The Warriors, Wolves and Saints would though.

The reason we have "maxed out" our income from TV / commercial is because the product we're offering is not one that broadcasters and sponsors are interested in. It comes down to the point I have said from the start - it's all about audience, and we're offering one that they aren't interested in.

When a product is wrong, you need to change it to survive. I don't know if an "Atlantic Super League" is the answer to that particular conundrum, but I know that there's enough evidence to show that trying to persevere with what we have is certainly not the answer. We need to find new audiences, we need to find audiences that sponsors and broadcasters are actually in and we need to change the product to one that paying supporters want to get involved in. If that means going to Toronto, Montreal or Timbuktu then that's what we need to explore, or we need to accept that we're just going to keep going backwards, wondering why the sport keeps dying, why nobody wants to invest, why nobody wants to watch, and why we keep losing our top talent.

If any club feels threatened by that then sorry, but they've had long enough to demonstrate that they can deliver the change that is needed.

There’s a lot in what you say. But I am not sure where the audience is going to come from if the image stays the same. We have the best product, I am in no doubt about that. We are not going to compete with football, although it is generally a similar social class of audience. Other sports such as cricket or yawnion that are flush with money due to TV are generally pandering to a different audience. I get the opportunity for a lot of corporate hospitality. Almost universally the audience is not that bothered in the product, they want a p/ss up & to be seen at the event. TV advertisers want an audience with money to burn, which is not the usual RL audience. There is far more chance of change by going to Toronto, Montreal or Timbuktu than Leigh.

True.

But a mix of Toronto, Montreal, Timbuktu and Leigh, and Wakey, Cas et al. would offer a far greater diversity. Not the slick product some would envisage but one that could gather an audience because neutrals might actually get behind the underdog, the team representing the American dream, the big city boys or whoever. The main factor that turns me off watching other sports - and I include the NRL in this - is that I really don't give a to$$ who wins. No emotional involvement, see.

ATEOTD this all seems to boil down to how many clubs will be in the top flight and whether the intention is to relegate a number of "heartland" clubs to accommodate our friends from over the Channel and The Atlantic and whether there would still be promotion and relegation from The Championship.

Although 2 Full Time leagues of 10/12 clubs (Super League 1 & 2) seems like a good answer, the 2nd tier, no matter what it's called will never have the same pull, either in terms of revenue or TV exposure, as the top flight and the SL 1 clubs wont want to sacrifice "their share" of the pot.
You can already hear them saying that we need more to compete with Yawnion and The NRL.
Therefore, what we would effectively be doing is reducing the number of top UK rugby league clubs and I would still maintain that, should they make it to SL, relegating Catalan, Toronto or New York would scupper their development.

I'm not entirely sure we have got the product any more.

The product on the pitch, in my view, is worse than it used to be. We've lost what little box office talent we had, we can't attract more and only this morning, we've seen that our product is nowhere near as good as a very similar one on the other side of the world. Even if we compare with English rugby union, do we have it right? The Aviva Premiership has a lower average winning margin than Super League, and it has a greater proportion of games that are won/lost by a margin of one score or less.

Off the field, the sport also needs to ask if it's got it right. I've said earlier in either this or another thread that we used to market ourselves as a "family sport" (which was basically code for "we don't have a hooligan problem"icon_wink.gif, but how many sports genuinely have that problem? Even football has cleaned itself up - it's not a USP. And in 2018, does RL really offer the "day out" that the modern family wants? Sitting on a wooden seat in a crappy stand with a restricted view whilst paying £5 for a crappy boiled burger is not a "family day out". The sort of experience that is on offer at venues like Belle Vue, like The Jungle and (until the bulldozers moved in) at Headingley are not what gets a family with leisure money to spend excited. Is sitting in the car park at Salford "fun for all the family", when they could just go to the Legoland / Sea Life / Ski Slope / various restaurants that are across the road?

I think you're right in that the image is a huge problem and I personally think that SL could benefit from a serious rebrand. But for that to work, all 12 / 14 / however many clubs that want to be involved in that need to bring an equal value to the table. Simply pointing to your couple of hundred away fan following and thinking that justifies your existance in Super League isn't enough. We also shouldn't think that it's wrong to be selective and limit the space we offer in our top competition. This is supposedly a premier sporting competition, not a "everybody gets a trophy" school sports fete.