I always read with interest Mr Sadlers comments in LE as I can almost guarantee he will have divided my own opinions on RL. Clearly that's his job so the mere fact that Im writing this post means he has done his job well and provoked opinion. However ...

Sometimes I wonder if he really understands all the elements at play in this or any other sport.

At a very basic level I fully agree that increasing the amount of SL games played needs to be a decision that is carefully considered as the implications for players bodies, the amount of injuries and therefore the overall quality of the games needs to be understood.

The point that seems to be have been missed is why is this being looked at?

Clearly a large number of our clubs are struggling financially and if our top SL clubs cant be sustained then what hope is there for the game as a whole? As I see it a key driver of the extra games is to create extra revenue. Of course its a balancing act but if the amount of games based revenue and revenue derived from elsewhere is not enough to sustain top clubs then something has to be done. Clubs and indeed the RL clearly struggle to generate revenue outside of gate receipts so increasing the amount of games seems a simple option to be explored.

The other point that irked me was comparing RL to other sports. We all know we share little in common with football apart from playing on a grassy rectangle each week but it was the comparison to American Football I found most short-sighted. The reason American Football can play 17 rounds plus playoffs is because of the massive amount of sponsorship the sport generates and the huge crowds, the NFL is watched by more live fans than any other sport on the planet. American Football stadiums average crowd sizes of 50,000 fans upwards. Also, these fans are in the stadium all day buying food, drink and merchandise. So how on earth can we compare our sport to the NFL?

The answer is we cant.

There is no easy solution to how we get more money into our game but one thing is clear, doing nothing is not the way forward.

Isn't he the fella that says Kevin Sinfield is the best rugby league player in the world. I wouldn't take to much notice to be honest.

The Dual Reg thing is the RFL trying to make SL more like NRL. In the NRL if you need match practice, you get thrown into the lower comp. The RFL were/are trying to emulate the NRL by using the lower league sides to the SL sides advantage for getting players fit or for players out of form.

Back OT, 30 games is too much. We need to to reduce the amount of games. The problem with money is because of the current economic climate. Once that improves, so will the finances of the clubs and the RFL.

The RFL need to stick with licensing and only consider bringing more teams in when it can be proven that the competition sustain them and they can sustain themselves. Pick the most viable 12 clubs, put them in SL and keep it that way until the competition can sustain more clubs.

P&R had it's chance before and during SL era and it was a failure. Why do we need to bring it back? Licensing is only in it's infancy and needs to be persevered with. If we change now, I can guarantee within 5 years time, we'll find something else wrong and want to change the structure again. We need to give ideas time to bed in and grow not give up on them if they aren't an instant success.

We are trying to get all clubs to invest in youth and the seeds of that are starting to come to fruition at most clubs. By bringing back P&R, clubs are going to put more emphasis and money on staying in the top league rather than their youth structures which in turn will weaken the international game even more so than it is now.

Yep. Agree with all that.

There's not really such a thing as 'too many games' in absolute terms ( other than fans getting bored to death by 'over-exposure' - but then it doesn't seem to be a problem in baseball or basketball ). 'Too many games' is only relative to the size of the squads clubs can support. On the one hand, more players means more outlay (though it depends what you pay the extended squad), but on the other hand it means more income. What matters is the right balance - it doesn't make much sense to just say "30 (or whatever) is too many" without context. We're always talking about creating more opportunities for new players...well the more games get played the more players are needed. Personally, as a fan, I don't think there's enough games! I travel a lot - if I happen to miss a home game, it can sometimes end up being a month before another comes up.

Basketball is non-contact and baseball is barely even a sport. Ridiculous to compare RL - one of the worlds most physically demanding sports - to those two.

We already play too many games, the players are asked to do too much. We should be looking for more matches like Wigan/Wire on Monday and Hull/Cas on Friday but we'll only get those on a consistent bass if we reduce the number of fixtures (even by just 2 or 3) and have a more even spread of talent. That means 12 teams in SL.