but isn't the whole idea not to have a championship under a new name but have a 2nd league ran by the same body as the first league operating with professional clubs?

then the transition for a promoted or relegated side would be survivable (not that i really remember promoted or relegated clubs actually doing that badly anyway, certainly not in the former case)

and come on imagine the excitement of london v halifax last day of the season promotion decider with both clubs buoyant after a season of winning most of their games and the prospect of going up

whilst on the other table wakefield just pip kr on the last day to stay up... this would have the added benefit of hull kr's 30000 strong travelling faithful boosting the gate receipts of everyone in the 2nd league the next season

what could go wrong?

Yes, and if this is ever realistic in the future then I guess it is an option that might be considered.

This seems like one of those ideas that sound great theoretically, but when put into practice could turn out to be a disaster:

- Are 4 teams being 'relegated' into Super League 2, or are six teams being 'promoted' into Super League 2 from the Championship? An important distinction...
- How will finances be distributed?
- Can teams be relegated from Super League 2 into a lower tier? Is this done by license or relegation through end of the season standing?
- Who decides who will be 'relegated' into SL 2 initially and on what basis? Would geographical location be brought into the deciding factors, i.e will London be guaranteed a spot in SL 1?
- Who will televise these leagues? Will Sky be prepared to give each equal coverage, or will another channel have to pick up SL 2, effectively demoting the value of it?
- How will promotion from SL 2 to SL 1 be decided and how will the champions be decided in SL 1: play-offs or first past the post?

I think reform is definitely required domestically and internationally, but it's how far the RFL are prepared to go. I see the argument to reduce to 12 as a more viable option right now, unless the RFL proposal is persuasive and, of course, a proposal is actually in the pipeline.

If the RFL does propose reform, then a 10-15year plan will need to be drawn together and they should stick with it, give whatever reform they deem necessary the time to be truly tested.

My comparison to the cricket championship is based solely on performance. They split the game in to 2 divisions and the cream naturally rose to the top with the best players playing in the top division meaning that each and every game was a real test for the players. The vast majority of the England side is made up of players from that top division and it's worked wonders turning our test side from a total rabble to the best in the world(well it was). I'm not saying it's likely to make our international rugby league side the best because thats unrealistic but I think a top division made up of ten teams would really improve the competition and make full use of all these good young players we've got coming through at the minute.

As a financial comparison the county cricket clubs may get more hand outs from their governing body but then I guess they need them. I've been watching a few county matches at Old Trafford and Liverpool and there's been a few hundred on. The money a lot of the county sides take through the gates must be minimal in comparison to some leage clubs.

How, by drastically reducing their opportunities to play at the top level, not only by lowering the number of teams but also because clubs would be forced to implement short-term plans and ignore youth development in order to stave off relegation, as they were before?

There is no issue in RL with the best players not playing in the top division, so I'm not sure how what you have posted is relevant in any way.

The aim should be to increase income into the game to allow the RFL grant to equal the salary cap, not cut the size of our top competition. Having more clubs slip back to PT status playing in front of smaller crowds and spending less on Jnr development is not progress!

So the idea is to increase to 20 FT teams from 14 and split into two leagues? Sounds a good idea until you consider;
Since moving to 14 FT teams 4 years ago, 4 have gone "bust", 1 is currently facing a WUP, another has admitted it's really struggling, and another has been offloading players to cut the wage bill as the business isn't sustainable. Then you've got at least two more which can't survive without an owners input, and another 3 who aren't spending the current SC just to balance the books. Leaving (at best) 6 teams capable of supporting their own activities.

Do we really think that introducing an extra 6 teams to take a share of current income will resolve the issue?
Will they generate enough extra income as a renamed Championship with 4 "relegated" SL sides to make up the current deficiency and enough to cover the extra 6 FT teams?
Sky won't renegotiate their deal for SL until 2015 so that's out the question. Will they pay for a renamed Championship when they didn't want it this year?
The gap between SL & SL2 would still be too big to consider P&R. Until we can efficiently support 20 FT teams where the SC difference is no more than say for example 20% different, this shouldn't even be considered.
Many complain the player pool isn't big enough for 14 teams which is obvious due to the difference between the bottom and top sides consistently so where's the extra 150 players (25 for each 6 teams) coming from?

On the plus side -
A fixture list can be made up to 27 games with 13 home games each no problem. We've done it before when we had 12 teams so its no issue doing it again.
This would probably see an increase in crowds on the whole but still not enough enough to support the extra clubs.
P&R keeps both ends of the table in SL anyway meaningful right up to the end of the year. Bottom of SL2 would still have nothing to play for unless a big weighting is put on the on-field performances of a club when licences are renewed.
Making an extra 150 players FT will increase the playing pool and the quality of them individually no doubt but in reality will this be of any real quality compared to the current elite? Probably not.

It seems a very ambitious move which could potentially ruin the game financially. I don't believe we should be trying this early to go for this, and wait until the top level can support itself successfully before we look at expansion plans which this is.
Current clubs should be working towards what Warrington have achieved and make sure their venue is used all year round therefore making the club sustainable. Easier said than done, especially for those that don't own their own stadium.

The only way this seems possible is if the WC over here really takes off in the media and national spotlight that it attracts major sponsors and players to the table to readily invest in the sport. Can I see it happening? An increase in popularity and income yes, but to support these proposed changes? No way.

There was no issue with England's cricketers not playing in the top division before they changed, they were playing in the only professional league in the country. The problem they had, like us, is that they didn't have enough good players to service a competitive enough league with 18 teams in it that would help nurture players ready for the increased intensity of test matches. We don't have enough good players to run with a top division of 14 teams IMO and it's leading to some games that are blow outs. If we had a top tier of ten teams then all the best players would naturally end up in that division and the games would be of a real intensity each and every week. The 2nd tier obviously wouldn't be as good a quality as the top tier would be but it'd be better then the current championship and all the teams would have a goal to achieve promotion.

If we made these changes then we'd have to go back to a top 5 play off system in the top tier and there would 7 or 8 teams capable of getting in to that top 5 but the bottom end of those clubs would be struggling against relegation. That would bring back that importance to the weekly rounds that is missing at the moment and lead to an increase in crowds as well.

I would only back this idea if Super League 2 was to be a full time league. Otherwise it's just a glorified Championship.

Would it not be possible to split the next TV deal in such a way that the teams in SL2 get 50% of what the teams in SL1 get?
e.g. (very simplistic example!)
If the current deal is £90m over five years, that's £18m per year.
Spread over 14 clubs (I know there's other places the money goes but I'm keeping it simple for now) that's about £1.28m per club.
If you split it on a 2:1 ratio between the two 10-team leagues, it'd be £1.2m in SL1 and £0.6m in SL2. Not far off what's there at present in the top tier so may need a slight increase in a TV deal (but if Sky get their extra game again for SL2 then you can justify it). Something like £6.5m over the five years (£1.3m per year).

Could SL2 clubs run a full time operation with £0.6m in funding? Maybe partially.

With your telepathic insight into how it would be implemented and the consequences thereof, I don't know why we need anyone to run the game. Its really well organised, with a terrific future. All we need is for you to remain at the ready to step in and declare "end of debate" any time an idiot has the first inkling of an alternative idea.

I think it would have to be a half way house ie the core of the team would be full time the rest as is now.