I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook

I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook

Quote ="jameswk"I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook'" To start with, we need to cut the dead wood out of SL - and that means, in the first instance, both Castleford and Wakefield, I'm afraid. Their better players can then be dispersed to the other clubs at the lower end of the table. That would leave us with a leaner, meaner competition. There are far too many Yorkshire clubs in the league anyway, and that is massively diluting the talent pool over there. We could also make use of another French team, to expand the fanantical hotbed down in the South of France (though that may mean that another current SL club needs to get its marching orders - according to a rumour on TotalRL, Salford may be favourites for this, as they supposedly have financial issues). As for London and Widnes ... We apparently can't contemplate relegating the former, because Sky want them in, and the latter - though they've been an embarrassment this season - suddenly seem to be buying big and perhaps are now in a position to make their ambitions real, and become the RL force on Merseyside that they once were. With regard to the international situation, McNamara has signed his own death-warrant IMO. His current England selections reveal that he is just another thickie Yorlshireman who intends to change nothing (and is perhaps already looking towards his next coaching appointment with the club he his unjustly bigged up during this Origin series). Of course, that still leaves the problem of who do we replace him with. I'd have said one of the game's older, semi-retired coaches, someone who can do it part-time, but I can't think of many who'd fit the bill.

Quote ="jameswk"I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook'" To start with, we need to cut the dead wood out of SL - and that means, in the first instance, both Castleford and Wakefield, I'm afraid. Their better players can then be dispersed to the other clubs at the lower end of the table. That would leave us with a leaner, meaner competition. There are far too many Yorkshire clubs in the league anyway, and that is massively diluting the talent pool over there. We could also make use of another French team, to expand the fanantical hotbed down in the South of France (though that may mean that another current SL club needs to get its marching orders - according to a rumour on TotalRL, Salford may be favourites for this, as they supposedly have financial issues). As for London and Widnes ... We apparently can't contemplate relegating the former, because Sky want them in, and the latter - though they've been an embarrassment this season - suddenly seem to be buying big and perhaps are now in a position to make their ambitions real, and become the RL force on Merseyside that they once were. With regard to the international situation, McNamara has signed his own death-warrant IMO. His current England selections reveal that he is just another thickie Yorlshireman who intends to change nothing (and is perhaps already looking towards his next coaching appointment with the club he his unjustly bigged up during this Origin series). Of course, that still leaves the problem of who do we replace him with. I'd have said one of the game's older, semi-retired coaches, someone who can do it part-time, but I can't think of many who'd fit the bill.

I think its time, like Cruncher said, to reduce the number of teams in SL and create a leaner and more intense SL.

I personally feel that at this moment in time we simply don't have a talent pool thats of the right level to push our game forward.

I think there are simply too many average players in SL these days. I'm not advocating we will ever be in a position where we see a league full of superstars but for me the current level of average players is far too high.

Reducing the number of options where these players can get SL game time is the quickest and easiest option.

Some of these current SL players would then drop down to the championship and make that comp even stronger.

So we grow RL by making the top flight competition smaller, reducing the opportunity for those up and coming players to get an SL experience?

How small does the league need to be to have "international" grade players available, is it a pool of 10 teams with just 20 centres at the first grade, or is it 14 with 28 first grade to pick from?

If it's 10, and there's the opportunity to rest players who pays for the redundant squad in the back ground? Less game time would be better for players like Tomkins right?

Do we restrict the import of all Ausie players so that the SL grade can only ever get to test their arm at international level?

I guess that the bottom four teams in any league are competitive and SL is the only sport in the world that has losers as well as winners?

Or, do we need the RFL to get the sport into the public eye more? Make the Magic Weekend something that's not just another league game, get the Challenge Cup back in the lime light rather than marginalised as Sky simply don't care?

Give the World Cup to TV or the BBC for free for a year, yes it will cost the RFL but the terrestrial TV producers would jump at the chance to fill the Sat/Sun afternoons with some cheap to make TV.

More people = more cash and a better public perception and growth.

It's pretty evident that there isn't enough talent about to sustain 14 teams in the league, there's far too many players about that are so far off the top players it's embarrassing.

there are some interesting things here, but its as if you have started to think about the answer before you have fully understood the problem.

Money makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player.

It also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.

In addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there.

there are a thousand more reasons for less teams.

Ps, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.

Exactly. We need better teams, creating more competitive matches. And the only way to do that in the sort term is concentrate the good players we have in fewer teams. That would be a start when it comes to making the game more marketable.

There will always be winners and losers, but we need to aim for something like the NRL model, wherein those winners and losers change around on a fairly regular basis.

We also need all the SL teams to increase their production lines of youngsters. The best way to do that, as I see it, is moderate the Salary Cap, creating enticements for clubs to start investing in and promoting junior talent.

Goobervision speaks from the heart, clearly, but I fundamentally disagree with some of his points. An example is that of the 28 centres currently getting regular game time - a nice idea, yet today we have a second rower, Ablett, playing in the centre for England. Now, okay - it's an appalling selection by an idiotic coach, and I can name two or three others who should have been there ahead of him - but the fact that Ablett is able to play centre for Leeds and catch the eye indicates that most weeks in SL he has no real opposition. If he was playing against a specialist centre each week, who is there because he is good enough, not because there is no-one else to wear the shirt, it would be very different.

Who is Mr Creosote?

A smaller SL will also make for a stronger championship, as players move down... This will be better for up and coming "talent".

It's unbelievably obvious that the league needs reducing in numbers but it won't happen anytime soon.

The 'have nots' run this game and the RFL won't want to upset them. A massive opportunity was missed when Crusaders folded. That was the time to cut the numbers.

Its a simple equation of

Poor on field product = lack of mainstream interest off it.

We need a 10 team SL where realistically all the teams are equal, playing to a equally high standard in modern looking stadia.

A league where ever game is of the highest quality and you've got 5 top games played over a weekend and fans are spoilt for choice.

That's how you market British RL as having the most competative league in the world. If it raises the level of the championship then even better for us.

I'd also go one step further with SL clubs linking up with league two sides and having A teams in that league mixed in with some others.

Make that the exciting young league where you can see the next Tomkins etc play.

You're not far wrong there. When I was at the Etihad I overheard a current Salford player talking to a Huddersfield player with regards to recent meetings within the club about their financial difficulties.

You nosy 8ugger!

I think that's too negative, we should be looking at more ways to increase that talent pool. The "8 club-grown players" rule that the RFL introduced recently is a step in the right direction, and hasn't yet had time to show results, but it needs to go further.
Too many clubs are just paying lip service to it at present (Wakey, for example, who have the mandatory Academy products in their squad, but all outside their starting 17).
Force (or encourage) more clubs to produce more players, and some of them will inevitably turn out to be top quality. Stricter rules about producing and using their own players, plus perhaps salary cap allowances for them would be a good next step.

If we cut the number of clubs, we're discouraging youngsters from taking up the game, as we're reducing their opportunities to find a full-time job in the game.

I agree we need to reduce the amount of teams in the top division, for example - how many of our teams would stand a chance for a top 8 spot over in the NRL?

I'd hazard a guess at... 2? Even then its a maybe.

Don't think anyone can say that Ellery's comments have come as a surprise. I think a system needs to be put in place where each club has to produce a certain amount of its players through their own youth set up. That might stop clubs going for mediocre ozzies as a stop gap as well giving new blood a chance.

And that should be encouraged by making the salaries for 'home grown' talent exempt from the salary cap.

I hope someone at Redhall is listening to what Ellery has to say about McBannana. Every club fan has said it but they didn't listen.
Ellery should be England's boss, but he'd tell those who run the game exactly how to fix it and it would scare the crap out of them, with what they'd have to do.
The problem with the Rugby league is the same problem which affects the majority of Super League clubs. Mediocrity is adequate and just taking part is enough.
The culture has got to change. We shouldn't just play. We need to compete!

To an extent that would help. What would worry me about that is the money 'saved' by the club would then be thrown at some ozzie who is not the super star everyone thought and we end up back to square one. Over paid ozzies and young talent being over looked. Not all clubs would do this, but rather than use the money to invest in their youth system, many clubs would go for a quick fix.

That's already in place, as I pointed out earlier. The rule is that each club has to have (at least) 8 players in their squad that have come through their own academy. Problem is, there's no rule that says they have to play them.

8 out of a squad of, say 25 is still poor. If you're going to challenge you'd want to be blooding a few every year with the hope that 2 or 3 will make the grade and be making the side on merit. The league needs to say that you've got to produce 8 out of each weeks 17. It would be harsh at first but eventually we'd have more competition for places at international level.

Agreed, and I'm hoping the RFL gradually increase that number, in the same way that they reduced the non-federation-trained quota. One of the few good initiatives they've introduced, IMO.

As it stands now, it's 8 club trained (minimum), and 5 "non-fed-trained" (maximum), in the 25-man squad, which is a lot better than it was a few years ago, but still needs to improve. I haven't seen anything about further changes for next season.

Start at 5 playing next year, and increase by one each of the following years. Not fook!ng rocket science.

The issue of how many teams there should be in SL is a minor one.

The major problem facing the game is financial failure and mismanagement.

The licensing system and the SC have failed to do their job properly. Licensing has allowed clubs with desperately weak finances to be awarded franchises - Bradford and Crusaders being recent examples. It is a scandal.

The SC has not been raised in line with inflation. It's value in real terms is at least 30% lower than it was it was brought in (£1.6m in 1999, would after 12 years of inflation at 3% p.a. now equate to almost £2.3m). Despite this, there are few clubs that could afford to overspend the current SC level if they were allowed to. This is a disgrace and a damning indictment of the inept management of the game.

The failure to secure a better TV deal is astonishing. RL is pretty low profile on Sky: Sky news in their sports round up I saw earlier today made no mention of the Exiles game, but did talk about the RU, golf etc. The reality is however that RL delivers very good TV audiences on Sky, despite the low priority Sky give to promoting the sport. Competent management would be pushing Sky a lot harder, particularly on financials. BT's interest in the football is a sign of how the rights market is likely to evolve and I'd be saying to Sky that the RL wanted them to do more.

The Stobart sponsorship fiasco is so appalling I can't actually bring myself to say any more than that it speaks for itself.

I'm afraid that the 10/14 club debate etc is a bit of a sideshow - the fundamental issue is the incredibly inept financial management which threatens to reduce the game to the level of the domestic RL competition in France. Long term, with these idiots in charge, that's where we are heading.

It's not rocket science to us but it would be to the rfl. The problem i see is the rubbish coming out of certain academies bringing the league standard down (even further) at some clubs. Wire would be stuffed too.