"The only team in Super League not reaching respectable positions, not competing, not there by merit is London."

At the time London were "granted" a place in Super League. 1997 I believe they were 2nd in the table. If this is not a respectable position then many other teams don't deserve a place in Super League. They have never finished bottom. Plenty of other teams have. Do they deserve a place in Super League. Try and get some facts right Major Hound or don't they deserve a place because they are south of Sheffield ?

Perhaps you should take your own advice. London were admitted to the original Super League at the expense of my team Featherstone Rovers who were not in a relegation position at the time. London have finished near the top of Super League once in all its history. The rest of the time they've mainly stumbled along the bottom going from administration to administration to rescue, with effectively two men and a dog watching them.

It could easily be argued that fans of teams like Featherstone, Leigh, Halifax etc who want to make a new 'SL2' are being just as selfish as anyone as it would be hammer blows to the 4 teams from Super League who would drop down and it won't exactly help the teams from the current Championship who are deemed not one of the top 6 to be picked for this SL2 and see them drop down to the 3rd tier and also see Championship 1 teams drop to a 4th tier of Rugby League. As you've pointed out, Featherstone were demoted when they didn't finish last but the solution to fixing this is to do the same to at least 3 other current SL clubs, that sounds as self serving and selfish as anything i've read on here.



Hudds and Hull are much bigger places than most in RL and yes Hudds, Salford, Cas all did struggle at some point in the Super League era with yo-yoing and it was the 2005 season when Leigh finished on only 5 points that people said that coming from part time to full time for a single season was bad business, hence the introduction of 3 year guaranteed spells in Super League.

London have finished 4th in 96, 2nd in 97, 6th in 01, 5th in 03 and 6th in 05, so thats 5 respectable top half finishes with a couple more 7th and 8th place finishes so its not quite the stumbling you make out it to have been and yes the last couple of seasons have been tough but they never have finished bottom and using London as your argument is pointless because we all know its to do with Sky, and if anybody thinks we should upset the company that shows are game just for the inclusion of a heartland team is again the one's thinking of themselves and not the game. Is it fair? No, but its what the game NEEDS to do and it is sad but unfortunatley true that the game professionally needs Sky more than it does a Featherstone, and its not something i or i'm sure a fan of any current SL club enjoys saying but its the reality.

The Printer has it spot on in my opinion.

I'll say once again the link i brought forward said the rfl distributed 30 million from central funds that means rfl money.If thats not the case then Perhaps its time the rfl,wood ,rimmer etc stopped coming out with constant bull because all it does is give peole like you the oportunity to argue for arguments sake

You could argue that, you would be wrong as it is again based on the kind of assumptions and misunderstanding of the issues that frustrate any kind of debate - you assume dropping down divisions would be bad and permanent, despite it being pointed out why it wouldn't be the case. Scraping along the bottom of super league kills clubs, it reduces support and doesn't give clubs any chance at success that attracts new fans, winning in a vibrant tier 2 is more attractive than losing in a bloated and distant tier 1. There are other issues it can solve too.

do you have to be a fan of a certain club for your opinion to be valid on this matter, please make a list so we can make sure the people posting have a right to an opinion - promoting London to an 11 team league when they weren't one of the best 11 is completely different from picking the ten best for a ten team top tier

Forget all this sl1, sl2. Make the two divisions geographical and equal e.g. Super league East and Super League West. That way no one is demoted from Sl1 to SL2, they are just moved to a new co equal division. The championship teams stepping up would have to meet qualifying criteria. From the CC results of the last two weeks, several are ready already, at least in terms of on field performance.

Well twice in that you've made two accusations about me that aren't true.
I did assume it would be bad to drop down a division because in the history of any team sport its not exactly ever been seen as a good thing, i however never assumed it would be permanent. I thought that the teams dropping down could well take this bad vibe and disappointment down with them and that these clubs could end up at the bottom of this tier 2. And how would losing at the bottom end of a tier 2 with the chance of going down to tier 3 be an improvement on losing at tier 1?
Scraping around at the bottom of Super League kills clubs? Whilst i admit it doesn't do them much good, what would kill clubs more is the very realistic possiblity of going part time to full time to part time to full time, you can't run any type of business like that (especially given the state of the country's current economic status) and that is what RL clubs have to be in this day and age - businesses. And no matter how much people try to argue it, there is simply NO WAY that this SL 2 would be able to be full time professional.

And secondly i never said no such thing as you have to be fans of a certain team for anyones opinion to be valid so please don't try to suggest that i did. I merely stated that after SL fans were accused of thinking selfishly and self serving that the same could well be said of fans of Championship teams. So whilst i questioned his opinion i never came close to saying he had less of a right to one than anybody else.

I have not misunderstood any of the issue, just tried looking at it objectively especially from a financial point of view. One example, people have said that in 10 team leagues teams could play each other home and away and reduce the fixtures for international prospects. Clubs will come out and tell you that an 18 game regular season isn't enough games for them financially and that hosting just 9 home games won't generate enough income. And in closing again back onto the main problem, RL simply isn't a big enough sport to have the leagues below any sized version of Super League become full time professional, i wish to god we did and we could have 4 tiers of full time teams like in football, but i'm a realist not a dreamer.

See, As a Cas Fan, We are likely to be in the 2nd tier, And that would just feel like been relegated.

As said, We can't just throw in 6 sides who arent up to it, In the next league. And the Sky Money would still be needed to support these clubs.

I would advisea 2 divisions of 8. At the next franchise system. Top 4 play offs in each division. 1 up, 1 down each season.

Then at the next franchise system, Up the amount of teams, Depending on how many meet the criteria.

So, We would have
Wigan
Leeds
Catalans
Huddersfield
Hull Fc
St Helens
Warrington
Then one of Hull Kr, Bradford or London (Keep sky happy, They would then get relegated)

Then
Cas
Wakey
Salford
Widnes
2 of Hull Kr, Bradford and London

Featherstone
And either Halifax or Leigh.

At 2 leagues of 8 teams. Play 1 up 1 down.

When increased to 2 of 10. Play 2 up 2 down. Gives something to fight / Aim for agian.

I can see the logic but playing each other 4 times has its drawbacks.
A negative is that with minimum standards applied would any of Cas,Wakey or Fev qualify?
To be truly expansive we need Toulouse in SL2, making 2x10 the logical move and allowing further expansion with 12/10 or 10/12 or 12/12 when the time is right.
It would be brilliant to see 3/4 more French teams in the structure in the next decade.

I prefer to promote the top club from the championship every 2 or 3 years until we have enogh clubs in the top flight to then form 2 full time divisions when we have 20 or 22 "SL standard" clubs.
Although this would mean some drop in income from the current top flight clubs, this would be over a long enough period to allow the clube to manage their income and would also increase the pool of players taking part in the elite competition.
If we drop a number of clubs to the championship, this would have the exact opposit effect and reduce the number of full time English pro players.
Mr Peacock and the clever folk at the top of the tree have given no thought to this aspect of their plans, not to mention the detremental effect that this would have on the likes of Cas, Wakefield, Hull KR, London (dont know if they would remain a special case), Salford, Widnes etc. Also the damage to the lower clubs who are playing in the championship, who would be losers in this type of shake up.
Who knows about Bradford, perhaps they are another special case, protected from any harm by the RFL's ring of steel.