How would fewer games affect sky ? they only show 2 a week anyway, in fact it would probably allow other teams to be shown more instead of the same teams all the time which presently happens.
We struggle with crowds in cup games because our form in recent years in Cup games has been dire. If we progressed in a cup so would our crowds imo

What sort of team would clubs select for midweek games given that they could be playing Sunday/Wednesday/Friday? Plus the attendances would be pitiful.

The days of County Cups, a secondary cup comp, Challenge Cup and forty games a season are long gone.

I would probably send Castleford & Widnes out, with Wakefield and Salford staying it, I think both clubs are on the up.

If they was to be 4 going out it would be;

Castleford
Widnes
Wakefield/Salford
London

I would try and go back to the top 6, with relegation aswell.

I would like rovers to be in the superleague purely for the benefit of the city, as we are the only true derby in rugby league.

I cannot see rovers being threatened by the new franchise/licensing.

Lewis

They wouldn't bin both Wakey and Cas. If it went to 10, I'd reckon
Wigan
Saints
Warrington
Leeds
Bradford
Hull
London
Catalans
Huddersfield
Wakefield/Cas

But it won't. So add back Rovers and Salford for 12.

I agree, I didn't think about the whole "clubs within certain radius".

The castleford/wakefield is like a local derby to them, take 2 of them clubs out, and there's only 3/4 yorkshire clubs left, Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield.

Yeah but you would'nt have 40 games a season would you?. With a reduced league to 12 teams you lose 4 games. A extra cup comp would in some way make up those lost games. Even if you were knocked out say in the first round at least that club would of had a extra game.

How about two pro leagues of 12 clubs. (22 fixtures)
Money split 66:33 between the two to fund mainly full time squads for the lower tier.
Clubs made up of current 14, 8 from Championships who meet criteria plus 2 French clubs (with aim to expand to more). French TV hopefully get on board then with a bigger paying contract.

Expand the World Club Challenge to top four from SL and NRL. Two groups of four. Play each other once + a final. (4 fixtures)

The rest enter the first round of the Challenge Cup (played at the same time as the WCC), which would now be a group stage. Six groups of six (36 clubs), made up of the remaining 20 pro clubs, 3 French qualifiers and 13 Championship/Conference qualifiers. Starts 1 week before the WCC (kicks off the season). Play teams in your group once (a draw determines home advantage in each group). Top two qualify for second round. (5 fixtures)
Round 2 all played at Cardiff on May Day BH weekend, featuring 4 WCC competitors and 12 qualifiers.
Quarter Final played on same day at Eithad Stadium first Saturday of June.
Semi Final played as a double header at Elland Road in middle of July.
Final at Wembley on Summer BH. (4 fixtures)

3 match series mid-season vs NZ.
3 match series post-season vs Aus.
Games against European nations when over here, against Pacific Nations when over there.

I liked the old competitions as well, but for a variety of reasons (mostly economic) they just wouldn't be feasible now.

There is some reason to believe that Sky encouraged the expansion to 14 teams and the larger play off series that results. I think it would be problematic to go back to a 12 team league and keep the same TV deal, but not out of the question. A bigger stumbling block might be getting enough votes to do it. The size of SL is determined by the clubs and they're going to vote in line with their own interests. Any club that feels at risk is going to vote for 14 teams.

I agree with most of what your saying but when you have teams like Bradford hanging on trying to survive by the skin of their teeth, and most other teams struggling with there finances is 14 teams working anyway?. It has it's pros and cons and i guess if you don't try 12 teams then you will never know what the outcome will be.

Wonder where this is going? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18944832

Wonder where this is going? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18944832

Quote ="Wildmoose"Wonder where this is going? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18944832'" Mmmmm intresting.

Quote ="Wildmoose"Wonder where this is going? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18944832'" Mmmmm intresting.

Because the season would cover less weeks, therefore they get fewer games.

I'd keep any club that are capable of at LEAST spending to current cap levels.

This includes London and Widnes, i think in 5 years time Widnes will be a very different kettle of fish to this current team.

I actually agree with the idea of going back to 12 teams, and I'm pretty sure it's being discussed. It's not going to be easy to do though.

Fewer clubs = fewer games = shorter season. In other words Sky are getting less 'product' for their money.

[iEveryone[/i struggles with crowds in cup games, not just us. There's an overall drop in the number of people willing to pay to see cup games right across the sport.

Pretty sure the idea would be to replace the league games with some kind of other comp and include the games in the season pass price

But 12 teams HAS been tried. We do know the outcome.

I don't necessarily believe 14 teams is unmanageable. At the moment, there aren't the players to go around, but that doesn't mean there won't be in a few years. This will ALWAYS be an issue when you expand a competition. If we went from 14 to 10 and then up to 12, people would still say there isn't enough to go around. There's a balancing-out period when you add more clubs.

I think any reduction in the top league's size must be complimented with strengthening the league below, otherwise it's a backwards step.

That could work if enough resource was put behind promotion of the additional comp. Difficult to see a compelling concept that would slot in though.

Disagree.

Yes they may be less games - but number of televised games on SKY need not change, so the SKY deal would remain.

In fact is there an argument to say the SKY deal might be better?
With less teams, player resource isnt as stretched, so teams will be stronger, meaning televised games will be better?

I mean who wants to watch London v Wakefield? When actually you could get an extra Saints v Wigan for example? (If they play 3 times).

I reckon SKY would be well up for showing more top games than having to cover games like London Wakey that nobody hardly watches.
Can attract much more advertising for bigger games.



10 teams - play each other 3 times, with the 3rd game home advantage being decided by who scored the most tries in the first games (promotes attacking rugby).
Keep the challenge cup and the just have GF play off at the end, 10th plays 1st, 9th plays 2nd etc until GF.

And I still think a State of Origin series is a good call too. Maybe a pre season event warm up?

Just replying to the pointless post by the bitter Hull fan,another thing Hull KR are big money to RFL and SKY and will be in the mix for any future changes to the game .

SAY WE ARE HULL KR !

We tried playing odd numbers of games to fill out the season before. Nobody liked it, and it makes a mockery of the league table. I like the idea of an additional competition to be included in season passes better.


Far too gimmicky for my liking.


There are enough complaints now that a team that finishes in the bottom half of the table has a shot at winning the GF. Can you imaging the outcry if the team that actually finished last could win it? That really would make RL a laughing stock.


How do you organise that? If your talking about Yorks vs Lancs we tried that and nobody watched it. Plus it eliminates players from London, France, Wales, Cumbria, etc.

you believe that, you're even more deluded than the average KR fan, you wouldn't be missed, will you get 10k tomorrow night for your home cup final?

I couldn't give a monkey's if he was just referring to the last 5 seasons, thats selective memory syndrome all over. Why limit it to 5 seasons. That rovers had such a poor team for over a decade before that, does that get ignored?

Of course there are about 5500 "new" rovers fans to whom this will be the case as prior to 2007 rovers gates hovered around the 2500 mark.

It speaks volumes of a clubs ambition when its simply to finish about your bigger rival rather than actually challenge for anything. Rovers small club attitude is their biggest problem, which stems from the top of their managemtn structure.

HTH

In what way? Aren't your gates are lower than Wakefield's?



Still, Hudgell's a big favourite at Red Hall with his programme notes, should stand him in good stead.