At least we've a couple of years grace to get our act together before we face the threat of relegation.......

I actually like the idea. I had the same concerns about teams competing however we were assuming some things.

Firstly the money, we have no idea of the split. But with only 12 not 14 teams in the SL, then if you assume a similar split of money at the moment, then that leaves 2 SL clubs worth of money to be split between the lower division clubs, this will boost their income. Also with 2 bigger teams relegated to SL2, that should provide a minor boost to crowds.

For those at the top 4 of SL2, they should also gain an increase in attendances given they are now playing for something. Then when the leagues merge and split again you will now have 4 SL clubs with their attendances to boost. Also with division 2 effectively being a promotion and relegation league there should be a boost to attendances anyway as there is something on the line, where as at the moment in SL the bottom 4 have nothing on the line. And the top 4 in the championship are playing to gain nothing at the end of the day other than sporting wins.

Also yesterday we learned that in this option 3 points are carried forwards. So those will less income in SL2 come the split get the advantage of points in the bag.

After 11 games, you can imagine a club at the top of SL2, will have 22 points and the club at the bottom of SL 1 will have 0 points. If that was the case, there are only 14 games left in which to cover the distance, that's 28 points. Not alot of wiggle room to catch up, but it would be a fair response for not being competitive in those first 11 games.

Also even though the leagues are not even, it does not matter as the outcome of all the 3 divisions will be by playoffs. So it now justifies a playoff, compared to the current situation where the playoffs seam an uneven response to a fair even set of rounds.

In the end the clubs will have to vote on it so it will not be down to Nigel Wood or the RFL. If the clubs want 12 and 12, one up and one down, then they can vote for it.

But because something is a little different and new it does not mean it will not work.

I think the option 3 satisfies a lot of issues in terms of RL.

It offers promotion and relegation, it offers more money to the lower division, it offers the maximum in terms of competitive games. For clubs who can pay the max salary cap, if things work out as they should, then the top 8 will be those teams and so those final 14 games should be more competitive, probably with a top 3 -5 playoff at the end.

There is also the marketing side of this, the first 11 games in SL1 and SL2 could be sold seperately to TV companies, then the division 1 and division 2 games could also be sold seperately.

Fans should get maximum value from each game, teams will have to be putting out their best as a slow start to the season will see your chances of staying in the league of your choice stopped.

I would also suggest that tied into this you can have a mid-season break for the CC. After the first 11 rounds, the leagues split, but also you throw in as many rounds of the CC as possible. Allowing teams who get knocked out a rest period and then relaunch the divisions afterwards, a bit like having 2 starts to the season.

I think there is a lot going for this idea and I can see the clubs voting for it.

Top clubs as the coaches get the most competitve league they can hope for and Chairmen get maximum gate receipts with big clubs playing each other for the final 14 games. Also they get 25 rounds so no loss of income round wise.

The 'Yo-Yo' clubs will vote for it as it will offer them something to play for and should help them boost their crowds. The Championship clubs will vote for it as it offers them more money, bigger crowds and a chance to play for promotion.

The RFL will vote for it as it offers them a chance to offer expansion clubs a way in, also if clubs 'yo-yo' it's not such a big deal as the next season they can get a chance to play similar clubs again.

The money side will be something to watch, but I see no reason if a Kokash wanted to buy Sheffield, this would make it easier for him to get Sheffield into the top flight in double quick time.

The only ones I can see who may vote against are those happy with the status quo, bottom clubs in championship and the likes of Leeds who get pretty much maximum crowds at present.

Still not convinced it will make the game better and bring in big money and sponsorship, even more so after listening to the CEO on the red button after the game yesterday, as I said these ideas were floated by Scottish Football, why was Nigel Woods ever asked to complete a review of the game when he is part of the current failure, the problem is he is CEO and in discussions too many creep up to him and he tried to creep up to Jon Wilkin yesterday in the debate.

The game needs a Jon Wilkin or Robbie Hunter Paul to be in charge, someone who has played the game and has a modern approach to sport and RL in particular, the work Jon is doing with the players union may be good stead but we need someone now, the old brigade who have allowed RL to deteriorate sponsorship, media coverage, running of big games need to go NOW before any change is even taken one step further!

He wasn't it was Maurice Watkins that reviewed it and gave his recommendations, these proposals have come from that report.

A well thought out post.

It makes me wonder why the RFL renewed the Sky deal so early with only a small improvement in the cash, as these plans require a new format of funding.

Current SL Teams that fail to make the split i.e. the bottom 4, and don't get into the top 12 the following season will find it impossible to stay full time you only need a re-building period where results are poor.
Perhaps it could work if the new format starts when the sky deal ends and then we could look to Premier as well as Sky, and perhaps the BBC for the lower divisions.

Option 2 won't work without extra dosh either as the two teams which go to "SL2" having to share their Sky money with the rest is a non-starter.

Maurice Watkins did the governance report which was completed in July 2012, but structure etc just completed has been very much in the hands of Nigel Woods.

Whoever did the report the first conclusion should have been it is time for Change and someone with fresh ideas and competence to take over the running of The RFL.

www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... eadership/

www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... eadership/

I imagine the concern of many is the way the governing body is controlled at the highest levels by individuals, who did not inspire confidence at their respective clubs. Ralph Rimmer formerly Huddersfield is basically an enforcer for Nigel Wood ex Halifax. The framing for the future forced clubs to improve stadium facilities which would have been a good initiative if it was consistent, however it seems only to have been foisted upon the Lancashire clubs. Little improvement has been made to Yorkshire grounds and that strategy now seems to have fallen away. Influential owners with significant investment seem to be driven into a corner by the majority of clubs who still lurch from crisis to crisis but understand that safety is in numbers and do not want change. That is why some form of promotion and relegation is vital even if it does require defined criteria to be met. The top eight especially is reward for failure and does not and will not work. The Championship play-off cannot see Leigh play Halifax or Fev every season to win a cup and ten grand but then same as you are next year boys.

I've just stuck that on the VT as I thought it was worth discussing across the board although knowing the kind of comments that tend to arise on RL Fans I might be indulging in some wishful thinking!

Why I tend generally to stick to here!

TS is spot on though. I'm sure Saints feel the same way too.

The one thing about Tony is he understands how the game works or doesnt

There is merit in what TS says, however, in his questioning of the leadership, he comes back with not being sure about a leader that gives 3 options, rather than just telling people the way it should go.

I take a bit of an issue with this, because it's fine to say show leadership, but SL is set up to negate the leadership of the RFL.

The chairmen make the rules. The RFL would look very weak to come out with a plan, only for a majority of the SL clubs to eject the plan. The RFL is a strong advisory body to the SL chairmen, who in the end are the decision makers and the sole people responsible for the state of our game after many years of SL.

SL clubs harp on at the RFL as it's an easy target. They can direct fans fury at the RFL as the governing body, but fail to set up and take responsibility for voting in all these systems.

As for the comment about us needing a John Wilkin in charge. Please no! On that forum yesterday, he was talking about watching other sports and how tight the marketing was, and how RL needs more of that, then said, I've no idea about how that would be done.

That's basically what fans do. We need this, we need that, we've no idea how to fund it or what effect it will have,, but we can shout from the side lines and say we need it.
I need a million pounds, I've no idea how to get it, but I need it!!!