So Jamie's banging on about a reduction to a ten team competition, again. But rather than citing his usual player burn-out theory, he’s now trying a new tack, that of player drain to Aus. He’s advocating a £2M cap as a way of reducing top British players going down-under. Now, I don’t know how much the cap is in Aus but I’m sure it’s a damn sight more than that. So even if we go to a £2M cap would that stop our stars jetting off to Aus, to play in the top competition in the world, with a quality of life far superior to what we have back home? The more the merrier I say & I may just see another W.C victory. loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602 ... ction.html

So Jamie's banging on about a reduction to a ten team competition, again. But rather than citing his usual player burn-out theory, he’s now trying a new tack, that of player drain to Aus. He’s advocating a £2M cap as a way of reducing top British players going down-under. Now, I don’t know how much the cap is in Aus but I’m sure it’s a damn sight more than that. So even if we go to a £2M cap would that stop our stars jetting off to Aus, to play in the top competition in the world, with a quality of life far superior to what we have back home? The more the merrier I say & I may just see another W.C victory. loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602 ... ction.html

Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"So Jamie's banging on about a reduction to a ten team competition, again. But rather than citing his usual player burn-out theory, he’s now trying a new tack, that of player drain to Aus. He’s advocating a £2M cap as a way of reducing top British players going down-under. Now, I don’t know how much the cap is in Aus but I’m sure it’s a damn sight more than that. So even if we go to a £2M cap would that stop our stars jetting off to Aus, to play in the top competition in the world, with a quality of life far superior to what we have back home? The more the merrier I say & I may just see another W.C victory. loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602 ... ction.html'" I think it would have an effect. Australia does not really have a "far superior" quality of life IMO, especially when you factor in that many players already wouldn't consider moving away from family, friends and take their kids out of school etc.

Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"So Jamie's banging on about a reduction to a ten team competition, again. But rather than citing his usual player burn-out theory, he’s now trying a new tack, that of player drain to Aus. He’s advocating a £2M cap as a way of reducing top British players going down-under. Now, I don’t know how much the cap is in Aus but I’m sure it’s a damn sight more than that. So even if we go to a £2M cap would that stop our stars jetting off to Aus, to play in the top competition in the world, with a quality of life far superior to what we have back home? The more the merrier I say & I may just see another W.C victory. loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602 ... ction.html'" I think it would have an effect. Australia does not really have a "far superior" quality of life IMO, especially when you factor in that many players already wouldn't consider moving away from family, friends and take their kids out of school etc.

There probably should be less teams, but, would he say the same were he at a club which would be a candidate to go, and, as the leader of a union, shouldn't he really want more possible jobs for his members?

plus less teams means less games, unless you start playing teams a third time. So of course jamie will be happy to accept a proportionate decrease in his wage?.

NRL salary cap is 4.2 million pound next season and growing every year, SL will never compete now the NRL is getting its real worth from TV deals

He doesn't have any idea.

It's funny how he never had anything to say when the big clubs were using their 'influence' to lure players from lesser clubs over the years. Now with the threat of some of the game's biggest names going to the NRL, or worse still Union, he's on his high horse demanding a knee jerk reaction.

If we do end up with a 10 team league it'll still be the same old clubs in the top and bottom half of the league and people will be moaning about there not being enough teams to compete.

I agree something needs to be done but JP does not have the solution.

Is that based on experience in Australia?

The 2 leagues of 10 seems to catch support because it offers solutions to things people have invented as our problems. It doesn’t actually address any of our actual real issues.

2 leagues of ten well not help produce more quality players, it will not get us a wider support base, it will not get us higher visibility as a game, it will not bring in better sponsors, it will not help spread the game, it will not help clubs challenge at the very top of SL, and it will not bring more money in to the game.

The league and the game needs to stop looking for a silver bullet, Franchising gives clubs the time and space to grow, they should get on with doing that. Get on with selling tickets, get on with selling a spectacle, get on with improving youth development, get on with improving their corporate departments. When we do that pretty much everything else will follow .

Australia is a lovely place, but I wouldnt live there again.

Standard of living is a subjective thing when comparing a place like Aus to a place like the UK. Its not all about the massive prawns.

In an ideal world, when the current Sky contract runs out, the RFL will begin a shrewd renegotioation process, offering the broadcasting rights of their fantastic competition to anyone who is interested. They will use the impressive Sky viewing figures - along with a positive public reaction to the 2013 World Cup - to begin a bidding war between Sky and BT's recently created sports channels.
This will lead to a far more lucrative outcome, providing the funding which will allow the RFL to increase the salary cap for all teams in the competition and also improve other facets of the sport, such as marketing and grass roots development.


But of course, the reality is that our sport is run by a set of dimwits who have STILL yet to find a main league sponsor after almost half of the season is complete, thanks in part to them giving away said sponsorship for free last year.

A two tier Superleague makes sense IMO. Play each team in your league home and away (18 games), for Superleague One a top 5 play off and the bottom 5 play out with worst team relegated and the second worst team playing the runners up of the Superleague Two play offs.

Having only 18 regular season league games could be offset by having a early season Superleague Cup with 5 groups of 4 teams playing each other home and away, with the group winners and the best group runners up qualifying for the 1/4 finals.

This would ensure every team would have at least 12 home games a season.

I don't think a 10 team league would work. It means either 9 home games or repeat fixtures.

I'd do something along these lines:
14 teams
6 team playoff
Large payout for finishing first
5 year licensing system with far more transparency
Place in expanded WCC for Challenge Cup winner
When SL teams play a Championships team they can only use 1 overseas player
Some way of rewarding the Championship GF winner, be it financial or maybe a bye to the Challenge Cup Quarter Final next season?
I'd also increase the amount paid to Championship clubs from the SL TV deal, maybe into a central pot to be used for marketing Championship clubs and certain games?

I'm dreading the thought that Peacock might try to pursue a career at the RFL when he retires and end up with some sort of influence. Pretty much everything he suggests is the exact opposite of what should actually be done.

Am I the only person that think that re-nogotiation with sky is in order. Whilst they won't like parting with their cash, they will not want to see one of their premier veiwing programmes deteriorating in quality when all the british stars run off to the NRL and the overseas starts stop coming back?

The only role JP is lining up for is to directly replace Gary Schofield as a rent-a-controversial-quote.

The current RFL executive leadership is so out of its depth it would be funny if not so tragic. With any luck Barwick and club chairpersons with a proper understanding of business will working behind the scenes to get rid of the idiots. Prediction: Wood won't be here this time next year.

Who do you think appointed Nigel Wood to his position?

There seems to be quite alot of opposition to a 10 team league because it would mean "9 home games only" "repeat fixtures" "playing same teams 3 times".

Surely this opens up the opportunity for a bit of mid-season representative action without any SL games and the question of backing up??

Start in March

10 teams = 18 weekly rounds

In addition - The magic weekend as an extra fixture (Derby day or Based on last seasons standings 1v2 etc) making 19 weekly rounds

Challenge Cup = rds 5, 1/4's, Semi's, Final

2 or 3 England (Hopefully GB) vs Exiles representative games played on a standalone weekend with no SL matches

Playoffs (dont know what would be best for a 10 team league) Perhaps top 4?

End of season International series (3 matches?)

Thats 31 weeks of RL between March and October (not including any friendlies played in a 4 month Off season)

We had a two tier SL with p+r it was called SL & Div 1 and it did not work, infact it almost killed off several clubs

Franchising is the best of a bad bunch at the moment and we should stick with it.

P&R only works in football, even in the "richer" code RU p+r doesn't work. One club wins every game in the championship gets promoted and loses every game in the premiership and gets relegated whats the use in that?

I posted this on the Wigan board in response to this...

I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.

Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?

As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?

I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.

The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.

There's no quick fix here unfortunately.

In the main I agree with what you are saying, but the game cannot on one hand be arguing over whether or not we have the player pool to support 14 franchises, and on the other hand be sanguine about losing players like Watkins.

If the game can afford to lose the likes of Tomkins and Watkins, we shouldn’t be talking about cutting the size of the league, we should be making it bigger. If those players are disposable and losing them isn’t such a big issue, then we have enough players to be bringing more teams to the top table.

You forgot Eastmond. I think there are probably more, just not high profile ones.

First up, a club-based democracy on the size of the cap is a terrible way to run the game. Churchill may have said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time", but for issues like the salary cap I'd prefer a dictator ( e.g. Sky ).

I'm convinced we need to be smarter than just focusing on the absolute size of the cap. Free clubs to spend what they like, but protect everyone else with incredibly tight squad limits ( I mean no more than 13 'stars') ... after which you have to dig into your U19s)

There's an even bigger - but more hidden - problem than when we obviously lose a high-profile player. It's the 'loss' of players way before they even pick RL as an interesting sport in which athletic prowess could be translated into a high-earning career. This seems to get forgotten with the focus on Tomkins, etc.