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.

I often think he is now out of touch, cocooned in some other space/time dimension and needs to engage the real world again, not a journo's tea room
What challenges do we really face, money that filters down and an increased player pool - set policy to hit those goals, unite the sport and let our great product flourish

I agreed with him on the games issue, 30 games is too many. We should be looking at other ways of getting money to the sport but getting the people at the RFL to earn their money and get a sponsor! Flogging our players to death isn't going to help. Especially when we come up against the Aussies.

However I didn't agree with his piece on why we should keep licensing. He said we shouldn't go back to P&R. As he remembers Swindon losing their ground trying to get promoted.

That was a fair few years ago and completely ignored the fact Bradford, Wakefield and Crusaders have all gone under in the very short time we have had licensing.

Although it may not cure all of the financial problems that exist, if there was a clause in the licence system whereby ANY club entering administration was demoted, then fewer clubs would be inclined to overspend.
The one plus for the current system, is the increase in home grown youngsters coming into SL which, if they would take their heads out of their back sides, is the strongest argument for continuing with the current type of system.
Also, the dual reg. thing needs looking at.
Although some clubs in the CC have avoided going down this route, most haven't, which begs the question, what happens to the dual reg. players if we go to the much heralded 2 x 12 and 3 x 8 system whereby lots of players will have to turn out against their own club or, maybe they will be prevented from doing so ??

I'd like to comment on a few points made here

Playing more games for financial gain for me is false economy. The money is coming from paying punters. Unless Sky will increase their payment to be able to show more games (which is unlikely) the only additional revenue is through the gate.
It's already been shown that increasing and decreasing season ticket prices influences numbers to buy. This is the same. Add more games means either people pay more or they choose their games....or worse, just decide they can't afford any more. Especially if they paid for season tickets before.
I'd rather see more work put in to getting sponsorship than just asking for more from the pretty poor public pockets.
In addition, you are taking a great product and squeezing it dry. More games will mean either more injuries or lower intencity as players can't keep going. ither one of those will reduce the spectacle and ultimately the appeal to those punters you are trying to attract

On the new league structure I am torn. I understand why they want to make it exciting in mid season but again I think it is patronising to the supporter in some ways. I'll be watching Wakefield whether they have a chance of the 8 or not. I'll be more excited if we have something to play for but I won't stop going. I'd be happy with a league of 10 if they want better quality.
On opposite side to that, I think the middle 8 may suffer crowds in the second half of the season.
If my team is playing Leeds and Wigan early on but then move to playing Batley and Dewsbury half way through, with the greatest respect to those teams, it is less appealing to watch. We will be working on a bigger budget and will 'in theory' have an easier game, but more so, there will be no Tompkins or Sinfield to attract the crowds or sponsors so crowds may drop off. Certainly away supportw ill be less.
While that is happening you'll still have existing contracts to pay. You'll build a team that could play ion front of big crowds in big games and then still have to pay them when the income reduces in second half of season. A financial disaster waiting to happen.

Duel reg I kind of like as long as they are longer contracts. I don't really like throwing someone in to lower league for a game to get fit. Disrupts the whole process, but if a young guy who is not quite there can get game time with a club but keep his link to the parent club I see it as a bonus to both. If he doesn't make it he has a connection to fall back on.

Comparing us to other sports is not a terrible thing. It is a good way to learn. What I think Sadler is doing wrong is saying, 'it works ther it must work here', or vica verrsa.
Rugby Union have improved their game by learning from us, we don't seem to have learned anything the other way, and it is clearly not because there is nothing to learn. They are pretty good at what they do.

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.