The real issue isn't how many teams are sustainable now, but how many are sustainable long-term. Standards may have dropped a little in recent years due to Aussie/Kiwi mass signings not being possible any more (at least to the sort of standard as was available in the past). That means that an increasing number of players have to come through junior development. It should surprise nobody at all if it takes some years for clubs across the board to take time to put in place a decent development 'funnel' of juniors compared to the far easier task of signing 25-year old NRL hacks.

On the playing front, the question should be, how many clubs would be sustainable if all SL clubs were really focused on junior development and overseas players were limited to 2/3?

People are naive IMO if they assume any question on the number of clubs can be made sensibly without input from Sky. If I were a Sky negotiator, I'd agree happily to SL cutting clubs, so long as I paid SL proportionately less in return. Why on earth would I want to pay the same for a 10-club league, with the consequent increase in repeat fixtures? You can put an argument against that, but in a commercial negotiation that would be my starting point. I'd bet that Sky also value the Broncos and Cats more than any two current SL clubs outside of Leeds, Wigan and Sts (a separate negotiation if I ran the RFL would be to make Sky put their money where their mouth is on this and either underwrite or take an ownership stake in the Broncos, like they do with the Storm in Aus).

Precisely. For example, Irn-Bru pay a certain amount for 'X' number of appearances as SL sponsor per season. Fewer weekly rounds means the cost of their sponsorship will have to drop accordingly. Fewer weekly rounds also means fewer advertising slots during SL broadcasts, which means less income directly related to SL for Sky. Sky aren't stupid - they'll soon cut their RFL payments.

Plus - unless a few thousand additional fans suddenly crawl out of the woodwork at every club for this new, ultra-intense SL, clubs are looking at a loss of takings. Unless we want more manufactured repeat fixtures, a 12-team league means 2 fewer home games, a 10-team league means 4 fewer home games. Taking the 2011 average attendance of 9,615 and an average ticket price of £10, that's a £192,300 drop in home gate income for a 12-team league, or £384,600 for a 10-team league.

And that's not taking into account the loss of income from matchday revenue such as food, drink, car park spaces, corporate hospitality, pitchside sponsors, player sponsors, programme sales, programme sponsors, etc, etc. That income will all be cut with fewer games.

or simple solution 12 team league and what they used to do of the top 6 play each other 3 times the following season and the bottom 6 play each other 3 times

in that case just call it a 'weekend'...

I said this on another thread.
If we reduce the number of SL teams, we also reduce the number of full time pro players in the game which isnt something that, as a sport, we should be tring to do.
For the sport to grow we need more professional teams offering a greater opportunity to youngsters who may aspire to make a living out of the game.

Super League has to consist of ten teams at the most. The country doesn't have enough 'talent' to justify fourteen. Also, how can a team that finishes eighth out of fourteen qualify for the play-offs? To me, that is rewarding mediocrity.

but there aren't ten clubs worthy of the term 'Super' - six at most so why not just have a six-team SL where each team plays each other four times and the top two play a GF to decide the champions ?

the majority ARE mediocre in a mediocre league...

The majority of clubs in any league are mediocre. Some are good, some are bed, the rest-Mediocre.

it is typical of RL to say that there isn’t the talent to sustain 13 teams (les ignore les Catalans because they are a different matter) lets cut it down and not look at changing the reasons why we cant produce enough to sustain 13 sides.

exactly - then we go back to the perennial problems which dog the great game like bad management, not enough sponsors, too many mediocre overseas players and inadequate fan participation etc etc

20 teams across 2 divisions, P&R between them, 27 fixtures in each with a 5 team play off in each to determine champs and promoted club.
3 imports max in top and 1 in lower. I can't see Sky having an issue with that at all, more fixtures, more competitive and bigger gates.

So on your comparison let's look at the following facts:
Cas have never been in admin
Cas have had bigger attendances in all but one SL season than Wakey. Incidentally the year we were in NL1.
You are misguided about Wakey planning. Cas have full PP for a new stadium
Wakey have not had outline ratified yet. They are not further along.
Cas have had more Eng internationals and have developed more players.
Wakey are just 2 pts above us this season but I believe have finished below us in 2/3 of the last licensing rounds.

On most of these -bar stadia- which is out of our control and we are funding entirely ourselves, we are above Salford and London. Widnes are difficult based on one season.

The fact is teams such as Cas, Wakey, Salford, London would not not be a big loss to SL. Obviously there own fans would be annoyed if the RFL kicked them out of the league, but they would not be a major loss. Bradford although in dire straits would be a major loss to SL.

Everybody knows the RFL wont kick London out of the league so Cas would be fighting it out with wakey and salford to stay in the league.

14 team league as going back to 12 would also mean having to go back to the play some teams 3 times and others twice which nobody liked, plus it would mean reducing the pathway into SL for young British talent. Scrap the magic weekend and a 29 week (26 rounds + 4 week playoff series) season is long enough.

I would go back to the 5 team playoff as IMO there really shouldn't be any more than a third of the league taking part in them. It would bring the exlusiveness back to the playoffs and the league should be more intense as teams would know that they could afford very few slip ups. At this stage of the season teams with more losses than wins shouldn't be any near playoff contention.

And yes I am including us in that.

Don't think Bradford would be a major loss; conversely, I think their loss would be the Championship's gain and the pull they would have to push the Championships more. I'm a believer that this game cannot move forward whilst the second division is semi-professional, has such a low cap etc. We need a strong second division to allow for free movement between divisions of clubs.

I'm not saying Bradford will do this - or any other big club for that fact - but it would certainly provide some sort of catalyst. Certainly more so than relegating a side like Cas or Wakey would.

And you asked who I thought should go down if it changed to 12. The bottom two of the season before it changes back. If I was to select two right now, I'd say Bulls and Salford based on all things considered over last licensing period and this in terms of the very vague criteria provided to us fans.

[iDisagree with the first bit although I do agree with the second bit[/i
Fully agree with that.
[uSo you agree Cas will be one of the teams the RFL boot out then!![/u

No because London and Widnes are below us and the season hasn't finished so could be higher.

i'd go all out and cut the league down to 10 teams..with a top 5 play off


catalan
london
wigan
st helens
warrington
huddersfield
bradford
leeds
hull fc
hull kr

I really don't get the appeal of having a London team. Does having a team in the capital really bring more benefits than negatives to the league?

yep

Enlighten me

I have never read so much unadulterated rubbish in my life.
If the number of teams in Superleague is reduced further you then have even more disillusioned fans who will be lost to the game producing even more derisory attendances to go along with the alarming lack of interest already evident in Championship 1 and 2.
As someone has already stated the number of pro players will be reduced enormously and people will soon lose interest in a league where clubs play each other too often.
The public at large will look at the small number of clubs in a so called Superleague and come to the conclusion it cannot be so super.
Getting rid of clubs who who consistently produce local talent would also see that source of player production gradually wither away.
Lets consolidate what we have and make the game sustainable, maintaining at the same time traditions which make the game of Rugby League so special.

we need a presence in london......end of story

Oh ok then, I didn't realise it was so simple.

surprisingly it is that simple....

This.

The call to reduce the number of teams in SL is short-sighted and based on self-interest. If there is a genuine belief that we have a dearth of talent, SL teams should be compelled to do something about that - stricter rules around overseas players and a requirement to partner in a meaningful way with grassroots clubs would be a good start, along with some consideration of limiting the number of games each player can participate in, to force clubs to rotate their squads for reasons other than injury.

To base long term decisions about the future of the sport on a snapshot in time is just daft; there needs to be a 10 year plan that encourages (and compels) SL clubs to behave virtously for the good of the game, not just themselves.