Quote: JB Down Under "There are onluy two likely scenarios for the 8-8-8.
A) CC clubs are even during first half of season but SL clubs thrash CC club in the second half of the season
B) Top CC clubs thrash lower clubs in first half of season but are more competitive in second half of season against SL clubs.
The chances of 16 clubs (4 weakest SL clubs and 12 CC clubs) all being even close to equal is so remote it is off the bookies scale.
coco supposing your club misses out on playing Leeds, Cas and Hull at home in the SL season do you really think playing fev, fax and sheffield in the second half of the season is going to make up for those losses? Your club is one that has slowly gone about its business well of building its fanbase and attendances, despite not being top on the field. Clubs like yours have the most to lose out of them all I would think?'"
Why would 16 clubs need to be equal? The top 4 of the second tier would be better than the other 8, the bottom 4 of the upper tier would be worse than the other 8. These are the clubs that would play each other again. The key is how much of an overlap there is.
Based on the current league table the 8 would be Bradford, Wakefield, Widnes, Castleford, Salford, London, Featherstone and Sheffield. Is the disparity of playing standards wider than the current top 14? Will those standards be closer when Featherstone and Sheffield have a significant increase in funding? On current form could you guarantee which 4 would return to the top 12 after playing each other once?
If Wakefield were in the top 12 why would we miss out on playing Leeds, Cas and Hull at home? The first part (not half) of the season would be a full 22 game league playing everyone home and away (plus MM).
The losers in this are likely to be the 2 teams relegated at the end of next season. They will play all their games against lower/less well supported teams, but at least, if they can keep most of their squad together, they have a chance of making the higher tier the following year.
I'm not against franchising or straight P&R per se, but the proposed system is the best fit for our current situation to help the growth and development of a greater number of clubs, both established and new, to a higher standard.
Franchising could also have done this, in theory, but it was completely messed up in its implementation by the RFL. Perhaps they were dealt a weak hand as there were only a handful of clubs who could meet the minimum standards required to break even in such a system. It would have worked if there were at least 14 clubs with 10k crowds capable of spending the full cap. Franchise standards need to be fixed, not aspirational. KFC & McDonalds wouldn't stand for it.
Quote: JB Down Under "People are posting a lot of "if", "what if" "maybe" and "possibly" type assessments here in regard to 8-8-8.
The Fact is the worst team in SL has this year accounted for the top 2 Championship teams with ease........I suspect that the bottom 4 of the SL 12 will always prevail over the top 4 of the SL2 12....once a bottom tier club loses it's first game, then essentially any chance of promotion is over.'"
Of course they are all ifs & maybes as it doesn't exist yet, so how can we know for sure how it will work. Those top 2 championship clubs will receive significantly increased funding to strengthen their squad in the new system. I suspect investors and fans will be more likely to turn up if they know they have a real chance of promotion. I think it is unlikely that the top 12 will change in the first season, but the clubs outside can build and try again the next year. It's about improving standards over a number of seasons, not just one. The bottom tier club would, realistically, only have to win 4 out of 7 games, which would be a tough call, but why would losing their first one be so catastrophic?
