P&R was abolished for a reason. Relegation last year would have set Widnes back a long time and Sheffield would now be getting flogged every week, probably with other SL clubs cast offs. Licensing shouldn't be dismissed as not working after just one and a half licensing periods. There should be at least a couple of more periods before any discussion is made.

The main problem with the SL structure is too many teams in the playoffs, as most of the playoffs teams are decided already by this stage of the season and the second half of the season just trundles along until the playoffs start. Reducing the playoffs would mean a more intense fight for playoff places but the season would be over for the teams in the bottom half of the league as the season goes on, but pro sport is supposed to be about winning to try and be the best, not winning to try and avoid being the worst.

One of the best ways to increase commercial revenue is more exposure to a wider audience on the BBC. As there isn't going to be a new knockout comp introduced anytime soon the best solution is probably to split the playoffs between Sky and the BBC and, if the BBC can't replay the Grand Final in full, at least have more extensive highlights on the BBC than there usually is.

Agreed, but whilst the 8 team play-off, us and then scenario continues, it is stillthe responsibility of the clubs to sell themselves to their target audience.
I can only really use the London Shambles....sorry, London Broncos as an example, but AFAIK, sine Ian Lenagan was told to "let go" by the RFL, the club have....

1. Placed 5 quarter page adverts in the London edition of METRO,
2. offered 2-4-1- tickets on Grab one (or the like),
3. given away free tickets twice in exchange for facebook likes,
4. handed out 15,000 travel ticket holders at Canary Wharf,
5. released 2 "viral" videos that have been seen by less than 3,000 people,
6. included info about the rebrand in the wembley double header programme,
7. flyered fans on the way to England v Australia at the big house in 2011.....
8. in 2013 started placing 1/8th page generic ads in the local papers.
9. leveraged increased coverage in the Evening Standard
10. stickered/liveried 10 London black cabs

Now, if this had all been done the week after IL walked away or even over a few months, all well and good, but [size=200THIS IS THE TOTAL MARKETING ACTIVITY OF THE CLUB FOR THE 5 AND A HALF SEASONS SINCE LENAGAN LEFT US.....[/size.....it makes my blood boil when I think of the number of missed opportunities the club have experienced.....the latest rumour regarding our new home is a 5,000 capacity stadium in North West London.....

Whatever system the RFL come up with, it should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

The systems in place since the inception of SL have been exclusive—the top table clubs have always had access to massively more money than clubs who were strongest in the division below, and this discrepancy has continued to grow. It quickly became next to impossible to successfully transition from the 2nd tier to SL.

As a result of the growing artificial financial cliff introduced by SL, licensing was introduced as the solution; It being much less transparent and far more exclusive than any of the systems that went before it.

The gulf in funding between SL clubs and Championship clubs needs to be addressed. There must be a natural path to achieving better, one that doesn't require huge financial risks to pull off.

Once we have an inclusive system, the actual structure of the leagues is reduced in importance as competition can thrive and the entertainment value of the product on the field is likely to improve.

Currently, the system protects SL clubs and their cash pile.

The cliff isnt artificial. It exists, and it always will exist.

Remove the SKy money, Hell give it to the championship clubs instead, wont make a difference, Featherstone cannot financially compete with Leeds. The whole town has a population less than Leeds average. The Stadium's entire capacity is less than half of Leeds average. They dont have the sponsors or corporate opportunities Leeds have, they simply would never get close. Wire, St's Wigan similar.

In SL leigh were getting about 4k. Leeds and Wigan are looking at 14/15/16k, Regardless of Sky money, there is massive difference and it is a difference which is exacerbated in a professional sport.

Under no structure are Leigh going to be able to compete with Leeds and Wigan off the field, which means the only way they will compete on it is by holding Leeds and Wigan back.

This same cliff exists between the top and bottom of SL.


Yes it would.


They don't need to, just compete with the bottom 6 then build on this.


You mean like the rest of SL are holding them back now?





It's sugar daddies, not good management that's keeping half of SL afloat. If all clubs were run like Leeds then SL would be in a much better place, but the simple truth is they aren't.

And we need to eliminate it.
No. It wouldnt. Leeds turnover ten times the TV money. Giv e Fev £1.2m. They still arent getting anywhere near £12m
Yes, they do. If Fev arent aiming to compete with Leeds. They shouldnt be in the same league as Leeds.

Yes
That is true. And that is why the game should be looking for ways to make the clubs surviving on Sugar Daddies and relying on the SC to compete to overcome those problems. Swapping one club which is struggling to compete and survive for another club struggling to compete and survive is not only pointless but counter-productive.

But that's the $64,000,000 question - How.

SL as it stands has not.

If you say that SL can carry and improve the current incumbents to the level of a "Leeds" then it should be able to do it with others.

You are creating a false nirvana of turning the bottom 6 into "leeds clones" which on the evidence looks like it isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Some clubs just can’t become that big. Some clubs just aren’t SL level clubs. Altering the entire structure of the game to try and force them to be doesn’t do anyone any good.

Not all clubs can be as big as Leeds/Wigan, but some can. We need a structure which gives them the best chance to do so. Not a structure which fills them with constant uncertainty that at any time they may be replaced by a club with no chance of reaching that level.

Giving up on trying to make Wakefield a top club because Fev aren’t ever going to be a top club is a stupid standpoint.

The cliff will always exist between a full time and a predominantly part time league. The only sport where the cliff is at an "acceptable" level is football and even then they have yo-yoing clubs and big parachute payments.

We need to improve the Championship until 6 or 7 clubs are at a reasonable standard compared to the bottom half of SL. This obviously requires money. IIRC from the Watkins Review, the Championship and CC1 clubs receive 1/16th of the SL tv deal. I'd suggest the tv deal be split into 18ths instead. With 14 of the 18ths going to each SL club, 1/18th to the RFL (as now) and then 1/18th split between the CC1 clubs and 2/18ths split between the Championship clubs on a sliding scale according to the previous years league table.
That should give each CC1 club £100k and each CC club nearly £150k on average. Each SL club will have to give up around £120k for this.
Not a mammoth shift but should give the Championship clubs the opportunity to sign some decent marketing/commercial staff to bring more money into the clubs.

You mean the structure that saw Bradford fail, Wakefield fail, Salford Fail, London fail......



I for one, did not suggest that and as for stupid comments, you don't do so bad yourself.

I would suggest that's a sensible idea, except, reduce SL to 10 teams and divide the Sky money from the other 4 around the Championship.