Just seen this on twitter : perhaps this is closer to happening than people think !!!! @andywiz: two-tier super league, 10 in each with prom and rel, gaining momentum. hurray. t.co/0SD4YDqK

Just seen this on twitter : perhaps this is closer to happening than people think !!!! @andywiz: two-tier super league, 10 in each with prom and rel, gaining momentum. hurray. t.co/0SD4YDqK

I think this could work, though there are a few problems. Based on League position (not play off finishes) it would look as follows-

Super League 1
Wigan
Warrington
St Helens
Catalan Dragons
Leeds
Hull
Huddersfield
Wakefield
Bradford
Hull KR

Super League 2
Salford
London Broncos
Castleford
Widnes
Featherstone
Leigh
Halifax
Sheffield
Batley
Keighley

Prima facie this would create two close, exciting competitions with everything to play for, however it would probably mean an end to play offs as we know them albeit a 'finals day' at Old Trafford would be superb. I'm not sure whether SKY would endorse this, they seem to have been getting Hemmings to put out a fair bit of pro franchising propaganda lately. The main problem would be financial- the six moving up would need a lot more in the way of SKY money, however the amount they currently receive is to be reduced next year. It's an interesting one and with the right investment it could work, but I fear it could be another knee jerk reaction which we try for a few years then scrap.

Thoughts?

Let the squabbling over who should be in tier 1 or tier 2 begin!!

I personally think conferences are the way to go if there is funding to allow for 20 pro teams.

I could care less about which team is in which tier as long as we finally get a competitive league, something which isn't provided by a 14-team league and almost certainly wouldn't by 12 teams. We simply don't have the quality and depth of playing personnel, something which is only going to get worse with the increase in salary cap in the NRL.

So does that mean an 18 game season, or a convulted system to play each club 3 times to give 27 games (as we (sort of) previously had)?

Add in the Play Offs and you'll end up playing some teams 4 or 5 times in a single season, which IMHO really isn't what I want to watch.

Again!

As I mentioned: two 10 team conferences. Each play home and away, then top five of each conference form a separate league and play each other once, top 4/5 to play off for SL titile, bottom five of each conference to form another league and then top 4/5 from that group compete for a secondary title (the SL plate if you will),

Cue Smokey (who's made some sense recently to be fair!) and headhunter

and cue everyone else leaving the thread well alone! !

So... your solution to the issue that we haven't got 14 'competitive' teams in Super League, is to 'create' 20 competitive teams split across 2 Conferences of equal standing, with no P&R?

I like the sound of that but would sky cover all the teams in both 0ne and two comps

I don’t think reducing the opportunities for players to compete at the highest level is the way to improve the standard of the player pool. Anything below SL will just become the Championship by another name so changing things seems pointless.

Which is the obvious response. The problem is that there isnt enough money for 20 SL level sides. So we get people proposing this fudge of shrinking four SL sides and sticking them in the 2nd tier and pretending that will bring up the level of 6 championship sides.

This idea is literally nothing more than damaging 4 clubs in the hope it will slightly improve 6 others, as you say, it would only be the championship by another name.

It also telling that those who argue against franchising because of the damage the lack of P+R has, seem to favour a lack of P+R between SL2 and whatever is below it.

Saying that, the report itself should be taken with a massive pinch of salt considering they couldnt even get a basic fact like when the TV deal runs to correct.

Has anyone figured out how to replace the lost income from 4 home games? Or the loss in sponsorship revenue? Or the loss in ancillary revenues such as corporate packages, programmes, refreshments etc?

Has anyone considered that Sky most likely wouldn't give two hoots about a second-tier SL and therefore their TV money would also be reduced with fewer games and a reduction in sponsorship revenue?

Calling it 'Super League Two' doesn't disguise it being the Championship in another form, all you're doing is sticking 4 of the weakest SL clubs in a much weaker situation. I suppose 'SL2' might see slightly better crowds than the Championship.

And 18 rounds plus Challenge Cup plus play-offs would barely last 6 months. How can clubs be expected to survive when only operating for less than 50% of the year?

Terrible idea. Won't happen.