But you're not adding, you're replacing, and as much as we all want teams to field competitive A teams, some teams can barely fund their actual first team.
All the teams fund this with a one off payment, coaches are employed by the rfl and we all work towards the goal of development and looking to beat the Aussies. Keeping a competition open for the late developers, plus use it as an elite youth system making sure we maximise potential.
We currently have Superleague overtaking championship clubs and stripping their identity.
Create something similar to the Toyota Cup in Oz but using county teams.

ps my bad on forgetting West Yorkshire

Swinton got 2 points from it yesterday.

I don't know if there is any appetite for an A team competition. Lets not forget that all clubs bar Wire and Saints voted to get rid of 2 age groups in order to save money, only a season or so ago.

The last I heard was that an U21 / 23's was the front runner for 2015. With an allowance for e.g. 2 overage players, that would permit clubs to give their returning injured a run out as well as allowing the still developing younger players (Ackers, Peet, Dwyer, Saltonstall etc) a game. It would also remove much of the criticism from the Championship clubs who by and large, do not wan't 5 SL players in their team.

There are positives and negatives of raising the age again, positives listed as above but negatives are it will really limit the chances of the players moving up from U16s. They will struggle against the older players.

or it could bring a few on?

"If your good enough your old enough"
Alexander Murphy.

No Mark, I agree. But allowing first team players into a new U21/23 level would I think force the clubs to consider another intermediate age group such as U18. I don't think anyone would wish to see less physically developed 17 yr olds playing against seasoned SL pros.

Now that the Sky monies has been substantially increased, lets hope we see some sensible decisions made for next year.

I welcome the views of our friends from the other boards with their thoughts on this topic?

My thoughts (Wigan fan) is that they need to re-structure the age ranges.

I'd have U16s, U18s and u21s with 3 - 4 over age players allowed in the U21 teams. We certainly need a level between the present U19s and SL. It might be ok for the backs, if they're good enough to play first team but U19 forwards are not developed enough to face the size and strength of SL forwards.
Last Thursday Burgess and Williams played and both qualify for the U19s comp.
I shudder to think of an U19s forward from either club who could play in that intense a game and come through unscathed.

There is also a lack of purpose from a lot of SL clubs re their youth systems. Some are very active and some hardly at all.
I do think there should be some sort of compulsion to make clubs be more active in their youth development.
We now are obliged to have eight home grown or as they are classed now "Club Trained" players in our squads of 25. I'd go further and it be a directive that each club has to have, say 6, Club Trained players in their match day 17.
That would ensure all clubs gave the attention to youth development that British Rugby League needs.

I understood about West Yorkshire but couldn't resist ha ha

My bad (using modern parlance) is the adding and replacing comment I don't want the clubs responsibility replaced by a central organisation "pee up's and breweries" spring to mind all too easily.

I'm by and large with Father Ted on this one, thank goodness Rubber Duck, our very own social hand-grenade, invited comment, surely some of the 'new Sky money' should be available for what should be the greater good?

That is so wrong. Some young players who stand out then don't develop into top flight players and vice versa. If they go back to U23s they will either have to move the U16s level to U18s or have a mid age team at U19s.