Depends if the owner is still about

A strong London side? Theyve been in existence since 1980 pal and nobody knows they exist. How do you propose to ever get a strong London team?

I'm not saying Toronto is wrong or right for the game but when they come up to SL they will push the boat out with some big signings and they will be a much stronger team than this current London team.

Super League has been very competitive this year but deep down everyone has always thought London will finish bottom but next year will be a different story . Should be great.

You can say the same for most clubs to be fair. Do you think London is sustainable without Mr Hughes? I can assure you it ain't.

Should go 14 and promote the top 2 in the Championship. I don't know who that is but I'll guess - Toronto and Bratfud

You should be safe now I reckon with form and how poor the rest are.

I've thought that too

Same with Huddersfield, Salford, Hull kr, London and many more.

After so much effort to not only build the team but also the brand, I think it’s safe to say Argyle will be around for at least a few more years.

It was with regards to his racist comments and him sacking himself. I thought he may not be around long term

It'sToronto and Toulouse, although Bradford won there this weekend, they're not in the top 5 at the moment.

Obvious case for York too considering their second in the league?

They’re nowhere near ready for SL though. They’re punching above their weight at the moment. Going into SL with a P&R system could kill them, in a licensed league however...

If it was licensed, I’d deff have York in there. Theyre doing things the right way.

Why does everyone keep talking about licensing? Is it even rumoured to be coming back?

Robert elstone loves the nrl model, and has spoken about licensing at some point.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR LOL

Yes it is rumoured to be coming back, Sky want it back, it is looking like this will be part of the next Sky deal which is likely to include teams which are currently outside of SL, and speaking to the CEO of Canterbury Bulldogs at the Catalan game he was discussing that SL will be copying the NRL going forward, and not in the too distant future.

Good news let's hope it comes back in.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/super-league- ... ssion=true Great news, if true

https://inews.co.uk/sport/super-league- ... ssion=true Great news, if true

Yes read that yesterday. Sounds promising...

Is it? The private equity firms aren’t going to give us money for nothing. They may provide a large lump sum now, but for that they would want a portion of the Sky funding on annual basis, something all clubs need to survive. No doubt SL chairman will vote it through to take the short term cash, but it will leave us worse off in the long run.

Yes what worries me is I never hear any strategic planning from the executive. RL's approach is always short-term and rarely evidenced. So they'll talk about improving marketing, improving the game day experience, "investing in youth". Great but you can only sell to people who want to buy: football doesn't do an amazing game day experience, people just want to watch the action; and whereas I'd always agree with youth development, we could easily become a feeder for RU and NRL the way things are going.

I'm not saying any of their suggestions are wrong as such, but where is the vision for what RL is and where we're going into the future?

We could easily waste any windfall on pet projects of the club's gentry and then end up in the clutches of VCs who basically just want to spin a profit.

If we're going down this route I'd rather we amalgamated the RFL, SL with the NRL and became one worldwide sport resourced internally. TV audiences are increasingly global, maybe our sport should reflect that too.

Not sure why Sky would want licensing to come surely a relegation dogfight is ideal for them and the fact they've chosen our game over Saints and Wigan proves this.

If licensing was in then this game Fri would be a dead rubber.

This isnt a flawless suggestion, but all suggests so far have floors in them, but I think a 14 team league with 10 teams on a 3 or 4 year license (chosen by what they bring to the sport). Which would give those teams time to build. IE London this year, doing v well but avoiding spending the cap as they could be relegated this year. Security of 3 or 4 years could give them chance to build.

With the remaining 4 teams vulnerable to getting relegated, 1 up, 1 down. A team only gets relegated if a non licensed team finishes bottom.

I think that would help to avoid dead runners as there will be 4 teams (perhaps that bring less to the sport - lower attendances etc) playing to avoid relegation. But also adding security to developing teams that could potentially offer lots.

Also with the licence review every 3/4 years it makes those teams have to work hard to make sure they earn a place again.

Agreed. There are so many positives for licensing imo they far out weigh the negatives. The game is not financially strong enough to support promotion and relegation. We have to think of the bigger picture

The people who invest in the game, broadcasters or VCs, want the biggest possible audiences.

There are currently several clubs in the Championship with bigger draws than SL clubs; and the potential to stage meaningful derbies in Bradford's case.

There is a simple meritocracy to P&R and it does have benefits, but I just don't see RL in this country being strong enough in the current format.

14 teams with security of income for 4 years could work, if those teams are chosen strategically and supported centrally. The game would do better IMO with the funders deciding how it will run rather than the clubs infighting with vested interests and ego clashes.