Choose Life!

If SKY were upping the TV money so that the top 10 were on equal or more money, the lower 10 were on money that made the clubs viable and competitive AND able to step up when promoted and not be the seasons whipping boys then im all for it.

IF though it's basically how it used to be with clubs yoyo-ing and being the season long whipping boys, what's the point?

If Sky upped the TV money, it could be spent in far more effective ways than trying to artificially elevate certain clubs to a standard that they will never realistically be able to achieve.

How and where?

I would suggest that if Sky were upping the money then that should be invested in all clubs. But there is no way the sport can sustain 20 clubs at the top level, and a reduction to 10 raises all sorts of issues.
14 is about right.

If we had a two tier superleague would teams not just be playing each other 3 times? that way there would be 27 fixtures the same as now. That would obviously lead to one of the sides having one home game to the other teams two each season but that could be done on a rotational basis. The magic games could still be played as part of those 27 fixtures if they want to continue the concept.

It would take some working out if the format was to change around the salary cap limits for clubs and the TV money each tier would receive as it couldn't be the same at both levels or there's little point in doing it. The aim would be to improve the quality of teams at that top level and make every game competitive but if the funding and salary cap was the same in that second tier it would have the complete opposite effect.

If a move like this was done correctly it could work out extremely well a bit like it did with County Championship cricket a few years back but the RFL would need to get it right.

The 18 First Class Counties received over £50m from the ECB this year. Which is nearly double that given to SL clubs. Plus the significant extras that the ECB provide to Counties I'm not sure a comparison is valid.

We can just about sustain a 14-team SL, we cannot afford another 6 clubs and we cannot afford to cast 4 clubs adrift. A 2-tier of 10 SL would be a disaster.

Any increase in TV money should be used to help stabilise the clubs (in SL & Championships) as they are.

Pretty much anything would be better than ploughing money into undeserving clubs in a vain attempt to bring them up to an unattainable standard so that we could try to artificially contrive some sort of system of automatic P&R, which is pretty much what is being suggested here. If Sky were willing to offer more money (which they aren't), then it could be given to the current SL clubs to ensure that they are all able to spend the full salary cap and there would be a 'competitive competition' straight away, in a much more effective and logical way than what was suggested in the OP.

So your answer is to give more money to ' deserving ' clubs, thats it? , and in this case ' deserving ' is SL status? Can you quantify that?

You're missing the point completely.

20 teams wouldn't compete with each other. Two groups of ten would.

All this talk of not enough money or talent or this or that is lazy and unambitious.

He isnt missing the point at all, he is deliberatly ignoring it

No, there is no 'answer' to anything because Sky are not about to pour masses of additional money into the sport on a whim. What I posted was just a preferable scenario to the stupid idea detailed in the OP and subsequent posts, because having 14 strong full-time teams would clearly be better than having 10 strong full-time teams. The current 14 Super League clubs are the most likely to succeed in Super League at the present time. Nobody outside Super League would have any chance of competing at present and the majority never will, so throwing money at them in an attempt to force them to that level would just be stupidity. They are undeserving in that they don't have the potential to be Super League clubs, and the majority are aware of this so I'm not sure why this debate is even going ahead.

You mean you would be effectively relegating four clubs and making them part-time for absolutely no reason, taking a large percentage of money from the remaining 10 clubs and consigning them to a fate of continually having to look over their shoulder and scramble for survival for fear of being relegated into a part-time division? Yeah, great ambition.

There is nothing 'lazy' about not wanting to adopt a totally unsuitable, illogical and ridiculous system to the massive detriment of the sport, and anyone trying to pretend that this is anything but that has either put absolutely no thought into it, or is a complete idiot.

What point am I 'deliberately ignoring'? That you want your club to be unconditionally given money that it has no claim to, because it is unable to generate anything like the required level of income itself?

Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of people in the game, from the top to the bottom want to make the game as a whole better? Yes, everyone is biased to their own club, but everybody also understands the need for a healthy sport. You may disagree with proposals because of the outcomes you predict, but you talk as if people are deliberately (or at best recklessly) out to 'screw' the game. Why would anyone involved in the sport want to screw it up?

The effect on those clubs outside the top 10 (say) will in fact be very much dependent on the actual details, such as how funds are distributed, how many clubs involved in P&R, amongst many other things. Done badly, it could screw things up, yes (doing nothing is doing a decent job of screwing things up too). Done right, I think there's a good chance of everyone benefiting. I may be hopelessly deluded along with the others that share my opinion, but I can assure you that our motivations are sound.

I totally agree. Your last 'but' is what scares me, but nevertheless, despite the reasonably high chance of the RFL making a mess of it, its got to be better than plodding on with the current system which is taking the game precisely nowhere, fast. I just hope they can push through the changes that need to happen, in the face of the inevitable protests (doesn't matter what the change is - someone won't like it). It's a crying shame the sport (as a whole that is - no idea who was to 'blame') never did a proper job at the start of superleague by pushing through the mergers that were needed.

Its happening for 2015 season and will be announced this year. It will make the WC a great success now we can have unity again. The game will expand, we will have a greater playing pool ( Hill and Hardacre were Championship players not long ago) and a more intense fixture list.
I fear for the luddites on here though who have fought expansion.

This.

By nature, it would mean that four clubs already struggling financially would be further deprived of funds, and would almost certainly be forced to regress to part-time status. Thus 'Super League 2' would effectively become the Championship under a different name and all the problems caused by automatic promotion and relegation between a full-time and a part-time league would be reintroduced, except this time the threat of relegation would be faced by current mid-table clubs and so would be much more damaging to the sport as a whole, and we would be needlessly deprived of four teams that are currently capable of existing in a full-time environment. Therefore, it is a terrible idea. End of debate.

but isn't the whole idea not to have a championship under a new name but have a 2nd league ran by the same body as the first league operating with professional clubs?

then the transition for a promoted or relegated side would be survivable (not that i really remember promoted or relegated clubs actually doing that badly anyway, certainly not in the former case)

and come on imagine the excitement of london v halifax last day of the season promotion decider with both clubs buoyant after a season of winning most of their games and the prospect of going up

whilst on the other table wakefield just pip kr on the last day to stay up... this would have the added benefit of hull kr's 30000 strong travelling faithful boosting the gate receipts of everyone in the 2nd league the next season

what could go wrong?

Yes, and if this is ever realistic in the future then I guess it is an option that might be considered.

This seems like one of those ideas that sound great theoretically, but when put into practice could turn out to be a disaster:

- Are 4 teams being 'relegated' into Super League 2, or are six teams being 'promoted' into Super League 2 from the Championship? An important distinction...
- How will finances be distributed?
- Can teams be relegated from Super League 2 into a lower tier? Is this done by license or relegation through end of the season standing?
- Who decides who will be 'relegated' into SL 2 initially and on what basis? Would geographical location be brought into the deciding factors, i.e will London be guaranteed a spot in SL 1?
- Who will televise these leagues? Will Sky be prepared to give each equal coverage, or will another channel have to pick up SL 2, effectively demoting the value of it?
- How will promotion from SL 2 to SL 1 be decided and how will the champions be decided in SL 1: play-offs or first past the post?

I think reform is definitely required domestically and internationally, but it's how far the RFL are prepared to go. I see the argument to reduce to 12 as a more viable option right now, unless the RFL proposal is persuasive and, of course, a proposal is actually in the pipeline.

If the RFL does propose reform, then a 10-15year plan will need to be drawn together and they should stick with it, give whatever reform they deem necessary the time to be truly tested.

My comparison to the cricket championship is based solely on performance. They split the game in to 2 divisions and the cream naturally rose to the top with the best players playing in the top division meaning that each and every game was a real test for the players. The vast majority of the England side is made up of players from that top division and it's worked wonders turning our test side from a total rabble to the best in the world(well it was). I'm not saying it's likely to make our international rugby league side the best because thats unrealistic but I think a top division made up of ten teams would really improve the competition and make full use of all these good young players we've got coming through at the minute.

As a financial comparison the county cricket clubs may get more hand outs from their governing body but then I guess they need them. I've been watching a few county matches at Old Trafford and Liverpool and there's been a few hundred on. The money a lot of the county sides take through the gates must be minimal in comparison to some leage clubs.

How, by drastically reducing their opportunities to play at the top level, not only by lowering the number of teams but also because clubs would be forced to implement short-term plans and ignore youth development in order to stave off relegation, as they were before?

There is no issue in RL with the best players not playing in the top division, so I'm not sure how what you have posted is relevant in any way.

The aim should be to increase income into the game to allow the RFL grant to equal the salary cap, not cut the size of our top competition. Having more clubs slip back to PT status playing in front of smaller crowds and spending less on Jnr development is not progress!

So the idea is to increase to 20 FT teams from 14 and split into two leagues? Sounds a good idea until you consider;
Since moving to 14 FT teams 4 years ago, 4 have gone "bust", 1 is currently facing a WUP, another has admitted it's really struggling, and another has been offloading players to cut the wage bill as the business isn't sustainable. Then you've got at least two more which can't survive without an owners input, and another 3 who aren't spending the current SC just to balance the books. Leaving (at best) 6 teams capable of supporting their own activities.

Do we really think that introducing an extra 6 teams to take a share of current income will resolve the issue?
Will they generate enough extra income as a renamed Championship with 4 "relegated" SL sides to make up the current deficiency and enough to cover the extra 6 FT teams?
Sky won't renegotiate their deal for SL until 2015 so that's out the question. Will they pay for a renamed Championship when they didn't want it this year?
The gap between SL & SL2 would still be too big to consider P&R. Until we can efficiently support 20 FT teams where the SC difference is no more than say for example 20% different, this shouldn't even be considered.
Many complain the player pool isn't big enough for 14 teams which is obvious due to the difference between the bottom and top sides consistently so where's the extra 150 players (25 for each 6 teams) coming from?

On the plus side -
A fixture list can be made up to 27 games with 13 home games each no problem. We've done it before when we had 12 teams so its no issue doing it again.
This would probably see an increase in crowds on the whole but still not enough enough to support the extra clubs.
P&R keeps both ends of the table in SL anyway meaningful right up to the end of the year. Bottom of SL2 would still have nothing to play for unless a big weighting is put on the on-field performances of a club when licences are renewed.
Making an extra 150 players FT will increase the playing pool and the quality of them individually no doubt but in reality will this be of any real quality compared to the current elite? Probably not.

It seems a very ambitious move which could potentially ruin the game financially. I don't believe we should be trying this early to go for this, and wait until the top level can support itself successfully before we look at expansion plans which this is.
Current clubs should be working towards what Warrington have achieved and make sure their venue is used all year round therefore making the club sustainable. Easier said than done, especially for those that don't own their own stadium.

The only way this seems possible is if the WC over here really takes off in the media and national spotlight that it attracts major sponsors and players to the table to readily invest in the sport. Can I see it happening? An increase in popularity and income yes, but to support these proposed changes? No way.

There was no issue with England's cricketers not playing in the top division before they changed, they were playing in the only professional league in the country. The problem they had, like us, is that they didn't have enough good players to service a competitive enough league with 18 teams in it that would help nurture players ready for the increased intensity of test matches. We don't have enough good players to run with a top division of 14 teams IMO and it's leading to some games that are blow outs. If we had a top tier of ten teams then all the best players would naturally end up in that division and the games would be of a real intensity each and every week. The 2nd tier obviously wouldn't be as good a quality as the top tier would be but it'd be better then the current championship and all the teams would have a goal to achieve promotion.

If we made these changes then we'd have to go back to a top 5 play off system in the top tier and there would 7 or 8 teams capable of getting in to that top 5 but the bottom end of those clubs would be struggling against relegation. That would bring back that importance to the weekly rounds that is missing at the moment and lead to an increase in crowds as well.