this has been hinted on in various threads so i thought it was time for it to be aired properly.
for me 14 teams are too many. the players play too many games and a lot of them lack intensity and are, to be honest,dull.

i propose a 11 team SL. this means 10 home games per team and a couple of weeks off through the season.
there would be a 5 team play off.
the there would be a 10 or 11 team second tier with promotion and relegation to ensure every game mattered.
the likes of castleford,wakefield,salford,widnes joining halifax and fev should ensure a very good second tier and properly prepare teams for the top tier should they go up.

playing wise this can benefit not only the the international game but the domestic game which, quite frankly,dying on its feet this season.

the big problem is funding and its this that would be a major stumbling block.

any thoughts?

Prefer a 12 team league and do away with the challenge cup. And have top 6 play off.

Tinkering with the format of the competition will not help us beat the Aussies. We've been tinkering for years. Better coaching and increasing the player pool will help us beat the Aussies.

The game is on it's backside in many respects. Many clubs are in a dire financial state. Removing fixtures will not help that.

Nor will removing two clubs magically be the fix to a more intense competition. Why would removing London and Widnes, for example, make Salford and Castleford suddenly challenge for a playoff place?

We play the Aussies a couple of times every odd year or so. Right now, in the current climate, of greater concern, is the survival of many of the clubs. Crucial to that is the next naming rights package and the next broadcasting deal coming up. With that in mind educing the size of the league right now would be financial suicide.

Your suggestion bankrupts the game

The RFL has a size-able profit. It's been used recently to save a few of it's member clubs and may be needed to save a few more.

How much do you think the nationally broadcast Challenge Cup contributes to that?

For me promotion & relegation are key to developing the game.

I think a formula needs to be devised so that a club promoted can have a minimum of 2 years in SL, how to work that formula out is a difficult one though, it could in effect mean that the team finishing 3rd from bottom could end up relegated.

Now that would add to the mix.

the helping of the international game is only there because of increased intensity every week.its not designed for that specifically.
i fully agree losing three home games isn't ideal but neither is watching a lot of the rubbish we do now. everyone knows who the top 5 will be before the season starts, its just a case of who finishes where. attendances are falling. something needs to be done

Are they?

I agree something needs to be done but fewer fixtures would be suicide right now.

Things are very, very difficult right now for many clubs. Many are probably focused on existing in 18 months time rather than challenging for trophies.

It's not ideal but it's the harsh reality.

Are attendances actually falling? I haven't really been looking but I seem to have spotted quite a few decent crowd figures knocking around when I've read other clubs' match reports.

Attendances aren't falling, and neither are viewing figures.

All these 36-32 games certainly aren't my idea of great Rugby League, but the figures suggest that others, probably of a younger generation, seem to like it.

There are financial problems in the sport, but how much of that is down to bad management within individual clubs and how much to the overall sustainability of the league's structure debatable.

rlI've been saying as much since February.rl

There is no way we can sustain clubs on 9 or 10 home games per year.
And just putting the bottom 4 SL teams into the 2nd division doesn't suddenly mean that division can be a full time division. All that would do is financially harm 4 clubs.

I think a 14-team league is fine, in fact I'd be just as happy with a 16-team league if 2 other clubs are deemed good enough.

As G1 says tinkering with the league won't suddenly make the league more competitive. What we need is better coaching and attitudes at amateur level, plus a far better system for u20's to play regularly in. The DR system has helped but appears to be either under-used or not appealing to many clubs.
I would have a 14 team league, the same number of rounds, put the SL teams into the cup earlier but maybe limit the amount of SL rounds and cup games that England players are allowed to play. All that reducing the league does is reduce the income of clubs and reduce the pathways and development opportunities for young players.

In an ideal world i agree Tad but as G says its the ££££ implications make it a no go.
For me id go back to promotion and relegation and have a top 6 p/o have SL clubs enter the CC 1 round later but start the tv coverage the rd before so the lower league teams left get some ££££ with a favourable draw.
I'd ditch the Magic Weekend and make that the Exiles game fixture with the knights taking on France and Ireland v Wales and Scotland taking on a European Qualifier on the same day.
The P/O format would see a straight knock out and the team finishing top 1 game away from the GF.

Some rumours I heard last night are that the RFL are adamant that Super League will remain at 14 teams and P&R will be returning.

^ Any idea when this might start?

Reason I ask is that if and only if Bradford go into C1 at the end of this season gives them a spring board back to SL quite soon.

Nice bit of work there, keeps those fans ( wakey widnes etc ) happy that some thing has seen to be done and then allows the Bulls to return to SL.

I don't know but your scenario does seem very convenient for all involved.