There is just so much wrong here.

Coca-cola, Mars, McDonalds and Sainsburys, and BskyB 5 of the biggest companies that operate in this country, 3 of them amongst the biggest in the entire world run local community based sporting initiatives.

I don’t know what more proof you want that big companies like to project a local image by supporting local initiatives than examples of them doing so. We are just getting in to the territory of your refusing to believe that big companies don’t have public SMART objectives again.

Its really more of an all-round thing isn’t it. Im sure some of it is just being nice, people who run big business generally aren’t actually monsters whatever criticism can legitimately be levelled at them. But a large part of it is to improve the image of the company in the eyes of the public, especially companies like Sainsburys or Tesco who can sometimes be viewed as these voracious goliaths just destroying everything in their path. Getting involved in peoples lives at a local levels humanises them somewhat.

I think to start with we would be as well trying to get some big companies involved in the community aspect of our game rather than the more commercial aspect and build from there.

I remember 20+ years ago coca-cola sponsoring portable goals and nets for youth football, that builds in to being an official partner then sponsor then sponsoring the lower leagues.

Given a stick has only 2 ends, its amazing how you always manage to find the wrong one.

Your obsession with Nigel Wood gets creepier by the day. Maybe a look at the list of sponsors here leedsrugbyfoundation.org/home.php will help you learn. Big companies like the Co-operative, like Leeds building society, like BDO, Like ASDA-Walmart, like Arla foods (cravendale) are all involved in the Leeds Rugby Foundation, and in news which im sure will shock you, they all also sponsor the Rhinos as well.

Your obsession with Nigel Wood gets creepier by the day. Maybe a look at the list of sponsors here leedsrugbyfoundation.org/home.php will help you learn. Big companies like the Co-operative, like Leeds building society, like BDO, Like ASDA-Walmart, like Arla foods (cravendale) are all involved in the Leeds Rugby Foundation, and in news which im sure will shock you, they all also sponsor the Rhinos as well.

Exactly. The game has to live with the finances it actually has, not what it wishes it had. Wishing and hoping, planning and dreaming won't bring us 20 fully pro sides - it needs 20 clubs with the money to do it and the reality is we're struggling to keep 14.

Someone needs to go and knock down the door at the SKY office. Whilst their agreement with our sport is fixed for a term and price, the fact that the players are contracted independantly means a rival broadcaster/product is undermining them reducing the quality of one of their popular shows. If they're allowed to stick their heads in the sand, they're going to lose a good number of veiwers, impacting not only their subsribers, but the price they can realistically demand for advertising around it.

This cuts both ways.

The flip side of the argument is that Sky may want to reduce their sponsorship next time around as they may be paying for "an inferior product".
It really isn't the responsibility of a sports broadcaster to improve the sport although, in truth, most major sports would be stuffed without Sky and their peers.

The way things are going we may end up with 2 leagues of 10, with only the top flight being of decent quality and if people like Peacock keep banging on about lack of intensity and a gulf within SL etc, perhaps SKY would be right to offer less money next time.

If what I believe to be correct is true, that the Sky contract stipulates a [iminimum[/i 12 clubs in SL then the idea of 20 even in two divisions is a non-starter. Why would Sky fund a div 2 which, as a part time time league, would be the equivalent of what we have now.

Its not, but they will want the best products to sell to the public and if they're cheap about things, they're going to lose one. TV money in sport, SKY in particular in our case, is so intertwined in our existance, that we shouldn't/can't shy away from the fact that we'll practically live and die by it. It will serve them no purpose to lose superleague as a viable draw for the public. What we need won't be a king's ransom to sky and if we paired that with a better approach to sponsorship, we may find ourselves in a less perilous situation.

I'd also like donations from wealthy backers for star players to count outside the cap, meaning it continues to protect financially challenged clubs from over reaching and bankrupting themselves, but at the same time allows Star players (both english and antipodean) to work in the SL thanks to the likes of Dr Koukash, who'll be more likely attracted by the chance to buy success, rather than fund a team to be another also ran.

That is exactly the point, maybe they wont fund two leagues of ten clubs, which could lead to the axe falling on 2 or more SL clubs in 2015.
It's strange that only a few years ago the league was expanded form 12 to 14 clubs and now, certain parties want it cut back to 10 clubs, it's no wonder some of the clubs are struggling to promote themselves effectively.

Seems a bit like there are lots of folk all jockeying for their little pet scheme to be accepted as the 'way forward' for SL. All it's really doing is creating lots of rumours with the attendant uncertainty, all of which helps no-one, to be honest.

Much as we all want the the RFL to run the league it seems that any changes to SL, or to be precise - major changes, are going to have to be run past our 'broadcast partner' for approval anyway. I think we need to wait until more concrete proposals are set out - from people higher up the chain, if they ever are.

I don't see how cutting two teams, with the reduction of the leagues fan base and smaller opportunities for young players to make it into the league that will go with it, can be a good thing.