Ackroman

I remember Toulouse being lined up for SL back in 2009 when they applied for a licence to an expanded SL (14), failed when Crusaders and Salford got one instead and did 2 years in the championship before dropping out altogether. At the time I remember them coming to Tetleys stadium where they beat Dewsbury with a side full of Aussies, and thinking why have they bothered? Why do I? So fast forward 15 years or so and I am again thinking why again? Unless there is a strategy to make 14 work, why bother? Why use more Antipodean players? Why invite teams without solid backing with reduced funding? If I was Toulouse I'd spend my money and effort in France, rather than keeping a seat warm while London get up to speed and they go back to 12, jettisoning them & Cas at the first sign of the cracks appearing. The only real chance the game has, is for those "ambitious" clubs to say no, it's your problem. You only care about us when you've created the latest threat the game faces, that you can't fix. Shifting the chairs about, making inflated claims and promising jam tomorrow. IF I was them, I would say come back when you have a plan.

SL+ needs to stop being so glitchy to get my money next season. Both games I watched last week were interrupted with being logged out and having to reenter the security pin in my ourleague account. I think paying extra has it's merits.

I think another factor is fan fatigue. If you're a SL club fan, you are likely to have to find money for 2 trips to France plus Newcastle, as well as the CC and GF if you're (un) lucky.

Sky wanted something between football seasons with a couple less zeros on the contract. It is significant to Sky that subscribers don't press the cancel button when the Premier League is won and Super League are important in that strategy. To say otherwise is revisionist.

Take that money off them

If they had an announced the quota rising to 10 due to going to 14 teams and then reducing year on year, then it would have a whiff of planning about it for the good of the game and player pathway. Having lived through the whole of the SL era, this has to be the most retrograde step of them all.

Interesting to look at Wane's squad released today. The vast majority have played in the lower leagues, admittedly some as DR, but some as loanees or "failures" like Minichella. And these are the elite players of the country. So as I said previously, the player pathway needs to be seen not just as a Super League plan but a whole game plan.

Nobody said there were. Maybe you could show me?

Err no. So let me clarify. We currently have a very unsavoury situation between SRD and Hunslet over a player. Regarding the community clubs, SL are also as happy to take their players for nothing. There is no false equivalence but there are examples of SL self interest in both examples. For those of us living under the SL umbrella with little or no say, control or influence, who have been (on here, on this thread), accused of sucking the life out of SL for wanting due recognition and compensation, well whatever happens at the top will only make this worse.

Oooo. I guess you didn't pass your English exam because I never said they were.

Participation is down alarmingly at open age. The only upward is for females. However, Super League can manage without those pesky drag weight's in the community and lower leagues. Sucking precious revenue out. On another point, maybe the new regime can deal with the fact there are more "Super Leagues" in this country than there are Directors of our version.

You really do have a problem with lower league clubs don't you

Looks like a big beautiful regime change.

Do you think your question should be taken seriously?

The grassroots? Is that what is being ignored and taken for granted because I would wholeheartedly agree with you.