That is the whole essence of sport, this is what makes a contest fascinating.
Using featherstone as the example, they did conquer much bigger teams when they were last in the top flight and what about the mighty Sheffield Eagles in the CC ?
The ehos of some of our supporters would banish these contests, share all the money between the favoured few and the rest of the game can disappear.
For the success of the game, the grassroots have to be strong and we need investment at every level of the game and this will maintain a strong and competetive upper tier.
Many of the larger clubs think they are the "b all and end all" of the game and this is utter fallacy.
Ok there are differences in the quality of teams and players in each league, however there should be a mechanism in place to allow clubs to improve and prosper.
If the lowere league teams have nothing to aim for, investment from within will reduce and player development will suffer.
People talk about the Rugby League Family, but some people are akin to a family member that gets a new job and stops speaking to the other members because they regard themselves as being better than them all of a sudden.
If SL pulls up the brawbridge it would be a dark, dark day.

Wrencat I dont know if you've noticed? , the drawbridge has already been lifted

Nah, just another rumour on RL Fans !

You just can't make this sh-t up! Priceless!

We're going over old ground here. 10 teams in the leage would mean 18 fixtures (+ "magic weekend. Although this could be increased to 27 fixtures by each team playing the others 3 times, this becomes too many fixtures against the same teams and you would still possibly have 2 levels of teams within the league.
The league was expanded from 12 to 14 clubs only a few seasons ago to accomodate Crusaders etc and we should probably reduce to 12 clubs.
The key for me is still to strengthen the second tier and allow for promotion and relegation.
This format will suit ALL clubs and the supporters (I know that we come a long way down the pecking order !). The only problem with this, is the possibility of one of the "untouchables" fnishing in a relegation spot.

Nothing wrong with repeat fixtures, I'd rather see my team play good teams three times a year than crap ones twice
The attendance figures from the last time we had repeat fixtures back that up

We should let the Premier League in our our great idea, then we will be able to see Man Utd, City, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool play each other 4 times a season, maybe let the Welsh team in for expansion and Aston Villa to represent the Midlands. Would be good that.

You can't compare our game to the biggest game on the planet in any capacity

Well look at Sheffield Eagles, what happened next? They were unsustainable, it was unsustainable for them to compete with the top clubs, they had their day in the sun but it damn near killed them. What good would it do Featherstone to go down the same path?

The Kiwis have a good record of actually competing in Finals they qualify for. They've even won a fair few in recent years. England/GB do not and they never are a realistic chance when they appear in one. I don't think we should be diluting the top tier of international RL by including England.

So you think that the international game would have been better served by having the kiwi team which was worse than England than playing in the final rather than the England team which was better than the Kiwi's. Its an interesting one I'll give you that.

Just like England really. It's unsustainable for them to compete with the top teams internationally for more than one game running. They have their occasional day in the sun when it doesn't really count and they surprisingly win a game but it damn near kills them in the process and they get hammered the week after. What good does it do them going down this same path internationally year after year?

Absolutely. Of course it would have been better for the international game had the Kiwis played in the recent 4N Final rather than England. That way we'd have had more chance of a competitive finale. I base this argument on the evidence of the past which tells me that England/GB are complete no-hopers and a waste of uncompetitive space in Finals they qualify for. The Kiwis OTOH can get battered (like the did by England 38-12 in 2005) yet turn up to beat the Aussies in the Final of that tournament 24-0.

I think Smokey has been out Smokeyd

Why? The best teams playing the best teams week in week out? Besides like people in this thread are alluring to, it's only the 'big sides' that will actually win anything.

I could say, well nobody apart from the teams I mentioned will ever win the Premier League, I'm sorry but it's the same as Premier League, so yes we can compare SL to the PL in terms of big clubs, looking at recent history. I don't care about the Premier League why should I be bothered about watching teams who will NEVER win anything, especially not the league.

There is more chance of a random 'non big club' winning the SL in 10 years time than a 'non big club' in the PL.

Dont get me started on that one. We're all still waiting for a Hudd-Sheff game to be taken "on the road"

So the team which progresses to the final isn’t the better team but the team which in cherry picked games has a better record against the other team in the final. As I said, its an interesting approach

In what way is it unsustainable for England compete with the top teams internationally for more than one game running?

I'm actually siding with you here, Smokey.
The international game is certainly sustainable. One thing that the RFL has done well is to create some nice little earners: THe Grand Final, 4 nations and the Exiles game, plus other events of course.
This is a major plus for the game as a whole, so the international calender is certainly sustainable.
Fighting for space along side the domestic competition is the major hurdle for the international games.

Sorry to come in so late, especially if it has been covered...

But 2 full-time pro divisions of 10 is an increase of 6, not a cut of 4. Unless SL division 2 gets little or no Sky money and becomes a part-time 'new championship'. The former would dilute standards/give more British kids a chance (depending on what we're arguing). It'd also spread the cash very, very thin.
But if possible, why then not have 2 parallel leagues (akin to the NFL's AFC and NFC)? East and West rather than 1 and 2, say. I suppose 1 and 2 could see a return of promotion and relegation - but if JP wants to cut fixtures to 18 a season, that just isn't happening in the forseeable. Home and away against the 9 rival teams in your side of the league and home or away against the other 10 comes out at 28 games.

You need an hour to go back ove the details on the thread. Not so much a waste of time, but killing time

Suffice as to say the big boys want a cull in SL

Couldnt agree any more!! This is exactly what is needed. Us two need to find someway of replacing Lewis and Wood and improve the Greatest game of all that is Rugby League.

12 teams and you might be on to something. 10 is't quite enough due to too much repetition in fixtures.

We need the fixtures for revenue - 12 teams means the loss of 4 rounds of SL. Or an ugly fixture patch-up, like we had before.

I am sympathetic to players desire to avoid burn-out. I'd consider limiting individual players to 22 regular season SL games.

We're back to the old arguement on no of matches played by our top players.
Logically the top players, in general, play for the top teams, who would expect to be progressing to the latter stages of the CC and also be involved in the play offs.
Folowing the end of the domestic programme, many will also be selected for 4N of World cup etc.
Its a real conundrum, but realistically, the top players are doomed to play more than the rest.