Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
It did not work last time and it won't work ever this is not American football and the USA with mega cities.
The system lends itself to decisions being made on personal preferences by a few behind closed doors and this can be corrupt.

Yeah but having a system where there are massive funding differences doesn't work either.

Top team in Div 2 gets £800k, bottom team gets ten bob. How does that fund a good, strong, even competition?

And, looking at the Eights, why is the focus on always on the middle eight ? Because there's not really all that much at stake in the other two eights. Cas and Toulouse already confirmed as leaders, most of the other places are pretty much settled. Just that fourth place in the $uperleague top four and the second relegation place from Div 2 are providing any interest at all for the next month.

Add to that the games are organised at ten minutes notice, folk are on holiday in August - crowds are poor. Twelves and Eights working? Not really.

It'll be even worse if the wrong teams get relegated. There'll be a huge pressure on the part-timers if we have Toronto, Toulouse and Catalan in Div 2 next year.

Agree with you Griff, where is our great game going to.How many more teams, who have virtually no away following due to the distance they have to travel going to be fast tracked at the expense of the heartland clubs. It's farcical.

That wasn't quite my point.

I don't mind having these teams in our competition. But I don't think it's practical to have them play part-timers. The York match last year, when they turned up with 12 players should've rung massive alarm bells.

Away support shouldn't be the issue. How many supporters travel from Hartlepool to Torquay ? Or Stranraer to Elgin ? Or Townsville to Melbourne ? Clubs need to develop their own home support. Away support should be a bonus.

At the risk of repeating myself, what's up with top goes up, bottom goes down? Sportsman, shudds. Mallinsons Centennial 3.9% Mmm!

The wrong teams going up or down.

Accepted, but it's got to be better/fairer than the present system. It just goes to show the massive gap that's been allowed to emerge since the SL era started.

Whatever system is used must allow teams a chance to progress.
Using Leigh as the example they would have gone up with P&R or as they did with the eights because of DB and his money and it worked for them.
However would they have been awarded a place in SL under some form of licensing system?
It's an important question, because if the answer is no then with no chance of gaining a license under that type of system for teams outside SL then who would invest the sort of money DB did?
Nobody I would have thought, no chance to progress means no major investment and you either stay at the same level or go backwards.

Being a "yo-yo" club isn't necessarily a bad thing if you use the funding available intelligently. Promotion to SL means a lot more central funding than being in the Championship. Use it wisely, together with the income from bigger gates and sponsorship, but accept that you're likely to be bottom of the pile come the end of the season. You're now in a good position to boss the Championship and gain promotion again. Next time out you have some money in the bank to start with, and fans/players are getting used to you being a SL team / top Championship team. Repeat several times, carefully building your bank balance until you can compete successfully in SL.

Simplistic and probably naive I know, but it sounds good to me!

From memory I think it was the clubs who were being promoted that put forward the idea that they should be given a couple of seasons to consolidate with no danger of relegation.
Okay for them but not for the others that were left with no chance of progress.
To me one up one down is better than a closed shop but if a team like Leigh or HKR are so far ahead of the pack with several games to go there will be a lot of meaningless games as everyone else will have little to play for unless a tiered funding system is retained.
Whether it is one up and one down or an eights format the clubs who have a financial backer are the ones likely to go up and have a chance of staying up.
After that it's how you give the rest of the comp some meaning to attract fans and backers.

I would rather keep this system

Halifax v hull kr 8k ish attendance
Halifax v wire 8300 attendance

look at some the super 8s who are pulling in 2-5 k per game

This creates more interest and I would love to see the sky viewing figures.

The only thin what as annoyed me is no championship v championship on sky but we know what sky think of the championship

At the end of the day there is no perfect solution to this, possibly top up / bottom down and then 2nd bottom and 2-4 in a play-off system, it would be tough to get two teams up but the opportunity is there and Sky still get a bit of play-off action at the bottom of the table. Increase SL to 14 again and the number of games is potentially reduced or as near as it is now as they will still no doubt want the Magic weekend but at least you don't have 7 or possibly 8 games tagged on to the end of the season.
The current system works well in the middle but is pretty much dire at the other ends due to the team's keeping their points, how to get round that, whomthe hell knows?

You have to give clubs something they can aspire to or you just get mediocrity and stagnation. It may be twitchy bum time for SL clubs but for Championship clubs it's a big opportunity.

Under the pre SL system you got relegation but it was usually decided before the last game of the season so effectively clubs could plan for it. With "making every game count" there's less time for either side in the MPG to adjust to life in a new division.

As Norman says there's no perfect solution. You have to have some movement up and down.