Ah didnt check his maths, probably should have.

Why not have bigger sqauds we want to be developing as many youngsters as possible and we also dont want to burn out our stars, the best way to do this is to have bigger squads. I'm not saying any of this will happen for a number of years, by which time (with more kids being given a chance) the talent pool should be substantialy larger (ie the record number of kids playing rl in london, as well as more kids from wales, scotland, ireland, gateshead etc) so larger squads should be quite possible. There are plenty of talented young players out there but alot of them arent developed further, even more never get the chance, with more teams (and therefore more scouts, academies, scholarships etc) our talent pool will expand. West yorkshire is the origin of a large no. of sl players (the wakefield district alone has produced-lynch, burrow, ellis, westwood, t.briscoe, shenton, owen, huby, boyle, ferres, feather, mason, rooney, westerman, orr, godwin, george, ferguson, pitts, bibb, watts, cockayne-off the top of my head, and thats one district of one of the 4 counties of yorkshire) and in the past all teams havent done enough to develop kids, now the clubs are so there will be a greater no. of quality kids coming through

Personally i wish every county could sustain 6 sl quality rl teams, but no others can, i'm more interested in putting the most capable rl team in a league, if they can sustain sl level rl they should be in, location should be secondary to sustainability.

I haven't a problem with the larger squads plan so that we can play more games and rest our stars. I've suggested this many-a-time in the past myself, mixed with a capping of how many games you can play a year to allow for more international games.

However, you cannot expand squads AND increase the number of teams in one area. It's just too much. The quality of the play will drop dramatically, we're already at a stretch now. Playing more juniors doesn't necessarily mean they'll be any good or even get better.

The West Yorkshire area is massive, so yeah could probably sustain a lot more than any other area (especially coupled with the interest in the area). However, would it be better to spread the talent thinner and have 6 good teams, or have less teams and have the best players at the most sustainable clubs so that we have a more elite elite? If we concentrate all of our resources in one area, then that area will always be strongest. We need to spread our resources around a bit so that we can develop a talent pool in other areas (as well as spectators, etc.).

the most capable SL teams, will always be the teams already in SL, that doesnt mean that other teams, in other areas wouldnt be more capable if given the chance,

neither Wakefield nor Cas have never been able to covert those youngsters into enough first team players to produce a challenging SL squad

west yorkshire is very strong RL wise, but to have 6 teams in a 12 team league from west yorkshire is too much, especially when you have another 2 teams in also in yorkshire,

and whilst we could all list players from west yorkshire, for 6 teams to be sustainable through mostly their own youth development, we are looking at needing about 100 players from west yorkshire playing SL at any one time, and about 20-30 new SL quality players, every year or two, from west yorkshire only,

its simply too much

As i've said before this isnt an idea that i'm suggesting we put in place overnight, this should be an eventual aim for 10-15 years in the future.

I agree not all resources should be concentrated in one area, but if resources are there they should be exploited. W.yorks has produced a v. large amount of juniors and rl has benefited from this but it hasnt for instance held back the record no. of young kids playing around london has it.

This is about the affects of franchising though so the past is pretty moot, as we are only in the first few weeks of the first franchise season.

There are around 60 players from w.yorks playing super league, can you really not imagine that we could add another 40 with the positive effects of franchising?

Besides which it would only be one more team than there is now (and even then it was halifax OR sheffield) which isnt exactly a great stretch.

People need to stop beeing hung up up on location, sustainability and performance are more important, do you think american football would rather have the sport played in more countries proffesionally, but with less, weaker teams or have it as it is know with lots of strong teams confind largely to one country? I'm all for expansion, but i'm just happy if a strong rl team emerges in barnsley or aberdeen, i would rather have many clubs than a few clubs with a greater spread.

so the past gives us no indication at all to the future?



nearly doubling it? yes, i think that is a tall order, i think it will be very difficult to double the productivity of the most RL saturated region in the country, and maybe the world



and we are struggling now, in fact we are quite far away right now from being able to do it,



thats fine, but you are still ignoring the fact that all current SL clubs are going to be stronger than a club not in SL,

and any expansion club is, at the beginning going to be weaker than a heartland club,

if we are ever going to expand the game, or even add new clubs to the league we will be adding a club which is weaker than the clubs already in SL,

and strong team isnt going to emerge in either aberdeen or barnsley, a strong team has never just emerged, it doesnt happen

they are always, always, always weak when they make that step up, but making that step, and taking that risk is the only way possible to get stronger

Interesting you should say that.
It isn't that long ago that the NFL was largely confined to just the north-east of the US.
They're all over the US now.
They're also making significant efforts to grow interest outside the US.