Now, yes, though I'm not so sure it was as clear-cut back when they first made the promise. That was before Crusaders' and Wakey's financial problems, and before Wakey's stadium plans collapsed.

Yeh when that questionnaire went round asking opinions on the current license system I suggested reverting to a 2 year period rather than 3. I think 2 years would mean the clubs in the superleague who are struggling to meet the current criteria would have to show some more urgency and the clubs who miss out in the championship have a quicker chance to re-apply. At the end of the next license period clubs will have had 6 years to sort themselves out and it is unforgiveable for any team not to have done. We should really have every SL team up to scratch with 4 or 5 teams below also in much better shape. Cant see it myself but that's what a franchise system should achieve.

Divided opinions on this I know but I also think after the next round of licenses the best way forward is to expand in to a 16 team league.

Am I the only one who would swap a custioned seat in an all seater stadium to standing, even when its raining in a traditional Rugby League stadium soaking up the atmosphere and history. I looked forward every year to attending these "2nd class" stadiums like cas and wakey. Give me atmosphere, not the sterile seating that we are all supposed to want. I would swap a season in DW for a night at Central Park. I hope Wakey get to stay put, the only way I'm going to feel the same atmosphere in the future is by Wigan drawing away in the Challenge Cup to a championship team. NOT ALL CHANGE IS GOOD

www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=21609 Quote Halifax, who also meet the minimum criteria for membership of the sport’s premier competition, will now go forward to be assessed alongside the existing 14 Engage Super League clubs at the next stage of the licensing process which concludes in July.'" Maybe a 16 team league? It would make sense really, top 8, bottem 8 mini comps at end of season!

www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=21609 Quote Halifax, who also meet the minimum criteria for membership of the sport’s premier competition, will now go forward to be assessed alongside the existing 14 Engage Super League clubs at the next stage of the licensing process which concludes in July.'" Maybe a 16 team league? It would make sense really, top 8, bottem 8 mini comps at end of season!

Plenty of grounds in our league are better than those in Super League! I'd say the LSV, the Shay, Batley etc have got the balance right of a stadium with modern facilities but still being able to stand up etc.

For our sport to be taken seriously all the teams have to be playing in modern stadia. Some of the grounds are almost 100 years old and falling to pieces. Yes I agree I like going to Salford, Wakefield, Cas, Knowsley Road etc but these facilities aren't good enough for top flight sport. Sentiment has to be thrown out I'm afraid.

I agree with this. What does confuse me is what happens next. We've got 14 current teams plus Widnes (guaranteed) and Halifax getting a shot at it. Does that mean 15 teams go into the hat (excluding Widnes) and the best 13 are in SL with Widnes?

Yes this is how it is at the moment unless the RFL decide on some sort of league expansion. (although I vaguely remember an announcement saying this wouldnt happen?) Halifax's application will now be reviewed alongside the current 14 SL teams and of those 2 will miss out.

PERSONALLY, I would like to see the following:

SL1

8 teams playing 21 games

SL2

8 teams playing 21 games

Promotion and relegation between the 2 SL divisions with a cup competition involving all SL clubs and proper 9's tournament, involving all SL clubs.

It could be that the decision on the image rights problem will be soon. IF RL clubs lose and have to pay in full then some will be in serious financial trouble.
The RFL may decide to allow one tho leave SL and bring Halifax in as they meet the criteria.
That could be why the RFL are still talking up Halifax's chances.

The SL chairmen would never vote for it, not unless there's a massive increase in TV money from Sky or whoever gets the contract.

I'd like to see a 16 team league with one of the terrestrial broadcasters getting a Sunday afternoon kick off on top of Skys current schedule. Should increase the TV money.

Would never work

The DW is soulless. I love going to the terraced grounds - much better atmosphere and experience.

doesnt count anymore, otherwise quins and crusaders would be in trouble. They changed the ruling after the Quins thing. Wakey might have gone under but were allowed to spend 1.65 million. I bet Wakeys turnover is more than Widnes's. which would give them a point. Better academy and have bigger crowds than Widnes.

You have answered your own question. You don't want the Crusaders to go, well I'd hazard a guess neither do the RFL which is why they have this cop out they introduced about not merely considering objective criteria.

As I said that is why they could guarantee Widnes a place despite the possibility of all SL sides putting in a better bid than Widnes.

I am sure if the rules had not changed and say Wakefield's bid was better but they were relegated they would seek legal redress. With the new rules that is much harder to do. It also means the Crusaders bid could be technically worse then both Widnes and Wakefields but the RFL could choose to keep the Crusaders in the SL and relegate Wakey.

If this kind of thing happens I'd expect a huge stink about it anyway so I am sure the RFL would prefer it if the issue was clear cut and the best objective bids won franchises.

The problem is expansion sides are rarely strong enough to compete outright even with well run NL1 sides after a mere 3 year franchise. It's going to take much longer than that (just look at Quins) before a purely objective system could be used. The RFL should just admit it and state which teams are immune from the drop for the foreseeable future.

Lets not forget it has taken Widnes and Halifax a lot of time and effort to get to this stage themselves so expecting a team like the Crusaders with its recent history to be as good bid-wise is possibly not being realistic. So its all about if the RFL want the Crusaders in at any price.

Because...

How would you split the sides up?

Plus fans would get bored playing each teams over and over!

We get people crying about how we play too many games compared to the aussies yet you want to add a 7's?

It would make our game even more of a joke than it already is

Top 8 from the season before in Div 1, rest + 2 from Champs in Div 2.



It's quite conceivable to play clubs 3+ times in a season already.



Do the maths. We currently play 27 rounds + cup games + play-offs. My structure would be take away 6 SL games and replace them with a maximum of 4 cup rounds and a 9's, which is up to 4 games per season less.



Why? Licences for SL and p&r between the 2 divisions. Keeps everybody happy.

it was bouncing last friday..... well the wire end was anyway

what if it was 16 team league split into a top and bottom 8 teams where everyone plays each each other twice with MM matches contained within the tiers therefore playing a competing 3 times . top 8 go into plays for the GF and the lower 8 go into a play off to get into the top 8?

not sure how the team to be demoted to the lower 8 would work if there was a play off system, what if the 8th placed club had a really good run in the play offs?

GF at OT and the lower final at bolton, blackburn or leeds.

obviously this could reduce GF sales but the league could do a deal, by one get one half price kind of thing

not sure if it would work but it could be an idea.

you heard it here first

Wouldnt work in a million years. Fans from the lower half of the draw would get sick of only playing the other teams in the bottom half and never getting to travel to places like Wigan, Warrington, Leeds etc. Which is why all of the lower sides want to be in the top flight, to compete against the better sides. Look at all those Widnes fans immediately after their license announcement yesterday, one of the 1st things they mentioned was they couldnt wait to be mixing it with the big teams again. Huge disappointment if all they got was 3 games a year against Salford, Cas, Crusaders etc.

The bit in bold, I like how you have come up with a system and then are questioning yourself how it would work

each team would play every team in the whole system twice. resulting in 31 games a year

I tell you what, this post is an absolute farce. Stick Wakefield in the championship for 3 years plus and we will see about those bigger crowds and academy, because I recall our academy teams were beating all the super league teams last season and our crowds were 500+ greater per game than anyone elses in the division. It's not actually that easy to get the crowds in in the championship, so the chances of us beating an established SL team are effectively zero. Our away fan contingent is usually roughly 50 people, and fans are not as attracted to games against Batley as they would be Wigan.

It's about potential, being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being consigned to the championship should not be a death sentence. We've earned our place at the top table and Wakefield will have no one to blame but themselves.

I think you'll find of us, myself included, agreeing with that - it's only one or two people agreeing with the OP.