When are you going to start telling us the facts you recognise? you said you would then seemed to list a load of opinion, most of which didnt make sense.

Anyone got any stats on 2nd tier crowds pre and post franchising?

It is possible to get the best of P&R but "protect" new teams from yoyoing.

If you accept the basic premise that 1 championship side HAS THE CHANCE of going up each year, (so lets say the GF winners).
Firstly they only get the chance to go up IF they meet certain ground safety requirement/facilities etc.

You then get a number of options:-
1) they play the bottom placed side in SL in a one-off game at the Championship sides ground
2) they play the bottom placed side in SL in a two-legged game home and away
3) they get automatic promotion and bottom of SL go out.

Then to protect the side coming up, you introduce the fact that a team cannot be relegated out of SL in their first season in SL. A decision would have to be made in such a circumstance that the promoted side does finish bottom...do you have no promotion or does "next to bottom" face dropping out (it will always be one of the bottom two though).

There are two divisions of pro cricket clubs, and there should be two divisions of pro RL clubs. The comparison is not a fair one, it's like compaing SL with the National Conference.

Depends what you mean by 'really competitive'.


Not over the course of a full season they couldn't. They'd finish bottom and get relegated the season after they came up.

Its not, its like comparing SL with the championships.

It would be nice if there were two divisions of pro RL but there arent enough clubs, players or money to have that.

This is a hard issue. P&R threatens the stability of clubs who do get into super league, restricting the ability of younger players to get through the ranks, as management bring in grizzled old pros to try and stay up. However, not having P&R kills off the support of lower league clubs by giving them nothing to aspire to, and little chance of a 'big game' against the top end of super league.

I think the optimum scenario would be P&R, but with parachute payments & subsidies to newly promoted teams. So, for your first 3 seasons promoted you'd get some money off the RFL to allow you to get players in, and an exemption from the salary cap. For 3 years after going down, there'd be support from the RFL to ensure clubs didn't go bust (though these would both obviously reduce year-on-year).

This also needs to happen between the Championship & Championship 1, with the ultimate aim of bringing all those clubs up to a level at which they can sustain a fully pro team.

However, that will need to go hand in hand with generating paydays for smaller clubs (by expanding the challenge cup to ensure more lower-league clubs face SL/top level championship opposition), and by supporting the grassroots in expansion areas (particularly vital in London & Wales).

Well said Smokey.

There are enough players and clubs. It's money that's the issue. A lot of the players in the second division are either players that have come through Super League ranks and been released or young kids who never made the grade. In a full-time environment, I have no doubt that a lot of these players could make the step-up.

You are all looking at P & R from the view point of the clubs as they are now. With P & R you will get bigger crowds for the champ. clubs, better coverage of the team and better crowds. this wil allow them to grow manage the finances well and you can build a team, over many years that can compete at the top. As for TV money all the money at the moment is from Super league. The champ. clubs were sold down the river and there games were given away for free. get someone in the RFL that can get a fair price for the games and you have more income. Sky have super league and prem. sport, ch. 5 or BBC have rights to Super league Div 1.

I have plenty of doubt. We can "produce" as many young lads as we want, but until we improve the quality of the coaching they receive andimprove the attitude at the places they learn their skills then we won't produce enough young lads of good enough quality.
We don't want to admit it, but the problem is at grassroots level.

But it all boils down to money. If rugby league was cash rich then we could afford to develop an excellent player pathway and have things that encourage more players into the game.

A second professional league would not hinder rugby league; it would be hugely beneficial and whether that's existing players or not, matters not. If the money is there, those club can spend on youth development, can get in the right coaches (plenty of coaching staff out of work and ex-professionals) and there are experienced coaches like Daryl Powell, like Karl Harrison and John Kear that can get the best out of those players.

This isn't necessarily about producing international class players in the short-term. It's about strengthening our game and allowing the free movement of clubs from division to division without losing half their team and risking themselves financially. It's about marketing our sport more and ensuring that it can grow sustainably.

I dont think anyone thinks it would be a bad thing or hinder RL to have a pro tier 2, its just not possible and isnt the over-riding priority for the entire game.

Judging by some of the responses to this thread, one would get the impression that a magic treasure chest filled with an endless supply of cash to sustain widespread full time RL exists, and that it can be tapped into at any time. How come I haven't heard of it?

Money (or rather the lack of it) is one reason why we can't have two full time divisions of ten teams, but the lack of available talent is a crucial factor, and again, some seem to think that we have access to the same player pool as more popular sports such as football and RU, when we clearly do not. RU can sustain P and R as they have a player pool of over 2.5 million; while RL has just over 100,000. This means that there simply isn't enough talent to go around, and combined with the poor junior coaching that Him alludes to, it's no wonder we have to import mediocre Australians to fill the pool up and barely sustain one full time division.

The London Welsh case never went to the high courts? It set no legal precedent what so ever. It was a 'normal' RFU appeals panel, except one that the clubs sent QC's too.

The appeals panel ruled that London Welsh should be promoted (despite failing to meet minimum standards) because other clubs already in the premiership didn't meet those very standards. Nothing to do with "what happens on the field of play".