regarding point 1 I don't agree. I think most people who like sport know of RL.

This is my point. Its a great product. People know of it but just don't seem to want to watch it, even on a Friday night in the house with a beer.

Quote ="100% Warrior"I’d consider dropping down to 10 in all honesty. We need quality over quantity and each club in SL actually striving to further themselves and not stay stagnant like some clubs have who are now stinking out the league with no interest or intentions of growing. We need licensing back ASAP IMHO. The current system gives rise to mediocrity. One club goes down, the next comes up signing the players just relegated. That club goes down, the next comes up signs the players just relegated and so on and so forth. 10 clubs, 5yr licence and make the clubs meet all the standards or they’re gone. We need to be ruthless, for too long we’ve been soft as a sport on clubs. No more.'" Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.

Quote ="100% Warrior"I’d consider dropping down to 10 in all honesty. We need quality over quantity and each club in SL actually striving to further themselves and not stay stagnant like some clubs have who are now stinking out the league with no interest or intentions of growing. We need licensing back ASAP IMHO. The current system gives rise to mediocrity. One club goes down, the next comes up signing the players just relegated. That club goes down, the next comes up signs the players just relegated and so on and so forth. 10 clubs, 5yr licence and make the clubs meet all the standards or they’re gone. We need to be ruthless, for too long we’ve been soft as a sport on clubs. No more.'" Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.

Quote ="Egg Chasing"Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.'" your right, all lancashire based clubs did their stadiums and yorkshire didnt and was ignored, will probably be brought back in now Leeds have finally done theirs up

Quote ="Egg Chasing"Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.'" your right, all lancashire based clubs did their stadiums and yorkshire didnt and was ignored, will probably be brought back in now Leeds have finally done theirs up

Spot on.

I'd rather see a competitive loop fixture than playing a side made up of cast offs and champ level players.

Especially as we always manage to find a way to lose against the cast offs teams

I think the number of teams is unlikely to change, certainly in the short term.

The sole reason behind my comment is that the TV money is equally shared between the teams, so to add in 2 more teams, means less money for the remaining 12. It would equate to approx 250k per team per year, on the current deal that they would need to drop. Can you realistically see many (if any) of the existing club chairmen voting to increase the number of teams, whilst accepting reduced share of the TV money. I certainly cant see some clubs who rely solely on this money to keep them afloat from voting that one in.

Another factor would also be what Sky want to see and when. I am assuming that for their money, the SL clubs are contracted to have televised a number of games per season, with a probable caveat for Magic and play off series.

I am assuming Sky viewing figures are greater when Wigan, Saints, Leeds & Wire are on the box as opposed to say HKR,Wakey, London etc. I know that the 1st 4 teams mentioned will also appear more on Sky than the other teams, which has 2 impacts on clubs and fans; 1.reduction in no of spectators in the ground for televised games (match day revenue (ticket sales, programmes, food & drink etc and atmosphere) and 2. messing around with Thursday and Monday night fixtures, again match day revenues and atmosphere impacted.
So I suppose for the clubs, they need to work out the nett effect of playing in a TV game. Does the loss of match day income get covered by playing a TV match. If you are involved in 10-12 games on TV in a season, is there an impact to revenues or is it covered by the TV money. if that is the case, then surely a pro-rata allocation of the TV money would better suit the teams that are on the TV more