Narrow your search a little. It basically looks like P/R is recognised as an issue requiring further discussion, and a review into current RFL policies (including P/R) is forthcoming.

They also confirm that any decision regarding P/R can only be reached following the agreement of the RFL and club shareholders and the approval of a majority of Super League clubs and the RFL.

So it's up for review, as are a lot of things. Interesting document.

People who say we can support 14 teams are kidding themselves. First off we do not currently have the talent in terms of players to support that many teams, and the Aussies we can import are often of a terrile standard. All you have to do is look at half of the teams.

Secondly, and most importantly, the finance is not avalable to support 14 teams. This is plain to see and I doubt any one is stupid enough to argue the point. This is the 4th year of 14 teams and how many teams have gone into adminstration? bradford, celtic, wakey and the crusaders didnt have the finance to carry on. thats a club a year that cannot carry on.

To be honest, despite what chairmen have recently stated, i think this is the tip of the iceberg. there are plenty more clubs that are struggling with their finances.

I for one would praise the RFL if they reduced the amount of clubs in SL. I know a lot of fans would be scared that their clubs would be the ones that miss out and therefore wouldnt support the idea, but for the good of the game long term i think this is the best way forward.

Having 12 clubs, who can all spend to the SC, who can all compete in the league is the ideal. imagine how much better the international team would be if every week every game was of the standard of wigan v saints or warrington v leeds. all the players would get so much better because they are playing at that high level, unlike now were wigan didnt even get out for first gear to beat london by a large amount.

Defintely needs reverting back to P&r. I'm fed up fo hearing, London, Widnes etc are planning for next year. We've been hearing that since June. The teams at the bottom have nothing to play for, so it's pretty much a bye for the teams chasing play off spots. Also the crowds a lower for then game as people won't pay £20 to watch a meaningless game.

If we had P&R, the bottom clubs will be throwing everything into the remainging games, which is what we want.

Two tens is almost upon us.
Top tier gets intensity and increased gates, second tier has a professional FT platform for clubs to develop to/from whilst the game expands, 1 up 1 down and £1m spend in second tier with 1 import.
In 6 years we must be aiming for 12/12.

It isn't almost upon us at all. It's something that gets bandied around here but when put under scrutiny the idea falls on its .

I really don't think people can say its not working. It does give teams the opportunity to build and grow stronger over a couple of years. This will happen and will only provide for a better superleague. The likes of widnes, castle ford and Wakefield will provide a lot more to a superleague competition than a championship club coming up for one year and going down the following.

The franchising does need looking at in terms of financial stability of clubs. How bradfords problems were not picked up and analysed because it all went tits up is beyond me.m

Cas and London

It's not even what everyone on RLFans wants, let alone in the wider sport.

There's not enough cash or talent for 14 FT sides and you want to increase it to 20?

I don't want it either, was a dismal failure for the years SL had P&R for the teams removed from the comp (except Hudds andthey wrre saved by a sugar daddy)

How will reducing SL by 2 clubs make the other 12 suddenly financially viable? In reality you would need to reduce it by around 6 clubs to then split the Sky money into an amount that would cover current clubs 250-500k shortfalls.

We have probably 3-4 teams that are financially stand alone sustainable, another 4 or 5 that are having their losses covered by investors and the rest sailing in the wind of financial meltdown.

A 10 team SL might be more viable but who wants to see 10 teams in a league? Would get boring pretty quickly.

What a load of rot. 14 teams? Bradford blow your argument out of the water and the ailing London club don't back it up either. Two other clubs went bust whilst holding licenses.

Thank goodness P&R is to return. With Lewis gone (Nigel next) the game is heading in the right direction. Hopefully, Bradford will survive the daft franchise experiment.

If after the review their is still no P&R then the games name should be changed.

'Rugby League' should be known as 'Rugby (death by) Franchise'

Soooper Doooper League please, use the correct words if you're going to bash.

How the hell would reducing to 12 clubs suddenly mean those 12 are all top quality and can all spend to the cap?
We don't have enough clubs that are good enough. That's obvious. But if we just kept those that are then we'd only have a 5 or 6 team league.
The financial benefit to the clubs of moving to a 12 team league would be about £200k, but that would be reduced by having 2 less home games.
I'd agree there are still too many overseas players, but that number is and will reduce year on year as the rules start to bite. Plus there is myth put about that if we simply get rid of all or most pverseas players it would solve our problems. It won't. The sad fact is that whilst many of the overseas players are "average Aussies" they're often still better than their British, homegrown alternative.
We need to stop messing with the format at the top level, 14 teams is fine. Are we really saying that the few "good" players at the bottom 2 or 3 clubs would suddenly make the other 12 competitive? Leave it at 14, make it plain it will be a 14 team league for the long term then everyone knows where they stand.
We need to focus on how we coach and produce youngsters and then how we integrate into an open age setup, because far too many young lads are being picked up at SL academies without the proper skills. SL academies shouldn't be a place where you're having to teach a lad how to pass a ball, that should have been done years ago at grass roots level. And that is the far bigger issue, in my eyes anyway, rather than whether we have 12 or 14 teams in SL or even if we have P&R or licensing. Until we change the frankly sh|t nature of many of our amateur teams and leagues then we'll never compete with the Aussies and we'll never produce enough good homegrown players to fill a full-time league.