Don't know what you Bulls lot are moaning about. Leigh were supposedly the shoe in for Super League.

They can commit to a full time squad. Jimmy was just throwing the toys out of the pram!

The format is only viable in the longer term if a Championship club is promoted at least one year in three. There's no point to it if the 4 SL clubs retain their place in SL every year.

I expect the RFL will look at things like restrictions on signing new players to try to even things up. Not sure how much more they can do given that the fundamental issue is the difference in revenue between the two leagues.

From a Bulls point of view I think its a case of hanging in there. There will be changes, and as one of only a handful of clubs with SL potential, we are most likely to benefit from any changes. Provided we're still here.

I agree with the thread title- change IS needed. Yesterday a championship club had a decent chance to secure promotion. We failed albeit narrowly. I believe if this system is retained it will be much harder for championship clubs in future years as the gap between the leagues will widen .
Take away the raw emotion in Jimmy Lowes comments and address the basic points he was making. He does not believe that the system helps develop players or improve our international chances - quite the reverse. Add to that the comments by Brian Smith who was clear that outside the elite clubs , the game over here is struggling. He said that Wakefield have been unable to recruit quality players for next year . As a consequence they will struggle again next year.
Of the top 4 Leeds Saints and Wigan have always been in that elite. Huddersfield has developed gradually in the years when there was no relegation. 3 of the next 4 are in a similar position to the Giants - Catalans Warrington and Hull . The team which finished 5th is the exception. Cas' achievements in the past 2 seasons make them my club of the year.
Most successful sporting competitions have far more even playing fields than UK rugby league. The NFL,the AFL, and in the USA Baseball, Ice Hockey, Basketball and the NFL all have stable finances and the vast majority of the competing teams in those leagues go into a new season believing they have a chance of success.
But of course we have soccer's example with a promotion / relegation system operating. I'd argue that you can accurately predict 6 teams who will be in the top 8 in each years Premier League and it's the same equation in most countries. So for me soccer is the exception rather than the model.
Cricket has a promotion/ relegation structure. The last team to enter that competition was Durham and there are no structural barriers which prevent a team in the second tier recruiting and competing for promotion. There are a host of international cricketers playing at teams such as Lancashire, Surrey and Essex.
I have always favoured a franchising/ licensing system not because I am a Bradford fan but Because I genuinely believe it would be better for our sport. I realise that I am in a minority. However one possible compromise would be to ask clubs outside the Super League to state whether they aspire to become full time or not. Ask them to provide business plans. I honestly believe that some of the clubs in the Championship harbour no such ambition . Obviously Leigh Halifax Sheffield and London would probably answer yes.There may be some more. Perform due diligence on those plans. If the figures add up , construct a 2 division structure which has full promotion / relegation. It could be one up one down, 2 up 2 down ( as in cricket) , a system including play offs ( as in soccer) or even something similar to a Middle 8 league.Make the funding and salary cap differentials much narrower between the 2 divisions.

Derek is THE QUIET MAN , compared to your very own Jimmy (Nookie Bear ) Lowes.

I think, rather than looking at other clubs joining the 'few', we maybe need to ask how long clubs such as the Bulls can stay 'fulltime' if they remain, for a prolonged period, in the championship?

How long will crowds hold up in such an uncompetitive league is the major factor for me. The early bit of the season, the 'championship' bit, was poor with far too many easy wins, not necessarily with blow-out scores, but games where we 'coasted and you knew who was going to win after 20 minutes. A set-up with only three pro teams [even though one imploded]and only needing to get in the top four was dire, imo, since it was obvious before a ball was kicked that us and Leigh would be in the four, and the season really only came to life in the 'eights'.

It was nice, for this season, to be winning games but, I suspect, this scenario won't carry on attracting good crowds.

Bulliac- I agree with your first point . If this structure continues I believe there will be fewer clubs able to continue full time.
This weekend was finals weekend in Australia. The Aussie Rules drew over 98,000 fans on Saturday. The NRL final drew over 82,000 fans even though the 2 teams were from Queensland. Incidentally it was a cracker- and unsurprisingly the Aussie commentators and coverage put our broadcasters to shame.
There are 16 teams in the NRL. Since 2005 , 11 of those teams have reached at least one grand final. And all of the other 5 ( Sharks Knights Panthers Raiders and Titans) have been in at least 1 play off series. Far more even and far less predictable than our competition.
All of those teams have a reserve side and an under 21 team. All of them have a " feeder" club system.
One final point - I think that our game might be the only team sport where the governing body has a bigger
running cost budget than any single club in the top flight. If that statement is wrong I stand to be corrected.