They are simply an extension of this project, and fair play they seem to be doing it the right way instead of packing their team full of illegally imported or over the hill aussies, but what is the real ambition ? RL will never produce a welsh rugby team like that of the welsh RU team and most welsh internationals in RL are english anyway. What gives them the right to be propelled into Championship 1 instead of heartlands teams such as Bramley who's genuine fans have worked harder for longer without the same help from the RFL

People need some realism

SL will never match the NRL in terms of quality and exposure
England won't consistently produce world class teams and players like the Aussies
RL isn't ever going to match the national and international exposure and participation of RU

RL in england is a northern sport and is a ing brilliant one, and SL was a competitive, entertaining competition so why we are trying to change it into something its not through licensing is baffling. Has licensing so far brought any extreme improvements to any part of our game ? I don't think so

We have to change because the world around us changes. Changes like the end of regional newspaper editions, the reduction of regional tv, planned reductions of regional radio all have or would have a big impact on RL. Kids are drawn to the popular stuff on tv, not whatever is happening down the road which is why kids who have never been to Old Trafford still support Man Utd.
There will be no place for a full time regional sport in the future, we HAVE TO become a national sport or RL will simply be played by part-time players in front of a few hundred people in a few ex-mining towns.
Just what "extreme improvements" were you expecting in 3 & 1/2 seasons?

90 % of your post is rubbish, yes things change and 3 and 1/2 seasons is not long enough, the rest is total nonsense

Well argued. No really. Well done on countering the points I put forward. That appears to be your stock answer when you feel like you should disagree but you dont know why.

If you seriously can't see the effect national media, be it newspaper, radio or TV has on people and what they take an interest in then I suggest you open your eyes and take a look around. There are kids that I coach who can name more of the England rugby union team, more of the GB Olympic team, more of the England Cricket team than they can Leeds Rhinos first team players. You only need to go into a non-RL pub and see how few if any times rugby league is mentioned during people's normal conversation. Yet national topics that are in the national media, are. You only need to look at the huge rise in popularity of international rugby union to see the effects of the imbalance between regional and national media. Domestic rugby union is of similar popularity to rugby league, yet international union is popular nationwide but has only become so due to it being widely reported on by national media. If people cared as much about regional sports they would be off to see Wasps v Gloucester as much as they do England v anyone at all.
The only regular media exposure RL gets is regional in local papers and local radio. Even then it's patchy. With thr move to more internet forms of media Less and less people are consuming local media, I walk into my local supermarket there are around 10 or 11 national or international newspapers and about 3 regional. Most people pick up a national newspaper. I switch on the tv, its all national programming. I turn on the radio, most of the stations are national and no-one under the age of 50 listens to regional radio except for specific local sports coverage.
When there are plenty of people living in the so-called heartlands of rugby league who have never heard of the sport (or if they have they have no idea who plays it or what it is) then how do you think a truly regional sport would survive with a full time pro league?
In the end, for the non-diehard fan there are plenty of other things to do and watch that are reported on. When there is Premier League football, International Rugby Union, International Cricket, Euro 2012 & the Olympics all with high profile, nationwide status why would people put the effort in required to actively take an interest in a sport they barely know exist?

Quote bewareshadows="bewareshadows"This discussion seams to have gone from 'has SL failed'? to more of a discussion about the championship. If we are comparing RL to attendances in other sports then if you look at SL attendances, and compare those to say football. SL would equate to the bottom of the Championship playing the top of the league one clubs. The Championship in RL would equate more to a league 2 football competition in terms of attendances. www.football-league.co.uk/static ... 057,00.pdf In the end we can all wish for more people to watch the game, but wishing will not make it so. Now that posters have show SL attendances to have actually grown, the doubters then change tact and go to the championship and ask for evidence that these have not suffered. What I'd say is if you want to say P&R has reduced attendances in the lower leagues, then it's down to you to show the figures to prove your own point. Anyone can throw out statements and say prove me wrong, but the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.'" I'm not actually reading this thread post to post or making a point to favour an argument but surely if the highest Championship attendance is just about 2,000 it's more comparable with the bottom half of non-league football than it is league 2.

Quote bewareshadows="bewareshadows"This discussion seams to have gone from 'has SL failed'? to more of a discussion about the championship. If we are comparing RL to attendances in other sports then if you look at SL attendances, and compare those to say football. SL would equate to the bottom of the Championship playing the top of the league one clubs. The Championship in RL would equate more to a league 2 football competition in terms of attendances. www.football-league.co.uk/static ... 057,00.pdf In the end we can all wish for more people to watch the game, but wishing will not make it so. Now that posters have show SL attendances to have actually grown, the doubters then change tact and go to the championship and ask for evidence that these have not suffered. What I'd say is if you want to say P&R has reduced attendances in the lower leagues, then it's down to you to show the figures to prove your own point. Anyone can throw out statements and say prove me wrong, but the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.'" I'm not actually reading this thread post to post or making a point to favour an argument but surely if the highest Championship attendance is just about 2,000 it's more comparable with the bottom half of non-league football than it is league 2.

I have thought about this today, I would not say that super league has failed, I would say though that super league has failed rugby league. This has more to do with the people running the RFL than anything else.
I will use the football example, sky and other TV companies pay for the rights to show the premier league, they also pay to broadcast the championship, and lower divisions. This money is then put into one big pot and divided throughout all of football right down to subsidising the running of kids’ football and pub team football. The higher the league you are in the more of a percentage you receive. The football association don’t give TV companies games for free; they also don’t give sponsorship rights away for free.

I think super league would be an overwhelming success if

A) The licence application rules were set in stone, no bending them at all. The rules are changed only by a majority vote of all clubs it would effect not just the super league clubs.

B) If you break any of the rules it automatically terminates your licence.

This would keep all clubs honest. If we brought going into administration back as a licence termination it would make clubs think about managing their finances better.

It would encourage the lower division clubs to improve as they will get a chance when / if a super league club fails.

This can only be done with money feeding its way down from the top. Better management of rugby league.

At the moment the whole structure of rugby league is top heavy with the support below it getting thinner and thinner, and eventually it will break, the top will come crashing down and it will all have to start at the bottom again, unless you start to strengthen the support below super league will have failed.

I would suggest that the RFL has failed superleague. Between 2000 and 2008 superleague was a great product and needed to be enhanced to the next business sporting model. Lewis and Wood became too blinkered the last 4 years with the Sky contract and RFL profit.
When in reality they were failing in global sponsors, marketing and national media exposure. I would imagine the RFL don,t have the people in place to address these issues to flaghip the sport, an individual club can,t as a single entity.
Marketing is EVERYTHING to give a sport stability and stature, this is one of the RFL,s total failings.
Maybe we need to streamline Superleague and use the RFL profits to give the sport the national exposure it deserves.....before its too late.

Super league has not failed it is the people that are in charge of our clubs that have failed when we get somebody to take charge of the chairmen and owners we will be better run and we might get more fans to watch the greatest game of all

You answer your own question, apart from the Premier League ( the most widely watched, supported , sponsored, internationally worker populated competition of the worlds most popular sport ) all your other examples are not club sport, but International sport, we dont have a competitive International aspect to RL, therefore RL will remain a regional sport, its marketing should reflect that, our only option is to build up our clubs local support

Australian rules is a regional sport, Gealic football and Hurling similarily are regional non international sports, yes we need to try to expand the International interest in RL, on the other thread I pointed out an idea several years ago when Russia were showing interest, but as usual RL never does anything properly, it is always half cocked, underfunded, our club sides ( all of them ) have no interest in building the game ( we see criticism of ' self interest ' by SL fans of the lower tier clubs, well the SL clubs are no different in that regard )

We are a regional sport, and that isnt going to change any day soon, until we can run a world Cup with 16 nations ' competing ' and 6 potential winners we will remain a minority regional sport played in Australia, Norther England and the south of France ( even in NZ the sport is seen as something the ' Coconuts ' , slang term for South Sea Islanders and the Moaris not good enough for Union play )

That would mean rich backers who have made there money from good business plans and revenue streams within the RFL contraints.
Can,t think of any people who is willing to buy and run a club in a sport with no stature, no global sponsors, very little media exposure and international status.
We do have chairmen from Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull and St Helens with good business plans who have vented there concerns about how the game is run, but are being held back by the RFL or veto,d by the lesser superleague clubs.
The future might be to give the more successfully run clubs more voting power and not confined to superleague clubs only, so that the models of success is filtered down to the poorly run clubs.

More voting power? , meaning an increase in the salary cap, meaning a bigger gap between the top 5/6 and the rest, that will help