With all the commotion recently about P&R/franchising etc, here's another model of Super League I believe would be a better form of franchising, and league setup

Group A
Leeds
Bradford
Huddersfield
Halifax
Sheffield

Group B
Castleford
Wakefield
Featherstone
Hull FC
Hull KR

Super League West

Group A
Wigan
St Helens
Warrington
Widnes
Catalan

Group B
Salford
Leigh
North Wales
Cumbria
London

League format
Teams play each member of the conference they're in three times (12 games) and have 3 bye weeks, they also play two teams home and away from each of the three remaining divisions (12 games) the teams rotate on an annual basis.

Playoffs
The top two teams from each conference go through to the end of season playoffs and will be seeded as suchWeek 1
#1 v #4
#2 v #3

Week 2
1 - Winner v Winner
2 - Loser v Loser

Week 3
Grand final: winner of East v winner of West
3rd place playoff: winner of game #2 in the East v winner of game #2 in the West

Challenge Cup format remains the same.

Bit flawed given that Super League B is considerably weaker, therefore, meaning that by rights the teams in the other division could argue that they're missing out on play-offs by virtue of that fact.

It would also mean the East would have better teams going to the playoffs coming from a tougher division

The problem is there just aren't enough teams from the west to balance it, the only possible way would be to swap London for a team like Huddersfield to even it up a little bit.

As for the groups within East/West they can be jumbled up whatever way you want to even them up.

Also you mention that the top two teams from each conference go through to play-offs then proceed to go ahead with only four teams....?

Nope, still 8 teams but it's split up so the East & West stay apart until the final, a breakdown of the playoffs would be like:

#1 East v #4 East
#1 West v #4 West
#2 East v #3 East
#2 West v #3 West

Then week 2 follows along the same lines.

I did propose a similar idea a year or so back but it was more for a State of Origin game for Easts v Wests.

That could be incorporated in too as an all-star game in the middle of the season (or even a best of 3 series) with the best players from each division playing against each other in those games.

I'd go back to promotion and relegation rugby as it was pre 96 tomorrow!!

Some say that it was a dieing game back then, however with the changes that have taken place to the media sources and resources in each of our lives ...and the marketing possibilities that new media now presents, but didn't back then....I think that it would thrive now.

There is nothing like the excitement and passion that comes from promotion and relegation. Using football as an example, even non-supporters get involved and interested for the last 2 or 3 promotion or relegation games that decide a season. New supporters also come out of the woodwork to support a newly promoted team. For me SL is becoming a bit sterile and needs new blood, new ideas and perhaps even a new format. However the more each team steps into debt in the SL realm the more their desire to be locked 'in' rather than 'out' so that they have a better chance of being able to carry the debt. But is having an ability to continue operating with a growing debt really the foundations of a success story...or failure with a fancy name??

Promotion & relegation doesn't work in RL because for one thing the RFL are too incompetent to do it properly, the lower league is part time and the step up to full time usually results in being relegated straight away again and get themselves into financial trouble overpaying for average players just to get some Super League level players.

As for teams getting into financial difficulty now, that's just down to bad management of the club, if they didn't overspend they wouldn't have got into a mess. Signing a stupid sponsorship deal that doesn't pay a penny doesn't help either.

I see what you are saying Gronk, but what's wrong with extending a 2 or 3 year safety net to the promoted team just as was selectively given to Catalan?

That would be unfair and would still have elements of franchising involved, if you have P&R it should be the same rules for everyone.

Unfortunately, the RFL are incapable of doing that, just for example say Wigan finish bottom of SL and Keighley win the Championship - the RFL would do anything they can to make sure Wigan stay up.

If the Championship was full time, had a higher salary cap and could produce a higher quality of players on a more consistent basis then P&R could work again but until then the American/NRL style of franchising is really the only viable option and not the selective P&R lottery the RFL are running now.

I think 3 year licensing is positive, becuase it stops short term gambling and financial idiocy (or should - Crusaders, London, Wakey, Bradford) I resent the fact that you can actually benefit in some instances from the club going in to administration and newco being debt free, particularly if you dont own your own ground, it is unfair - so that should be an automatic out - but like Widnes you can make your case to come back.

I think it would be better if franchising and grading was much more simple and transparent and incorporated an aggregate grading for league position over the years.

I think the "Conference" idea is the way forward but I would suggest two conferences based on the previous year's league positions: 1st, 3rd, 5th etc in one conference, 2nd, 4th, 6th etc in the other. This would make each conference roughly of equal strength and the numbers would be flexible enough to allow new "franchises" (local or in development areas) whenever they were deemed ready without necessarily needing to chop an established club to make way for them-unless a club is perennially failing.

How about 12 teams. I up, 1 down. You come up regardless of facilities, subject only to a minimum capacity. Everyone deserves their place in the sun.

I'd go with that one.