It's the 3 X 8 that is the big problem.

I tried to have a word with Gary Hetherington at a recent Wigan v Leeds U19 game.
I asked him how was he going to sell the idea to season ticket holders if they didn't know who their team was playing or when, or how many home fixtures there would be even after the fixtures were released.

He wouldn't or couldn't answer.

It is a major problem. I, and suspect many other fans book their holidays around their clubs fixtures, but for the last seven weeks of the season (probably the main holiday season) no-one who would know who or when they were playing.

...so we hold back the clubs that are producing talent because the others either have no interest to do so or cannot raise the money?

If you look at the Euro limits its 2.20M Euros so the equivalent today in £'s is £1868325 at today's rates which is the figure more or less the RFL say we are at now.
Looks like a typo and they have only partially updated it?

Clubs who may want to run an "elite" academy and can afford to do so may not be given a choice.

Doesn't seem fair.

Society did not have democracy a few hundred years ago and not many if any country around the world were not using it..

Does not mean it's a bad idea just because no one else uses it.

I think Rouges is the only person I've seen come up with an actual issue with the system, rather than just feelings about it.

The season ticket is an arguement, but the number of games would be the same whether you are top or middle 8 and as far as I am aware, clubs don't price the season ticket based on the opposition.

There is a point that if you are in the bottom 4 then the season ticket is devalued, but then if you are in the top 4 of tier 2 your ticket is in effect enhanced.

It's a reason for certain and I can't argue it's invalid as we don't know. As has been pointed out it's never been tried. I just think it could open up SL a bit and give us more high intensity matches come season end. Less of the current system where the large majority of the league is treated by players, coaches and fans as a pre-season.

Hey I didn't say that is was perfect. The current issue with the salary cap at the moment is that it prevents a chairman investing large amounts of money in a club to get them back on level terms with the front runners. So the salary cap, which is designed to level the competition, actually guarantees that Leeds, Saints and Wigan always have a big advantage. Looking at football as an example, teams like Man City and Chelsea could not have bought their way to the top and instead Man Utd would have won the last 10 championships uncontested making the league more one sided than it actually is.

As a Saints fans who understands this I am all for the salary cap

However look at the teams that will benefit from the 100k rule. The biggest winner must be Leeds (which may be why Gary is not joining the revolt) Sinfield, Hall, Burrow and Maguire will all be on 100k plus which while give the Rhinos a lot more room on the cap. You would also think that players like Ward and Sutcliffe are also future high earners as well.

Saints and Wigan would have a chance to get former players back such as Tomkins and Graham if they were willing to offer big contracts. There would also be a chance for RU converts such as Eastmond and Ashton could be tempted back but they have burnt their bridges so they are unlikely. I doubt Wigan even rate Ashton enough to give him £100k

Warrington would not benefit as none of their high earners are club trained while Huddersfield only have Cudjoe. Catalan you would suspect also have no French high earners. Hull could offer Briscoe big money but Leeds have him on a 5 year deal and would want a fee. Everyone else doesn't spend to the cap anyway.

So this rule only benefits the three clubs that have won the most trophies in the full time era. So it is not really a rule change that is good for the "whole game" is it?

You're right (as usual ) the 3 x 8 is the problem and I assume that is why the revolt has only just happened as the clubs assumed it would not happen until now.

However I think the issue is that teams will be going bust because of this. You have to suspect that the current bottom 6 super league club that are all being run a losses could not handle dropping down into the championship. While the usual suspects in the Championship Fev, Leigh, Halifax are likely to bankrupt themselves trying to get promoted.

I fear that we could lose these 8 clubs leaving us with Bradford being the 8th biggest club and Whitehaven being the 9th. This structure change could kill the game in this country off.

However you feel this is all just noise to distract us from the mismanagement of the game from the RFL. The report is just a list of weak excuses.

Agreed just because its new doesn't make it bad, and it if goes only to be a generally accepted structure then great, and I'll hold my hand up and say I called it wrong. , Reintroducing promotion/relegation revalues the bottom four clubs and the fight for survival each year. And the top 4 of the championship can be need to be as competitive as possible for a chance of promotion. Don't forget, Huddersfield were relegated after years of finishing bottom, and it's not like they've been yoyoing ever since is it, in fact widnes, castleford, hull kr etc have all had promotion into the league and continue to be competitive.

I can't say xyz will definitely go wrong with it - yes season tickets is an obvious one, and I think under the proposed system well see a widening between the top 8 and the remaining 4 - is that worth the top 4 of the championship gaining on those clubs? The financial implications of the super league clubs missing out on the top 8 would be huge as well.

The way the current system needs to be changed - but that can be done by a top 5 playoff and p/r - why make it more complicated?

It's all a far cry from how I would like the SL to be, but my system would require more central control and the clubs taking far less in TV money.

But I did buy into the original idea that SL should expand. I think a huge amount of money and time has been wasted over the years of SL. We took all our advantage from the club game and money and spent 10-15 years throwing it all away on higher wages. Only to find other games RU follow us and surpass us.

The NRL was behind us for years on player wages and whilst we where celebrating in how we could spend more than them, they were busy running a tight ship, having fierce control over their salary cap, the money from their game did not going into players, it went into putting their clubs onto a sound financial footing and pushing the game to the max. They did not put the cart before the horse. They got the increases in revenue, before increasing their cap. We on the other hand are looking to increase spending before any sign of extra revenue.

You could have all the NRL players playing in SL, but it would not raise a jot more money from SKY. The players do not drag in the money, the fans do. You have to grow the fan base and this is where we have struggled. Cutting teams to 12, cutting the number of players all to split the current miersly pot a few less ways just fills me with saddness that we are on a hiding to nothing with no new ideas at all, just a desperate money grab.

I do think all the talk of mergers at the start whilst with the best of intentions, missed the point that fans would not support such a creation. It would have been far better to just leave them to fight it out and when administrations came force restarts from the bottom. It would leave one club in the area with an advantage and a chance to grab the future fans. Sounds harsh I know.

Super League Clubs for me have no real alternative to forming their own Premiership set up like Football and Union, The RFL seem to have problems running so many factors of the sport, and I am really unsure about the current senior staff.

It is no wonder the Super League Clubs got annoyed when the policy document sent out days before the planned EGM seems to have the "Wood's Formula" as fait accompli" add to that lack of sponsorship for Super League, while Union obtained £20 Million for 4 years? I'm not convinced with the reduction of Academy teams to 10, the claim is it too expensive, are these not the future of the game? Yesterday right hand man to Nigel, Ralph Rimmer was on BBC Radio London in a one hour debate "The State if Rugby League" and he came over as nothing special and not inspiring, both Nigel and Ralph come from Yorkshire club backgrounds.

Was it the right time to have the meeting just before the World Cup, I feel Nigel Wood felt that he had given a few sweets to Championship Clubs that his formula would sail through. BARLA is not happy with the proposals along with the player union. It's just unfortunate that some decisions needed to be made for the 2013 season, and they are now delayed until December?

Had a quick browse through the document, and there is nothing in it which tackles the biggest issue the sport faces - that is the lack of commercial investment and sponsorship in the game at the top level.

They repeated recognise the fact that we need more sponsorship, but don't seem to have a plan to get more sponsors involved and raise the profile of Super League.

The league structure is largely irrelevant really, when compared with the bigger problems.

My issues with the system are,

1 It will entrench the big 4 as bigger than the rest and exacerbate that gap. Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire, will not under almost any circumstances fail to make the top 8. Even if a catastrophic series of events created a situation where they did, they would absolutely smash the lower league sides. Relegation is not a problem for them and they can plan/spend/build accordingly. It will also see these clubs play more games against each other and fewer against lesser sides. We will see a growth in attendance at these clubs because of this but also the corresponding fall elsewhere.

2 clubs like Hull, Hudds and Les Catalans will lose out. They are relatively strong off the field clubs, set up and succeeding in SL, growing and in facilities which are SL worthy. They should be fine in most seasons, however a drop in form, bad injuries on year, the bounce of a ball could all see them fall out of the top 8 with the corresponding drop in revenue of swapping a game against Leeds, Wire, Wigan, Sts, for games against, Fev, Sheffield, Leigh, Halifax, this will damage them and their ability to compete at the top. Should the worst happen and they are actually relegated, that club will also lose out massively, dropping funding in half immediately yet still having to fund a team capable of beating some SL sides to get back in, all whilst cutting the wage bill, but with all the fixed overheads being exactly the same. A season of 3/4k fans rattling around the KC while Hull play Fev would cost Hull a fortune.

3 Wakefield, Cas, Widnes, London, Hull KR, Bradford will be constantly looking over their shoulder. Their one aim being survival. Everything else will go out of the window. It is telling that since the RFL started pushing for the removal of licensing we have seen an upping of the overseas quotas and Cas have seen their brand spanking new stadium in the middle of a huge entertainment complex change to repainting their dilapidated facility. These clubs will invest nothing in their infrastructure, nothing in youth development, nothing in putting in place the structures needed to be successful because all their money will be put towards staying in SL because even though the gap in terms of TV funding is narrowed, it is still pretty big and they still have to deal with the drop in corporate, sponsorship, attendance and merchandising of a drop in to the 2nd tier. This will take them further and further away from the top of SL.

4 clubs at the top of the championship will be encouraged to overspend hugely in the hope of promotion.

5 clubs at the bottom of the championship will be even more encouraged to overspend. They will be playing against clubs who have funding of up to £500k more than them, they will be playing to avoid relegation to a league roughly the level of C1 now, but they will be getting relegated from a league where the expectation is that clubs spend enough to compete with lower SL sides. These are clubs who are going to need to be spending at least C£1m on players dropping in to a league where clubs are spending no more than a 5th of that and playing in some cases in front of crowds of around 300. Can you imagine how damaging that drop is? It is bigger than the drop from SL to Championship ever was. One of two things would happen, either the club which gets relegated is pretty much destroyed or they are so far ahead of every other team in that league that it becomes a farce with them winning every game by 60points.

6, the end of season games in tier 3 of the 8 would be utterly pointless at the top and hugely damaging at the bottom. Nobody is going to watch a grand final for the team who is to be crowned 5th best in the championship.

7 there will be a huge amount of dead rubber games in the top 8, the difference between 8th and 4th last year was 9 points. Realistically 9 points in a 7 game, 8 team season is an insurmountable gap. Whoever finished 8th wouldn’t be playing for anything. Very quickly this would become the case for 6th and 7th, and 1st and 2nd who would be too far ahead to drop out of the top 4.

8 It would make it far more difficult for clubs to plan financially, the last 3rd of the season could either be big games against big clubs, or walkovers against small clubs with the corresponding rise and fall in attendances. Financial planning would just become a lottery.


There are good reasons it is a bad idea.

My issues with the system are,

1 It will entrench the big 4 as bigger than the rest and exacerbate that gap. Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire, will not under almost any circumstances fail to make the top 8. Even if a catastrophic series of events created a situation where they did, they would absolutely smash the lower league sides. Relegation is not a problem for them and they can plan/spend/build accordingly. It will also see these clubs play more games against each other and fewer against lesser sides. We will see a growth in attendance at these clubs because of this but also the corresponding fall elsewhere.

I can't argue with this, it is the desired effect. But the growth and reduction will not be very stark as season tickets will balance out the average somewhat. But I would argue the fall at lesser clubs is not 100%. There is the possibility that with the end of season being more relevant to the bottom 4 that there crowds do not go down. But it's impossible to say either way, without testing the theory (that's not an arguement for testing the theory, but it does mean we can't say for sure)

2 clubs like Hull, Hudds and Les Catalans will lose out. They are relatively strong off the field clubs, set up and succeeding in SL, growing and in facilities which are SL worthy. They should be fine in most seasons, however a drop in form, bad injuries on year, the bounce of a ball could all see them fall out of the top 8 with the corresponding drop in revenue of swapping a game against Leeds, Wire, Wigan, Sts, for games against, Fev, Sheffield, Leigh, Halifax, this will damage them and their ability to compete at the top. Should the worst happen and they are actually relegated, that club will also lose out massively, dropping funding in half immediately yet still having to fund a team capable of beating some SL sides to get back in, all whilst cutting the wage bill, but with all the fixed overheads being exactly the same. A season of 3/4k fans rattling around the KC while Hull play Fev would cost Hull a fortune.

I agree, but then this is the nature of most sports. You get relegated you take a hit. Either we are a sport and play like a sport or we are all about protecting current markets. Either way I would rather we come out one way or the other. But I for one am not a fan of assuring clubs of their place, I'm sure others are happy with it. But when you start fixing places such as the top 12, why not the top 11, 10, 9.... etc you get the point, why call it a sport if there is no competition.

3 Wakefield, Cas, Widnes, London, Hull KR, Bradford will be constantly looking over their shoulder. Their one aim being survival. Everything else will go out of the window. It is telling that since the RFL started pushing for the removal of licensing we have seen an upping of the overseas quotas and Cas have seen their brand spanking new stadium in the middle of a huge entertainment complex change to repainting their dilapidated facility. These clubs will invest nothing in their infrastructure, nothing in youth development, nothing in putting in place the structures needed to be successful because all their money will be put towards staying in SL because even though the gap in terms of TV funding is narrowed, it is still pretty big and they still have to deal with the drop in corporate, sponsorship, attendance and merchandising of a drop in to the 2nd tier. This will take them further and further away from the top of SL.

I completely disagree with the overseas quota going up, I'm also not 100% happy that Lancashire clubs have made great strides to fit the original SL aim of improve stadia and others have not. For me it should have been a ruling of the licence that if you did not comply on both of these then a penalty should have followed. As it is some clubs have just ridden time and are still where they where prior to SL. But again I'm not against competition and movement between divisions so I don't see it as the same problem that others do. Assurance of their position seems to be a requirement that over-rules on the field performance.

4 clubs at the top of the championship will be encouraged to overspend hugely in the hope of promotion.

This is true, but then it's down to clubs to manage themselves. Why should the competition do this? If we want the competition to govern club finances then clubs need to give up more control to the central body.

5 clubs at the bottom of the championship will be even more encouraged to overspend. They will be playing against clubs who have funding of up to £500k more than them, they will be playing to avoid relegation to a league roughly the level of C1 now, but they will be getting relegated from a league where the expectation is that clubs spend enough to compete with lower SL sides. These are clubs who are going to need to be spending at least C£1m on players dropping in to a league where clubs are spending no more than a 5th of that and playing in some cases in front of crowds of around 300. Can you imagine how damaging that drop is? It is bigger than the drop from SL to Championship ever was. One of two things would happen, either the club which gets relegated is pretty much destroyed or they are so far ahead of every other team in that league that it becomes a farce with them winning every game by 60points.

I'm not going to argue this as I feel it's the same as what I've said above

6, the end of season games in tier 3 of the 8 would be utterly pointless at the top and hugely damaging at the bottom. Nobody is going to watch a grand final for the team who is to be crowned 5th best in the championship.

Fair point

7 there will be a huge amount of dead rubber games in the top 8, the difference between 8th and 4th last year was 9 points. Realistically 9 points in a 7 game, 8 team season is an insurmountable gap. Whoever finished 8th wouldn’t be playing for anything. Very quickly this would become the case for 6th and 7th, and 1st and 2nd who would be too far ahead to drop out of the top 4.

I feel this assumes a lot. Hull KR had quite a run at the back end of this season.


8 It would make it far more difficult for clubs to plan financially, the last 3rd of the season could either be big games against big clubs, or walkovers against small clubs with the corresponding rise and fall in attendances. Financial planning would just become a lottery.

It would become more difficult

There are good reasons it is a bad idea.



In the end alot of the points seem to be about stability and predictability for the clubs and keeping the status quo as a priority. To me there is nothing wrong in what you have said, it all rings true. But to me it's sacrificing the sporting element for medium term stability. But in my opinion you sacrifice the sporting element to the determent long term of the sport. Either we are a sport or we are not, we can't be some kind of halfway house as I feel people will lose interest as people watch sport for sport not for stability.

That is a good point especially when it comes to Huddersfield and Warrington. However if you read the document it looks like the RFL want to focus junior production to the main teams. Funding 10 elite academies, giving them the funding that other less successful academies would get, so as long as you get one of the 10 licences you have the chance to have a long term strategy, like you said. It is a shame that more club do not have long term views and take your suggested route.

On a side note; there is nothing saying that a club could not have 2 academies funded by the RFL. Wouldn't it be great if we had academies in talent rich areas that currently have no teams. Cumbria would be a great place for an academy, Wigan have shown a lot of interest in South Wales, while the north east and Ireland have produced talent in the past. If London do not continue full time maybe their academy could be adopted too.

Maybe the big 4 teams should look into doing this.