I'd disagree on your 1 st point but hey ho, who cares

You suggested SLA gets twice as much funding as SLB, doesnt sound like 2 conferences to me

no different in principle from having a sliding scale of dependent on finishing positions. If it helps you just think about it is a reward for a top 10 finish.

Admit it, you changed the idea, didnt you?

Oh... you're down to fantasising about a 10 team SL competition now?

Those full-time SL numbers are becoming less and less as time goes by.

Gimme a shout when they are down to 5.

Yes they pay £ 18 m for a 14 team contest, but you have stated before, they are unlikely to pay the same for less, make your mind up?

Okay, I didn't read that properly - that particular detail is cack. An East and a West conference, equally funded I could live with, but 1 and 2 would be better than A and B, for all that it'd likely end up as a re-branded championship. Your A and B makes 2 x 12 to 3 x 8 look simple and intuitive.

Back to the bigger question, there's good arguments to be made for stability and others, equally good, for mobility. But there's an obvious tension between them and we've ducked the question too long - a decision needs to be, for all that it'll be unpopular and put noses out of joint. The drift is killing us.
Narrow the gap to allow P&R, or pull up the ladder for good and all. Flat funding and caps (if any) within divisions.

No im saying that worst case scenario, with no growth whatsoever we could pay for a 10 team SL out of just the TV deal. This is pretty far away from your chicken licken impression.

You originally meant 2 full time ' divisions ' , 1 above the other, then realised you have stated in the past that it wouldnt work, so you changed to conferences hoping nobody would notice

You are the one living in Disneyland if you think the SL will ever be big enough to compete with the NRL or Japanese/French RU financially. Reality is rugby (sic) has financially grown in some countries way beyond others, England rugby (sic) is dwarfed by soccer and will no longer be able to compete with rugby (sic) in those other countries where either code is a main sport.

500k would make every club (except London) sustainable with current salary cap. Do you think Brazilian soccer is as depressed as you because it loses its star players to England, Italy or Spain?
Being smaller than the NRL is no reason to give up and wring our hands. We need a top level that is sustainable, gives career paths to the top players, inspires the kids to play the game and keeps its fans entertained. They should be our kpi's.

Where have I said that?

I believe the sport is heading towards a semi-professional existence again, apart from a mere handful of clubs - 5 or 6 maximum.

It has no other option.

The only reason we couldnt give all equal funding is ££££, plus they are desperate to put jeopardy (read instability) in to the game apparently. Where is the jeopardy from going from one conference to another with the same funding.
Its pretty simple, you have 2 leages, 4 qualify from one, 2 from the other to go to a 6 team play-off to be champions (this stops the issue of one simply being a rebranded championship), top 2 SLB and bottom 2 teams SLA swap places (no confusion there) 3rd and 4th play 8th and 9th in a promotion play-off (still pretty simple). The benefit of promotion is more money, the negative of relegation less money.

the teams with less money play other teams with less money more times meaning the get smashed fewer times, but still (less frequently) Play the bigger sides and vice versa.

I'd hate you to come up with something complicated.

Got any spare aspirins?

I commend you sir on your quick thinking