I don't see what's wrong with increasing the number of clubs to 16 like the NRL. It gives clubs like Wakefield and Castleford the chance to get new grounds and build up a stronger squad whilst there is still room for expansion sides like Toulouse or another Welsh side. Widnes or Barrow can be included which brings increased crowds from Widnes and a presence in Cumbria through Barrow.
If hypothetically Wakefield didn't get a new ground and were struggling with finances etc. then they could quite easily be replaced by another expansion side or a team like Halifax who have history and a decent fan base.

Cutting back on the number of sides in SL is just a step backwards unless the RFL seriously try to make big improvements to the Championship.

They have to make 14 teams work first before they look to be going upto 16. We only need to look at the average players Celtic have brought in over the past couple of years to prove theres just not enough quality to go around.

If teams continue to develope their own players in numbers meaning they have to release some of their senior squad players that will spread the quality down a little and make sure a 14 team league is more viable.

We're a good few years of being able to have a 16 team league yet though.

Is there anything really new in that article?

It seems to be saying the clubs that were warned about their future in SL are in danger of losing it, which they already knew. I suppose if that meant we end up with a 12 team league that is not something we expected (and IMO would be a bad idea)

The franchise rules state that if you get A or B status you can't be kicked out in the next round of franchises so it's pretty obvious who are in danger and that is the three mentioned, Castleford, Salford and Wakefield who I think all got a C grade last time (could be wrong). No idea where the Crusaders fit in with all this.

Of course they could change the rules on a whim as they seem to do quite often!

What I don't like though is this guarantee that a NL1 side will be promoted. What if they stack up worse on the franchise criteria than any of the current SL teams? Promoting a side with worse franchise credentials than the existing SL clubs would be mind numbingly stupid and would remove the certainty the franchise system is supposed to create. Now there's a good chance Widnes would be able to put in a better bid than those three I mentioned but it sets a precedent and I don't really think there is another NL1 side up there with them.

Dave

I'm going to sort of agree with Dave here.

IMO there is too much emphasis on the "stadium" . Surely the amount of class juniors that a team brings through should have a greater "weight" in the franchise application than if a club has a shiny new stadium.

For the good of the game junior development has to be the number one priority.

The two are linked in many ways.

It can't be overlooked just how important the image of the game is for attracting new people and kids 2 the game.

Both should have equal weighting IMO as both benefit each other.

We need more Catalans, Hull KR's and Warrington's and I don't see how cutting the amount of teams is going to help us do that.

Get rid of Salford and bring Widnes in.

Barrow in before any other team, Widnes had their shot and blew it hard luck, if any teams do go then they have to be from Yorkshire, too many SL teams coming from there, also stop expansion unlesas said club has been financially stable, has good support and had some on pitch success over a 5 year period.

And you want Barrow in? They are not even really an expansion club? So what do they offer? Other than satisfying all the flat cappers who think we NEED a cumbrian team.

Widnes will offer so much more to super league. We would see them average around 6-7000 in a great stadium, with a youth setup which has been sustained even outside super league, they are now financially sound as well.

And do away with the Top 8.
We've already had the threads on the real possibility of teams outside the top 4 winning, so a top 8 is unrealistic, and smacks of profiteering.
Go back to a top 6 or even 5, make it more rewarding to get into the playoffs, and then we'll get the best teams playing-off in a sensible knockout competition.
Or have 15 teams, play home and away in a League competition, and don't have a play-off. Winner takes all.

for me the whole european super league idea is a joke. we will never develop the sport into a competitive european league. they need to concentrate on where the sport blossoms and develop these clubs. ( whitehaven for example). There are many towns up north that would be successful in super league if given the chance. widnes, halifax, barrow. Remember when dewsbury won the league and were refused entry to super league. harlequins struggle with attendances, catalans were allowed to sign overseas players above quota level as are celtic. The politics of the sport look too much at location rather than the history, fans, and amateur feeder clubs. For me they can get rid of crusaders, harlequins and catalan and promote and develop the above mentioned teams. I

It should be a top 4 or 5 IMO. Top 6 was a good format but I don't think it's fair for a team in 6th should have a shot at the GF.

Week 1
Game 1 - 1 v 2
Game 2 - 3 v 4

Week 2
Game 3 - Loser of game one V Winner of game 2

OR

Week 1
Game 1 - 2 v 3
Game 2 - 4 v 5

Week 2
Game 3 - 1 v winner game one ...... winner to GF
Game 4 - loser game 1 v winner game 2

Week 3 - loser game 3 v loser game 4 ..... winner to GF

If SL is reduced to 12 that should mean 3 teams willo be given the boot as 1 team will be brought up from the championship or whatever its called this year.

If clubs are to increase their revenue a new stadium is the best way to do it.
Greater corporate business, advertising, sponsorship and crowds. Plus a hike in ground prices too.

As for 12 clubs, they need 13 home games to provide the revenue upon which all clubs depend so that determines a 14 club league.
12 clubs would therefore lead to additional games which were awful.
How will the RFL or SL clubs go to 12 if Saints, Salford & Wakey all have new grounds part way constructed with the new place set out and concrete foundations already in? They can't kick them out when the money is committed and being spent.

If none of them are anywhere near construction then that's the only way a 12 club league can be brought in.

Well I for one am all for the reduction, i think the players play too many game, the quality it diluted and we are asking too much of our players with a short off season.

If we are going to compete at International level our players need to step up the intensity and quality of the comp, reducing the number of teams is the only way to do this.

The season is already too long for mine i think a 10, 12 max comp is ideal.

The Chairmen will never agree it though as they are too busy chasing the gate revenues that 4 extra games generate, regardless of the low quality and what they put the players though.

So you would be happy to pay 20% extra to watch them

How do you work that out.
We would lose two home games out of 13 at present
That's 15%

We would gain from a bigger percentage of the Sky revenue.
The players would benefit from a longer pre-season.

The games would be more competitive (less dilution of the playing talent)

There is a reasonable argument for doing it.

Was adding the away matches

Why?
Home teams get no revenue from those.

So in fact if you went to every game you would save money.

Yes I got it wrong

How about we improve the spectacle and quality and get more bums on seats.

How about increase to 16, raise the salary cap above what the players would be expecting to play the additional games thus allowing more youth into teams. Let the younder players into sides to give the experienced players a rest from time to time (maybe put an actual limit to the number of normal league games an individual can play and force the clubs to allow the younger developing players in for one or two games).

We as spectators would get more games to watch and see some of the younger players getting into sides, youth development would be pushed and there would be more players in the "pool", experienced players would get an enforced break in the season thus saving them from overplaying.

A double whammy of increased cap and extra teams would decimate the progress made to date towards a competitive league.

Would be disastrous IMO.

Objective: To improve international competition by expanding European player pool through a structured FT league system.

To do this we need at least 1 more French team, and must nurture the game in S.Wales. At the same time we must recognise the challenge facing the ambitious, current non SL clubs.
We must increase the intensity at the top and provide a platform for clubs to develop.

Solution: Two divisions of 10, with 1 up 1 down to/from SL1, review franchise to SL2 every 3 years. Limit non nationals to 2 per club, by agreement or by allocation of money. Variable central contracts to top 50 players (Limit the number of games for these elite athletes), reviewed every 2 years, with the money taken from Sky deal before distribution. Hence you reduce the money available to waste on mediocre overseas players forcing clubs to give opportunities to young home grown players. Centrally contracted players will train as a squad X times per month.

Proposed Structure:

SL1.

Wigan
Hull
Bradford
Saints
Harlequins
Leeds
Catalans
Warrington
Huddersfield
Hull KR

SL2

Cas
Wakefield
Salford
S.Wales
Toulouse
Widnes
Halifax
Leigh
Whitehaven
Barrow

Fixture Format: 27 fixtures with play offs to determine Champions/Promotion. Top 4 , week 1 1v2 - winner to GF, 3v4 -straight KO, Week2 loser 1v2 play winner 3v4 for GF place, Week 3 GF.

Benefits:

1. Increase number of opportunities for FT players to follow a career path in the game at 20/21
2. Increase European player pool by the above and controlling imports
3. Geographically expand game into areas with access to junior playing pool
4. Create a more intensive comp for elite players
5. Enhance the international product through TEAM ethos and control of games played
6. Create an achievable pathway to the elite level for both player and club

If you want to reduce the amount of games the top professionals play then scrap the Challenge Cup and Murrayfield Magic.

This should reduce the total games played by a senior pro by 3 or 4.

And this comes from a supporter of the current holders of the Challenge Cup.


However it still makes me smile ( and yes, I appreciate that RL is now a far faster game with much harder contacts than is yesteryear) when you hear supremely conditioned athletes complaining at the number of matches when you had part time players with the athletic build of a Dave Chisnall or a Brendon Hill playing a 30 league game season + Lancs/Yorkshire Cup, John Player Trophy and Challenge Cup matches.

I'm not so sure, would 2 extra teams and a 10% increase in cap really make such a difference? How many teams fail to spend to the cap level already? Not withstanding the extra cap space is there to pay for the additional games which bring revenue and to allow the development of more younger players.

Last year we had teams like Bradford outside of the top 8 which wasn't expected or are you expecting that we are going to have a league without underdogs and no dominant team?