we reduced the games in the league by going to 12 teams we wouldn't be losing a 16K crowd from Wigan's average attendance but a 10K or lower one. For other clubs less well supported the loss of fixtures against very poor sides would have even less impact. It would be offset anyway by the Sky money being divided by 12 not 14. Now that may sound like heresy and very selfish to some but people need to get their head around the fact there is only enough cash in the sport to support one professional league.

I don't want it to happen, but, sooner or later, it will.



One rugby.



Within 10 years, I'd guess.



I wouldn't mind betting there are people in both games making serious plans along those lines even now.

Semi-pro is a no for me, so is reducing the size of SL if that means fewer bangs for your bucks. I have seen more resentment this season than ever in the way the game is going. I know there are no easy solutions to the problems, but things must change and soon, dump the meaningless exile games (which helped to spoil our season) bring back P&R, that would at least put some interest back in the game at the bottom end of the league at the end of the season and help boost the championship, and as we keep on saying sort out the play off structure so as to put life back into the weekly rounds.

Sadly, i agree with you on all counts...

This is delusional rubbish. How would it possibly be effected and how it could possibly work is beyond me. And, for those who believe that they run the sport (they don't) do you think Sky would sanction the loss of their best rating week to week Summer sport?!



You Wiganers are seriously overstating the present problems in Rugby League, for (IMO) fairly obvious club-centric reasons. Club Rugby Union is in a much worse financial state than Rugby League.

There'll never be one exclusive code of rugby. No RL or RU fan worth their salt would want to watch a diluted version of the sport they watch. It's feasible that clubs may share a combined playing squad, but the onfield products would never merge, as there'd be no significant audience for it.

Lot's of formerly RU only schools are now using RL (well at least 6 tackles and PTB) in their training games.



However, I really cannot see RU making any "concessions" to absorb RL in the professional game. Why would they?



Unless corrective action is taken soon, and it may already be too late, the best RL can hope for is to become a feeder code for RU.



Given the level of talent, and the potential of the game, this will be an absolute tragedy.

Regardless of the question raised in this thread and peoples opinions on them one way or the other that gets my vote as the most patronising comment I have read for a while on here.



It is also complete b@ll@ocks.