Does anyone know what prize money the the RFL award super league winners, (Hudd. Giants) compared to S.L. play off winners.

They get nowt. Prize money is determined by playoff results only.

It's over 15 years since the play offs were reintroduced to British RL, yet some still don't realize that the Super League winners are the team which wins the Grand Final. Unreal.

So does any one actually know how the money is awarded?

Do the winners get £x, Runners Up £y, 3rd/4th £z etc?

And how is the attendance money split? Is it the total of all games between the 8 clubs, or is it split by Round between each of the clubs competing in each round. i.e Will Les Cats only get 1/8 of the First Round games?

That's probably because people can't believe how stupid the system is.

Some of us still think the team who finish top after 27 rounds are the champion team regardless of the [delpremiership[/delGrand final winners

Well you'd be wrong, check the rules.

League leader should automatically go to Grand Final

RL has traditionally decided the champions via playoffs. The 'top of the league' system was a relatively short-lived diversion.

Some people still believe in Santa. Doesn't make him real.

Really ? When was the last time that the title winners were decided by a play off before Superleague implemented the system ?

I'm a traditionalist at heart and hold firm the belief that the team that finishes the league with the most points should be crowned the champions. I used to like the Premiership play off. If it was reinstated, it becomes the third genuine trophy up for grabs in a season. I say genuine trophy as the league leaders shield is Mickey Mouse silverware in my opinion.

Can you spot any problem with that?

Going straight to the final would seem to be a worthy prize for the seasons most consistent team. However, having three of four weeks off whilst the other contenders fight through the play offs might be a problem !! Or you just have three teams vying for the GF; winner straight to final, 2nd & 3rd place play off for the other final berth. None of it is perfect which is why we should revert to league winners and play offs being separate competitions.

Playoffs of one type or another were used from around 1905 to around 1974 IIRC. The Premiership was only in use between 1975 and the creation of SL in 1996.

So that's 21 years for top-of-the-league and a grand total of around 84 years for playoffs.

Apart from a couple of spells of two divisions, every season up to 1973-74.

Apparently not. Unless you only count tradition as going back to the 70's.

Think it was just two seasons as two divisions in the 60's.

Some of the early league structures were more complicated than anything SL has come up with yet. Although next season could well change that.

9 play off games means more money off sky, when you can find a away to cover that send it to the RFL.

Apparently yes Kosh, as I do count going back to the 70s as being traditional. Nice to see such sarcasm from a Mod.

Last time I checked, sarcasm wasn't against the AUP. And given the tone of some of your posts on here - not least the one I responded to - you might want to take your own advice.

That's correct, however in all of those years teams did not play each other home and away, due to there being too many teams in the league and geographic location of the teams, so the only option in those days was a playoff to decide.
It is now different and the sensible option would be to crown the league leaders champions and then have a championship playoff for the super league cup.

But we don't.

The British public see the Premier league and football as the norm.