Struggling by all measures? Explain. Wakey and Widnes now have wealthy backers, before you mention admin. I'm not sure about Cas, but they've got a decent team together with what they have at the moment so no concerns there.

Also Wakey's stadium is pretty much a foregone conclusion, Cas's slightly less so, but have a look at the documentation online, it looks nailed on.

7k and grade B are acceptable targets for this licencing period IMO, obviously 10k and A are the long term goals.

Youth set ups? It's well documented how many good quality RL players have come out of our respective academies, Brough, Ellis, Westwood to name a few (although there are many more.) In addition our academy won their league last season. Feel free to counter this with facts rather than statements.

I won't take you up on your bet, as I don't believe it will happen, however I think we will make significant strides this licensing period and the period after will be the one where the clubs can kick on and hopefully challenge for the honours you have mentioned.

A club always has to finish bottom , I expect the same clubs to be fighting to avoid finishing bottom every year , just as we had with P and R , nothing will change

Andrew Glover isnt rich enough to cover Wakefields losses year after year after year. Steve O'connor has already said he wont. Whats to explain? Think of something by which we would measure an RL club, compare Wakefield to one of the top clubs, and they will be relatively struggling.
If Wakefields stadium was a foregone conclusion they would be building it right now. They arent because it isnt.
No, 10k and grade A should be of a higher standard at the end of this license period. We will be 6 years down the line at that point, we should be raising the standard not waiting around for a minority of clubs to catch up. Im sure 7k and a grade b is acceptable to you because your club has a chance to achieve those fairly unambitous targets

fair enough. Compare the amount of quality players who have come through at Wakefield or Castleford to the amount of players who come through at Leeds, St Helens, Bradford, Wigan, etc. Here is a fact for you. Those clubs provide more, better players than Wakefield and Castleford.
You just said by the end of this period they would be challenging, now you dont think they will? So your argument has now changed to if we give them three more years now, at the end of those three years we can give them three more years and there is a chance, hopefully that after 9 years of a franchised league they may, hopefully, kick on and maybe challenge, maybe get to a final or finish in the top 4. And this is an argument that SL is a place for them? that after 20 years of building they may be in a position to, hopefully challenge?

So ten it is then , sounds good to me

Im not sure why 12 gets ignored as a possibility. It seems much more sensible to me.

Make an announcement now that 12 clubs will be given a franchise for 2015. Anyone could apply. The franchise they are given is in perpetuity.

If a club which is good enough wants to apply, they can, they are given 2 years build up time, a 5 year probation franchise in the first instance and a full (in perpetuity) franchise after that 5 year review. But they are added to the league not replacing anyone.

If clubs arent meeting expectations they can be put on a 3 year 'watch list' with open and transparent targets to meet, if they fail to meet them they are out.

SL should be 10 clubs.
It should be the 6 clubs that can guarentee 10 thousand gates from lancs and yorks,two french clubs a london club and a south wales club,all clubs must guarentee to spend at full cap.
it should then be a closed shop until any future club can guarentee the above.
The second division of rl must also be fully professional but only using home grown players.

South Pennine Giantsox
Catalans Dragons
Cumbria Power
London Harlequins
Chester City Crusaders
Hull United
Leeds Bradford Carnegie
Greater Manchester Utd
Wakefield & District Brawlers
Merseyside Saints

It was interesting that 'Boots 'n All' last night gave time to John Kear's idea of two full time divisions of 10, which I think is the best way to go as things stand at the moment, indicating that Sky aren't averse to the idea. If the clubs played each other three times, that would give the same number of home games as present, with one round for the Magic weekend.

In theory it is great but I dont see how the 2nd division clubs would survive. Sky would not televise these games so that means no tv money.

The top division would generate all the money and even then I think Sky would pay less for a 10 team league.

How does that indicate Sky aren't averse to the idea? IIRC immediately afterwards Phil Clarke in the studio suggested it wasn't feasible, and as he's a Sky pundit that's just as likely to suggest Sky are against it.
People do draw some strange conclusions.