Jamie Peacock and other proponents of reducing the size of SL assume that there will be the same number of 'quality players' as there are now but condensed into 10 teams rather than 14 thus improving the standard of SL. This may be true in the short term but they also assume rather naively that in the long term the same number of 'quality players' will continue to come through the ranks. What they don't appreciate is that without a SL club on the doorstep kids in Cas for example may not be drawn to rugby league at all and promising ball players might end up in soccer or some other sport. This is of course the reason given for expanding the game with top-flight teams in London, France and Wales. This is a minority sport. If we don't protect and nurture what we already have we'll be over-run by the big boys.
I suspect there's a reason why Jamie Peacock is a rugby league prop and not a professor of philosophy. He should stick to what he's good at.

Not saying it would on either accoumt , just pointing out why the NRL operates differently , and why we will never be able to work that way

Like to bet that all the Im alright Jacks who assume their club would be in a reduced league would soon change their tunes if they were under threat.
Anyhow how can the game be perceived by the general public to be progressing if they see a reduction in competing teams.

The public perception would be that the number of top flight clubs has reduced.

Do the ' public ' have a perception of RL at all?