The key one is patience, which many a RL fan doesn't have. People too often want immediate results within a year or two. If at the end of 2015 the 4 teams who went 'down' go back up then people will cry foul straight away that this system is a failure. People want a stronger international game but expected Wales and France to be at competitive level within a few years of introducing Crusaders and Catalans. The former of course they tried rushing up before it was ready because they didn't have the patience to let it find its feet more naturally.

Hindsight is brilliant and I'll say with those glasses on that I'd of kept Licensing, but would have been tough on it - so Wakefield, Bradford and probably London should have been dropped following their financial meltdowns. If we'd had a NGB that were respected by clubs then they'd all have had their shops in order.

What happened was teams continued to dream and even though the licence was in place were allowed to spend over the odds and go bust. Yet, somehow managed to survive in the top flight.

That was the joke - and I'm a London fan.

The new system will just mean it's more open on paper for a team to get promoted, but still very unlikely in reality. Teams will continue to go bust in pursuit of the holy grail that is SL existance and the bottom teams in SL will struggle to maintain themselves there.

What we have is the same situation branded differently. I don't want to be seen as a negative, but the game may as well have an 8 team SL and then spread the rest down the leagues - it'll be more competitive.

The NRL is the blue print to some extent - there is a league with teams who can win the tournament one year and be out of the play-off's or bottom the following year. That creates excitment and interest - SL is miles from that.

You could still have relegation and conferences.

Yes it probably would

Elitism isn't what RugbyLeague started from,that's what Union still is greatly concerned with.
Sadly RL has become elitist and that does the game no favours, mind you I suppose it mirrors society since that woman crippled this country and her legacy is all around for all to see.

I disagree. Union, since they openly went professional have embraced the concept of commercialisation of their sport to the extent that the "elitists" have lost control and the top tier of the game is now run by business minded people. Yes, it's still a game played by Tarquins and their ilk, but it is no longer an "elitist" sport in the vein of something Like Polo.


Rugby League is more troubled by its insular nature than being elitist. Whilst supposedly proud of its working class roots and ethics, it seem almost embarrassed to promote itself as an entertaining sport, but instead, mainly markets itself to the same people at reduced prices (Black Friday offers soon followed by festive offers). It rarely pops its head above the parapet of "what we always do" and even when it does, such as last years RLWC, it soon retreats back into solitude.
Can you imagine any other sport with aspirations running a world cup on its own shores, not following it up with some home games the following year?

As for that bitch Thatcher. All she did was convince everyone that they could be middle class home owners. The reality is that it was the public's greed in chasing her supposed middle classness (sic) that caused a lot of the problems. It's all well and good buying your council house for 30k under its value, but then borrowing against that 30k to buy 4 tellies and a new car as well as 2 holidays a year is when it all came unstuck. Before her, we all could rest easy in the knowledge that the state would look after us, but now, it's our own responsibility to fend for ourselves.....and she didn't take control by a coup......you friggin' elected her...and more than once too

if only the bloody argentinians hadn't invaded the Malvinas....she was heading for the tip until she "got her victory".....