I think we should have P&R, and the promoted team should be given a Seasons grace to try and get established. By the time a team gets promoted ,all the best players have gone, so whatever recruitment they do get, they will be weak from the off, hence the continuing yoyoing.

I don't disagree with that but I think it needs to go further as the longevity of a club (given the nature of our sport, funding etc) needs to be on a more sustainable basis than scraping enough wins together in one season to stay up. Licensing, if done well, is the way to go.

Our sport simply doesn’t have the finances or participation to handle P&R, it can and does ruin clubs on an annual basis.

We need to return to licensing, with clear transparent criteria, and without a cap on the number of clubs that can participate in the top division.

It’s the only way to attract the long term investment required to make clubs viable in the long term. Anything else is pandering to failures.

I think the only way to have sustainable P&R is through having 2 tiers of Super League (perhaps 2 leagues of 10). The funding would need to be there for all clubs to be full time working to the same cap and squad structure. The clubs should be encouraged to produce their own players with exemptions against the cap to stop them filling their squads with journeymen. But all this couldn't happen within a fee years, it would have to be a long term plan based on having good sponsorship for the league, and broadcasting deals. But that doesn't come without a good product to start with. So having the 12 year contract in place with IMG makes sense.

Too often the league have looked at the next 3 years and that's it. So then at the end of that period, when things haven't changed, they try something new again. It all needs road mapping so clubs and potential sponsors can see where the game is going.

if we promote leigh and have p and r then leigh and Toulouse will swop places for the next few seasons.
having a 3 year franchise, for want of a better word, also gives championship sides time to grow

Two leagues of 10 would involve horrendous amounts of loop fixtures though, unless there were some creative cross-division games but they would likely be lopsided. Even if nominally SL the lower league will have less funding so you'd also be sending two SL clubs down, with all the financial and squad retention implications of that.

FWIW I think IMG have focussed on entirely the wrong area, or at least media reporting of it has focussed on the wrong area. Whilst yo/yo clubs are clearly a bit of an issue the structure of the game simply isn't the main problem we face. How the sport and its players are promoted, how local communities are re-engaged with Rugby League, how confidence in and of the sport is rebuilt after quite a long malaise etc. These are the areas of real importance. We've been through enough structure changes over many years that show that they are never the positive revolution they are sold as. In fact constantly changing is one of the problems that has led to where we are: it has given off the impression of a sport adrift, unsure of what to do, unstable and potentially contrived.

A 12 team top flight is perfectly fine, one up one down likewise. The people in charge have historically reached for changes in structure as a lever to pull precisely because it's the easiest route to follow. Sadly it looks initially like IMG are going down the same route, hoping that ill-thought out changes in league structure or top flight criteria will be the golden shot instead of actually focussing on the important but more difficult things. I suspect more of the latter is happening in the background but going in big with this proto-licencing doesn't fill me with much confidence.

In fairness, if they are going to do a total rebrand then they are going to have to do some things differently. But as is so often the case, any changes are hardly going to be radical if they're to get the backing of the clubs. But the club's might be in for a nasty wake up. IMG will take their slice regardless of whether the game's income is transformed. More changes to come yet, I feel, regardless of what gets voted in initially.

I MG clearly trying to change the perception of the game, its look, its brand, its style. A good starting point.

Rugby League, or its leaders, don't feel the game is worth anything. There's no razzmatazz. There's no hype. No build up. People in power just don't think the game is worth it.

IMG will hopefully change that. Create drama, create hype, in the age of social media clubs, players, coaches, journalists should all be trying to make a big deal out of anything they can. This week's narrative, today's news, tomorrow's chip wrap.

Good post. agreed.

It depends on when the current deal runs to. Not as important at the moment if there's 2/3 years left on the deal

The proposals have been agreed by all but 5 clubs, and will be introduced from the start of 2024.

IMG must be thrilled to hear Sam Tomkins say Owen Farrell would have been the best player in SL for each of the last 10 years. Way to promote the sport, Sam!