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.

These posts are like war & peace

you must have my attention span! if its longer than 3 lines i get bored lol!

I keep clicking on and scrolling to the bottom just so it doesn't say there's new posts.

www.loverugbyleague.com/news_135 ... cture.html Sir Mac says hes happy with it now

www.loverugbyleague.com/news_135 ... cture.html Sir Mac says hes happy with it now

Has he ever said he is unhappy with it?


McManus is the only one to come out publicly and say what he thinks. Lenegan has put his thoughts into the "leaked letter" - but hasn't publicly stated anything. None of the other Chairman have commented publicly.

Are we sure he's talking about the RFL's proposed structure, and not an alternative agreed by the SL clubs in their emergency meeting last week? The things he's directly quoted as saying are ambiguous in this respect.

Mac clearly says “There may be some areas of corporate governance and representation which need to be separately addressed and improved (from the current system which, ironically, was enthusiastically constructed and endorsed by Super League Clubs only five years ago) and I have no doubt that these can be rationally and sensibly resolved"

That for me is clear, Super League Clubs do not need to be controlled completely by The RFL any longer, which I fully support. Super League needs to form something similar to union and football with their Premierships, yes still members of their full associations but controlling their own destiny, such as sponsorship. Also that The RFL currently have a strong voice on Super League Europe which clubs see now is completely wrong. Yes much Chairman accept one up, one down will come in but Nigel Woods stupid idea I see much discussion and heated debate to come from Super League Clubs, bar Leeds for some reason? Of course Championship Clubs want it, to thank Nigel for his sweetener of a little more each year, how sad!

First there was ....



then...



and now...

Indeed, he talks about restructuring the leagues, but doesnt say which format he supports or which will be put in place.

Too many people even media seem to be deciding what he is saying! ut would really shock me if he was to break away now from the rest of the Super League Clubs, he is just expressing what they all believe, Super League have to govern themselves and the RFL should not be members of the board of SLE as they are now. There is a further meeting set for next week of Super League Clubs, I hope they will stand firm, it does not mean they want to break away or break up The RFL,

From the Wigan site.


And my thoughts.

Your post is bang on the money.
How can we get more competitive by REDUCING the number of academies.
Do they expect Wigan, Leeds, Saints etc to keep ploughing their money into youth development to then feed the rest of the clubs.

The U19's has been a disaster. Wigan have literally strolled through the season. How does that prepare those players for the next step in their careers. The clubs should be forced to spend more money on their youth systems.
And now we have the ludicrous decision to INCREASE the number of overseas players.

It should be the other way round.