Coming at this as a SL newbie and a football fan for 20+ years (and recently experienced relegation with my team) the idea is / will be that it is the worst of the SL v the best of the Championship. If the worst of the SL end up coming out on top v the best of the Champ, then they stay in the SL and it suggests the league would be weaker with the Champ teams.

If the Champ teams finish above the SL teams, that suggests they are better and thus (in theory) the league will be stronger next time. The relegated SL team will have seen they are worse than the best Champ teams and thus what they need to improve / develop to come in the top 4 of the Champ and then beat the (now SL) former Champ teams (or whoever else ends up bottom 4 in the SL the next year).

I appreciate premier league / championship football and SL / Champ rugby league are worlds apart in terms of money, coverage and support - but the likes of London, Widnes, Wakey and others have been poor with little ability to improve (due to finances, bad luck, management or whatever) but ultimately remain in the SL year after year. Conversely, teams consistently doing well in Champ have their progression halted as they can't go any further.

This happened a few years ago to my non-league home-town football team - they walked their league easily a couple of years consecutively but then couldn't go up because of not meeting ground requirements. They then made effort to meet requirements, but then didn't do as well (for whatever reason) and then their owner pulled out and they had no senior players. My point is at the time they were upwardly mobile, they could not progress any higher due to non-playing reasons. Players moved to other teams higher up the non-league ladder as it was the only way to play higher. The whole thing then went belly-up as the new sponsors pulled out days before the season so the club had lost the money it used to fund the staff.

The system will favour the four SL teams, but then the Champ teams (having won more than lost and presumably played well to be top 4) will have more momentum and belief and as i say, if they can't beat the worst of the SL at the end of good seasons, at least then they can hopefully identify what to improve and try again next year.

I know for some it could mean years of 'yo-yo-ing' between two leagues but the idea should be that each time they go up they improve a tiny bit more; then if they go back to Champ, they have a bit better team than when they last went up and so theoretically should come top-four and have a chance to go up again.

Rather than 8 good teams, 6 treading water and the however many are in the Champ unable to go up regardless of how amazing they are - you will end up with maybe 8 good teams still, maybe 8 teams across two leagues who are continually jostling to get better (whatever league they are in in any given year) and then 8 teams who are trying to put themselves in position to play against SL teams at the end of the year to see how far away they are from possibly challenging them for promotion to SL.

It should also mean a bit more money in / around the Champ as there becomes a point to it - even if Sky only showed Champ games after the split, it'd be more coverage (and consistently) than now. Hell, i know i would watch on if it was there to watch.

By no means will it solve things quickly and yeah, one or two may run the risk of winding up, but those teams are / have been treading water to stand still in SL.

It is possible that maybe i have got it totally wrong and am very naive / ignorant to the position RL finds itself in, in which case i expect to read some chastising comments!

So the new system might well mean - Wigan v Leeds twice in regular season then maybe once at the Magic Weekend. We could easily meet in the cup then as the league is cut to eight we meet again. Then again in the playoffs. That's six games - in just one season - with at least 4 games most seasons. To me diluting the product in this way isn't the way to improve the product. Attendances will suffer as a consequence.

In 2011 Wigan played Saints 6 times (2 league/1 MW/1 CC/2 playoffs) and by the time the first playoff game was played at the DW the crowd was just 12,000 for a game that regularly pulls in 23,000.

Variety is the spice of life. I really don't want to see us play Leeds/Wire/Saints 4 or 5 times a season, and I don't believe that the RL public do either. This new system makes it more likely that we will see each other rather too regularly (much as I love you all!)

For a club like Leeds, this system works. For anyone else, it doesn't.

If you are relatively confident that you'll always be in the top eight, fantastic. The gap between you and the lower portion of the league increases every season. Whilst the top clubs have the intensity of playing each other, whilst they cream the chunk of the prize money, the commercial revenue and can retain and recruit the best players, the rest will get dragged further and further to the bottom by playing the lowest common denominator.

The Championship clubs wanted this because they want an opportunity at Super League. In five years time, we'll see the same clubs arguing that they can't break into the top eight because the likes of Wigan, Leeds, Warrington, St Helens, Huddersfield, Hull, Catalans and Salford are too far away from them and that "SL1" is effectively a closed shop.

It's time to stop letting the tail wag the dog.

Not the answer this for me but I'm up for seeing how it goes and will be quite interested to how it all unfolds. I think the only thing that's right with this is the reduced number of teams. It remains to be seen what else may be right with it furhter down the line.

This.

The Championship clubs won't be happy until they get a return to automatic P&R for the Championship winners. I expect that in another three years, after the same four teams have consistently finished in the bottom places in SL yet stayed in thanks to the playoffs, they'll be back bleating again about how the system is stacked against them.

If they devoted as much time to trying to improve themselves as they do bitching about how everything is stacked against them, there would be more of a case for automatic P&R. Yet they remain too blind to see it.

But this is not set in stone. Often (in a range of sports) there is at least one team or other that does better than people expect and gets 'among the big boys'. The 'rich' in RL aren't swimming in cash - no-one has any money. I'd argue that in the Premier League the gap between 'big boys' and 'the rest' is a lot bigger, but most years at least one of 'the rest' gets among them.

Look at it from the perspective of likely top eight teams - each year more that you come there, the more pressure the next to stay there. True, i think this will be a non-issue for a long while at least for the likes of Leeds, Wire and Wigan, but the more the whole system is weighted towards coming top, the more pressure for all - whatever position they are fighting for. Leeds, Wire and Wigan will be under more pressure to come top as later down the line it puts them in a stronger position. Conversely, it puts them under more pressure not to slip and finish say 5th or 6th one year as they will be more up against it. Those who will currently be treading water in 9th or 10th have some impetus - they need to strive for 8th as it means they don't then have to do a mini-league to stay in the SL. Sure, you may get spanked every week as you play the 7 above you but alternatively, there is no danger of relegation and it is a chance to play free of fear (and consequence, almost) against the top teams. Who knows, you may shock a few and end up having a chance of making the truncated playoffs.

Not sure I agree. Personally, I can see a situation where you have two very different types of clubs.

On the one hand, you'll have those clubs that prepare themselves for a top eight play-off - and will plan their squad and their season around getting into and competing in the top eight and the play-offs.

On the other hand, you will have clubs that prepare themselves for a relegation battle and put all of their efforts into building a team that can win seven games at the end of the season. They'll do that because, quite frankly, it is all that they can afford to do.

Yes, you may have a team that can surprise themselves and sneak into the eight, but the problem is that they'll be up against an elite group that is considerably better than them both on and off the field.

The problems in the game were never anything to do with league structures. They were to do with a lack of revenue, poorly run clubs and an overstretched talent pool. This new structure might get close to addressing the latter, but is miles away from addressing the other two.

We shouldn't be promoting clubs purely because they're "about the same" as the club they're replacing. Despite what the championship clubs told you, Super League was never a closed shop. It was just that during the time that we had licencing, only Widnes could demonstrate that their inclusion would improve the Super League.

But if they have come high enough up the eight teams to be promoted (and thus above SL teams) that season they were better than the team they will have replaced. Admittedly they may not be much better but over the season in their respective leagues plus the final 7 games pooled together they were better as they finished higher up.

League tables are about the fairest way to decide who can and cannot improve SL, rather than sales pitches and portfolio presentations to the ruling bodies. I understand that is not the way SL has been in the time i have been following it.

I agree with much of the rest of what you said and it is good to learn more about rugby league / the SL as a whole, which i am slowly doing, the more time passes on these boards. So thanks!

I need help in this new proposed format.

First 23 rounds normal league yes understand
Spilt into 3 leagues of 8 yes understand

Points carried over into mini league EH

Semis are 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 like old premiership format

The league points from last season had 4th place Wigan with 35 points, 5th place saints had 31 points. so therefore teams in position 5 to 8 can not qualify.

Have the play-off formats been confirmed? Missed that.

Does the Scottish Premier League still do a mid-season split? Never seemed that popular there, and never altered the dominance of the Old Firm in the slightest either.

Still not sure about this. Proof of the pudding will, doubtless be in the eating. Presumably with a 4 team play-off, the hope is that the top 8 mini league will provide matches of sufficient intensity. So long as 4-5 teams aren't miles out in front at the split. In which case the current play-off conundrum of having teams in there making up the numbers and resultant low intensity games persists. Only this time there's every chance that 8th place will just spend a full third of the season getting their backsides handed to them every week.

They can if Saints won all there 7 games, and Wigan lost three of theirs. But you have spotted the flaw. The reality is that those 7 games become meaningless for half of the top 8, which takes away the intensity at a period in the season when it matters most, leaving less momentum for the premier game, the GF.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "half of the top 8" but certainly teams in 7th & 8th. Leeds themselves were 5th after 22 rounds in 2010 and moved up to 4th with Hull slipping down to 6th so they can be change.

The problem is any system used is going to have some meaningless games really. But the current system saw those sort of middle teams (Hull, KR, Catalans) happy to be top 8. Now that's not good enough if they want success, they have to aim top 4. If they don't want to be stuck in a situation where they stand no chance as soon as the mini-league period kicks in then they'll just have to play better and not find themselves too far adrift. If they are they should be the ones to blame, no one else.

This system isn't without it's flaws, but neither is any alternative. The success of it will lay really with how matches pan out in that 'middle' division of 4 'relegated' SL teams and 4 'promoted' Championship teams.

I'm not really sure whether this system will be successful, but I also don't think it'll be the "disaster", "death of the sport" that I've already heard from some people about it.

One issue I think will rear its head is the organisation of the additional 7 fixtures. Only until the 22nd Round will organisers know for sure who'll be in what league and who has the extra home game. They then have to quickly organise the fixtures and that won't be straight forward with some clubs sharing with football teams and it's even taken them a couple of days before to fully confirm playoff games on correct dates, so if they struggle planning 4 games how are they going to do with 3 mini-leagues to plan.

The new structure seems to be a tacit admission that we've only got about 8 clubs - perhaps fewer - that can afford to spend up to the cap without incurring unsustainable losses. A gradual falling away of the remainder of SL was probably inevitable whichever structure we went with. As an interim measure aimed at reducing losses I reckon the new structure may be useful. Beyond that I'd hope for a return to something more traditional, particularly if it symbolises a situation where 10 or 12 clubs are financially viable off the field and competitive on it.

If anyone is bothered about what the players think I thought I'd just add this - www.leaguethirteen.co.uk/news/2013/10/13/21 In particular - "We opposed the preferred restructure option in our formal written submission to the RFL dated the 5 September 2013. We repeat our comment that the option favoured by the RFL, which includes the three x 8 league split, is an option which has clear, identifiable barriers to success and is an option whose basis was rejected by the Scottish FA and experimented with by the Swiss FA and ultimately rejected. The proposed changes give us severe concerns with regard to player safety and welfare given that the preferred option contains a requirement for players to play more games; this coming not long after a mantra from on high about players should play fewer games to give the national team a better chance to beat the Aussies. We have asked the RFL to undertake a thorough piece of research on the impact of increased workload on players" Unless minds have been changed recently of Damascene proportions, I think that puts the case against the new system pretty clearly.

If anyone is bothered about what the players think I thought I'd just add this - www.leaguethirteen.co.uk/news/2013/10/13/21 In particular - "We opposed the preferred restructure option in our formal written submission to the RFL dated the 5 September 2013. We repeat our comment that the option favoured by the RFL, which includes the three x 8 league split, is an option which has clear, identifiable barriers to success and is an option whose basis was rejected by the Scottish FA and experimented with by the Swiss FA and ultimately rejected. The proposed changes give us severe concerns with regard to player safety and welfare given that the preferred option contains a requirement for players to play more games; this coming not long after a mantra from on high about players should play fewer games to give the national team a better chance to beat the Aussies. We have asked the RFL to undertake a thorough piece of research on the impact of increased workload on players" Unless minds have been changed recently of Damascene proportions, I think that puts the case against the new system pretty clearly.