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.

Surely first we must identify that crowds at the bottom of the table fall towards the end of the year. Then we would need to identify if they rose or fell less dramatically during P+R. Otherwise this increase expected at the bottom would be based entirely on a false premise. This is one of the major issues with the policy review and why it doesn’t hold much water. We have resolutions based on conclusions based on no evidence on a problem that hasn’t been proven to exist.



Which would be fine, but the opposite standpoint is taken on many other issues. It’s a bit of an all or nothing standpoint isn’t it. If you stand on your own two feet you stand on your own two feet. There isn’t really levels of doing so in my opinion. Yet the game does insist that clubs are protected from themselves in terms of a salary cap and a quota. If clubs are left to their own devices then we can’t insist on how much they spend and on who. If we accept that there are limits to a clubs freedom for the good of the game, then this argument falls down somewhat.

Again this links up to what I said above. Either we can insist clubs do certain things or we leave them to their own devices. This is a good example of why it is all linked in. Cas highlight it well. If Cas can’t get enough people through the door that they need an SC to compete, then it is only fair the game insists they improve their facilities and infrastructure so they can get enough people through the door to compete and other clubs aren’t held back by what Cas’ can spend. If the game insists they improve their facilities and infrastructure so they can get enough people through the door, then it is only fair Cas are given the time and space to do so. This is what franchising/licensing was supposed to address. What we have now is a hypocritical standpoint which argues that how many people Cas get through the door is their problem, that if they don’t want to invest in their stadia they don’t have to, that what happens on the pitch should be what is important. BUT we need to keep in place a Salary Cap so Cas can compete on the pitch. Theres contradiction there isn’t there? That the amount Cas’ make is Cas’ problem and not the games and what happens on the field should decide the level Cas’ play at but what happens on the pitch for all teams should be affected by what Cas’ can afford to spend?


Its more a maths thing isn’t it. 8 teams, 7 games, 9 points when there are only 14 available. If you are 8th you need to not only gain 9 points on 4th, but points on 5th, 6th, 7th aswell. The permutations of 4th gaining a maximum of 5 points, but 5th, 6th and 7th not gaining enough points to not be overtaken by 8th just make it very very unlikely. There just isn’t the amount of games for there to be big movement in that 2nd part of the season when some clubs will be at such a disadvantage.


As I say, if we make the decision that what happens on the field decides everything, then we can’t have restrictions on what a club can put on the field. We can’t have a situation where a club can afford to put better bodies on the field but is restricted to keep those who can’t competitive relegated in favour of one of those clubs who need the SC to be competitive, yet those same clubs are the ones arguing that they shouldn’t have to invest in their infrastructure and facilities because it should all be decided on the pitch. I agree we can’t have a halfway house, we can’t have clubs refusing to invest in their infrastructure to grow but demanding an SC because they are so small. Either we accept we need to make demands of clubs if they are to benefit from restrictions we put in place for the good of the game, or we leave it entirely to what happens on the field but they don’t get the benefit of those restrictions.

I think I agree, or agree that we disagree, although I'm not 100% sure. In the end it's a value judgement. Do we think having a closed league is better or an open one, in which ever form that happens to be.

I would personally prefer an NFL type approach.

But it would require the clubs to give up more control to make it achievable.

I do think the major structural issue for me is that we run a league and a playoff system and this does not sit happy with a lot of fans. When you have an even number of game (or near as even) then the playoffs are devalued (certainly for me). Also the league is devalued as teams not finishing top call it a pre-season.

I think there has to be some inbuilt inbalance somewhere to get better buy in to the playoffs. Or call the top team champions and see if the playoff or premiership can stand on it's own 2 feet as a crowd puller.

I have to say I pretty much agree with the entirety of what Smokey has stated.

I personally believe the move to "System 8 8 8" as I call it (anyone spot the Saints link from there) is about downsizing the league to a predominantly part time operation, with a few of the big clubs staying full time.

There is no way that clubs outside the top 8 will be able to continue running full time operations by playing fixtures against Leigh, Sheffield, Batley etc. Similarly there is no way the Likes of Leigh who are continually in financial difficulty will be able to employ a mixed bag of full time and part time pros, when they can barely keep their heads above water now.


The RFL will only allow there to be 10 junior academies. However the SL will have 12 teams in it.
Now I can see the French not having an academy, but that leaves one other SL team without an academy. i'm presuming that the academies are attached to SL clubs, though the RFL have intimated recently that academies may be more regional in nature.
If a club doesnt have an academy, they wont be able to develop their own players, and therefore wont be able to develop club trained players. If they don't develop club trained players, they wont be able to get the salary cap dispensation, and so will be at a disadvantage against clubs that do have a built in club academy.

This also applies to the championship clubs by the way, who because they wont have any academy or junior structure linked to the club will find it difficult to achieve club trained player status.

Another aspect is player contracts.
Clubs will have to put provisions in contracts for failing to make the top 8, or else risk financial ruin. This is because if you are to all intents and purposes relegated part way through the season, your income levels will collapse. This will be through reduced crowd receipts through playing the likes of Leigh or Sheffield compared to Leeds and Warrington, and also reduced commercial income due to a reluctance of sponsors to promote themselves to what are perceived as lower league clubs.
We have an example of this in the challenge cup whereby hospitality for Saints v Oldham was only £20, compared to £65+vat against Bradford in the SL.
There is no way clubs would be able to continue paying players at the same rate. This therefore creates a lack of financial stability for players attached to the likes of Castleford, Bradford, Wakefield etc.
We have seen recently how even a sniff of financial insecurity and players are off. Just look at how players have left Bradford, Hull KR and Wakefield of late. This results in a concentration of quality players around the better teams, were there is job security, and a collapse in playing standards amongst the rest.
Hence we are likely to see a growth in blow out scores with mismatches across the league between the haves in the top 8, who will very quickly become to all intents an purposes an exclusive club, and the pseudo SL teams occupying the bottom four slots.

I note that the Salary cap for the championship is proposed to rise to £900k. This is greater than the entire income streams of I dare say all the championship clubs, Its a recipe for financial ruin.
I also note that the salary cap for championship 1 is staying at £150k.
So championship clubs will have a cap close to half of that of SL, whereas the championship one clubs will have a cap only around one sixth of that of the championship. With such a disparity, then it is likely that CH1 clubs will find it even harder to compete against Championship clubs, than championship clubs currently do with SL.

This doesn't seem therefore like a whole game review aimed at introducing a more fluid competitive environment. It seems more like an agenda driven document, compiled by a politician with certain sweeteners thrown in to buy club votes and influence. It looks like the likes of Wigan and Saints have seen through this and therefore rightly kicked up a fuss.