THE RL1908 BLOG

News, Reviews & Opinion - Sean Fagan - RL1908.com

Why is it always a question of culling/merging/relocating Sydney clubs to fund & stock new clubs?

Are there alternatives?

Comes back to the old chest-nut - who says 14 or 16 teams is the magic number? Why not 18 or 20? Can't the current $ be made better use of?

Depends how you see it - are you a glass half-full person, or a glass half-empty person?

Would having more NRL clubs help prevent players going to UK Super League?

Who made it sacrosanct that modern RL teams need 17 players each week instead of 13?

Cut teams back to 13 players & reduce inter-changes down to 6 (have up to six Under 20s players on the bench - just make sure they've played at least half a game earlier in the day).

Wouldn't that save current clubs $$? Wouldn't that help clubs afford to offer better $ deals for top players?

Every weekend there are 64 first graders sitting on the inter-change bench (16 x 4). Heck, I can nearly make 5 teams of 13-a-side out of that lot.

I think it would be good to see 10 or 12 Under 20s players sitting on the bench, none of them (or us) knowing who will actually get a run - it will come down to injuries, positions, strategy and fatigue. In that sense, it is a throwback to the 1970s, and will help to build club spirit now that in effect there are two NRL grades.

Extra teams means extra matches - doesn't that mean extra $ from the tv contracts? Extra merchandise sales? Clubs in new areas? Old clubs kept?

Would you rather we killed off a few more Sydney clubs, or is it a better option to kill off the 4 extra places needed to fill the inter-change?

So what if rugby league is just a little slower, or if the 10m rule has to become 8m to compensate for less inter-changes.

I'd rather kill of the inter-change and welcome back Norths (Gosford) and Perth Reds, and add two more new clubs.

Or am I being too simplistic?