I am sure Halifax would be delighted to be excluded but Fev included! By the way I think the 2 division approach is the way forward as well...its difficult to pick the 20 teams that would make that up though..

No room for Batley, Dewsbury or Sheffield? might as well get rid of Cas and bring in london scholars or even Hemel stags.

i knew i would miss one or two teams out but you get my point that all the teams that feel they have the capability to go full time and a crack at the top league shouldnt have that opportunity pulled away from them has is the case at the minute.

on top of that i would like all sky money devided equally amongst all the full time teams and at least 1 game a week shown live from both groups with all clubs allowed to work to the same salary cap.

but do those clubs have the ambition to play at an elite level,i recently heared an interview with the owner of batley saying they no their place and are comfortable with it and any attempt to think otherwise would bankrupt them.

Whats todays sky money £1.2m?

14 clubs FT aint enough, 2 divisions of 10 has been the best way for a number of years.

Fund it 10 x £1m, 10 x £680k.

Increased BIG games would make up the £200k for SL1, £680 would support a FT SL2 whilst creating a pathway to/from SL1

Warrington? Feel free to remind us all just what they have won in the last 20 yrs that makes them part of a monopoly.

Between Kear and Jiffy you had the perfect model for the future, unfortunately I don't think they will be listened to
3 divisions of twelve would be great, a similar fixture and playoff structure in each division and the superleague money spread out to the second tier to allow a smooth transistion between pro, semi pro and beyond

was it you I saw 30 years ago with your username in a green sun visor on your cortina mk3 ,driving up the m1 looking gutted after playing us

Fair point - if they are in the monopoly then so are Hull FC as they have both won the Challenge Cup.

I think that goes for a lot of clubs tbh, and is a good argument AGAINST promotion and relegation.

You have to bear in mind that a lot of the clubs at the bottom end have had plenty of time to make a go of it, and have achieved little. Stopping promotion and relegation isn'tgoing to affect most of them.

Question is though - what is the place for some of the clubs at the base of Championship 1 ? Is it a credible club that concedes over 60 points most weeks, and has twice conceded 100 points this season ? I reckon the conference would be a better place for them.

I think we should return to one division. Lets unite the conferences and amateur leagues under one umbrella and have North and South championships culminating in a national final. The lower Ch1 teams would return to these leagues. A team like Swinton could merge with Salford for example (I know most disagree but I do have a detailed plan that could really work, thats for another time and place). A Championship featuring about 16 teams would be ideal as I think the top end of Ch1 has improved drastically.

It really annoys me when SL Supporters talk about merging CC clubs!
If the club can manage at its own level then leave it alone!
It's just what we need, fewer clubs!

14 team super league 1 & 12 team super league 2 with a playoff between the bottom of SL1 and top of SL2


could work i suppose

what about bringing franchising into the championship (SL2)?

We have the money in the game - or the business expertise for that matter - for 26 full-time professional teams?

It would be nice if we did, but …

i know.....i'm bored...lol

They cant survive though can they...

Who can't?

"They..........."

"Them .........."

The little clubs who are just crying out to be relieved of their membership of the RFL. Just waiting to be put out of their misery because right now, your Workingtons, your Oldhams, your Yorks and your Hunslets are being forced to continue in business by the RFL - a bit like being kept on a life support machine. Some people actually believe that the Chairmen of these clubs want to carry on as they are and are quite happy just to potter about in Championship One. That's not the Super League way.

rack up the debt, look big, and carry on swallowing the big Sky bucks - it's a bottomless pit that one. Anyone not in that little club just can't survive surely?

Donny Rlfc
Pay as you play, money in the bank.
So what's the problem? Leave us alone.

You know he's going to come back at you and rake up a bit of history ...................

I mentioned on another forum that they should consider reducing the SL down to 12 clubs, have a 10 club Championship with TV funding, bring back P&R between the two leagues and have the licensing system apply to the Championship.

The most effective ways to make P&R work (IMO) would be:
1 - to have the teams in the league below majority full-time.
2 - to have the 2nd tier GF earlier than the last game of the regular SL season so that the promoted team have more time to build a squad.
3 - to have the 2nd tier clubs selected on criteria so that we know we have some clubs that are able to step up easily.

If SL clubs are getting £1.2m a year, then we should look at getting Championship clubs around about £0.5-0.6m a year. With two clubs less in the SL, that's funding for 4 clubs already, so a new TV deal to cover the remaining 6 clubs would need to be arranged.

All the remaining clubs would compete in a re-jigged RL Conference system (which will hopefully be coming into effect soon anyway with the switch of the National Conferences to summer).
Conference Premier (consisting of the remaining semi-pro clubs).
Conference League 1 (consisting of a mix of the current National Conference Premier and RLCN).
Conference League 2, 3, 4, etc...

Where you draw the line to make it regional conferences is up for debate, but I'd have P&R between all of them so clubs can find their level (i.e. Skolars, Gateshead) rather than just cull them off. Still gives clubs a chance to reach the FT structure if they build properly.

You are making comments on a club in turmoil and I'm not sure that's a fair representation.

I could equally say that Superleague should be comprised of sides that all have the ability to win the title but a quick glance down the stats for the last few years show that each year 40 games have had scores of 40 or above and so far this year, 20 games have had scores of 50 or above.

Salford have lost 3 games by 60+ and 1 by 58
Wakefield and Harlequins have lost 4 games by 50+

I have nothing against any of these sides - just quoting stats.

Actually these are the teams that have lost "to" 50 + points let me remind you not "by" 50 + points.

Wakefield 4 times
Crusaders 2 times
Castleford 2 times
Harlequins 4 times
Hull KR 2 times
Salford 4 times
Catalans 1 time
Bradford 1 time once by 49 points

many teams have been beaten by 40+ this just shows what an open season its been!!
Dont be short sighted at just picking out the bottom clubs!!!!!!!11111

I think you've missed the point!

I posted in reply to a comment about large scores against the bottom side in CH1. I was pointing out that large scores happen everywhere even in superleague where every effort has been made to even out the competition. Stats don't always tell the whole story.

Don't be short sighted

Really?

I'm looking to buy a four-wheeled monocycle - let me know if you see one.