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.

Just have a Yorkshire Super league & a Lancashire Super league two French teams & two London to make the rfl happy one in Yorkshire & one in Lancashire it will keep it two equal leagues top five from each league pay for grand final bottom five play for league position and paid on a sliding scale bring back Yorkshire cup & Lancashire cup and a league shield game for winer of each league as a league opener

Don't be afraid to use punctuation...

This. It's a desperate, last-ditch attempt from people like Andy Wilson who can't let the idea of P&R die. Maybe when we get to the stage where there are 20 full-time clubs then something like this could be considered, until then it's just stupid to even discuss.

If there's enough TV money to go round then great! I wrote about it in February... www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost ... cture.html

If there's enough TV money to go round then great! I wrote about it in February... www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost ... cture.html

There's quite an obvious solution to keep those happy who favour franchising, and those who favour P&R, and I hate to say it, but what the Warrington chief appears to be suggesting is pretty much spot on.

Simply, why not have 20 franchises on a two tier level (say Super League Premier, with Super League One below it)? Clearly SL1 would have smaller financial conditions and recieve less TV money than SLP, and no one could complain about it, because if the clubs vote for it, they know what they're getting.

So, all clubs apply for franchises on, say, a five year basis, which offers some form of stability. Winner of SL1 grand final could replace the SLP wooden spoonists on a yearly basis, and both tiers could have their champions decided in a four team playoff system.

Seriously, what is up with that?

In terms of TV coverage and the money gained from it, I don't know what you're all worried about. Sky, BBC and Premier all show Rugby League currently, so why wouldn't they want to continue that and, as they do now, pay for the privilege. We all know RL is vastly undersold in terms of money, which is why they've brought this Man United guy in, to try and get the proper value. Maybe we're asking a bit much for the BBC or even Channel 4 to show live games, but wouldn't that be a great goal to set, and wouldn't it be great if the RFL got there in time?

As for there being fewer fixtures, a reintroduction of the league cup (JPS/Regal trophy) could serve not only as a pre-season cup competition, but also to replace those really awful friendlies they insist on doing each year.

Agree 100% with you.

'What's up with it' is the fact that we do not have 20 teams capable of competing at a full-time level, and so attempting to form some sort of 'Super League 2' using a majority of exiting Championship teams would just be effectively relegating four current SL sides into the Championship for the sake of it. You would still be putting full-time teams into a part-time league, it would achieve nothing other than severely weakening four clubs for no logical reason and if anything it would exacerbate the problems related to automatic P&R and make them worse than they were before because more clubs would be forced to adopt counter-productive business models than under the previous system. It's a stupid idea and complete none-starter if you put even an ounce of thought into it.

About time. Let's hope they make it happen and defeat the clowns who think the game is doing just fine.

definitely, what the likes of Salford, Cas, Widnes and London need is to be playing at a lower level, in front of lower crowds, in a competition with lower visibility, whilst what the other clubs in SL need is fewer games, less money, and the risk of being relegated to a comp with lower crowds, lower visibility, even less money and a lower standard. Cos thats the big problem RL has, too many teams making too much money, playing at too high a standard with too much visibility and too many fans.

But screw the 4 clubs who would be damaged by being relegated, screw the clubs at the bottom of SL who would need stop focusing on competing at the top but revert to scrambling for survival every year, screw the clubs at the top of the leagues below SL2, screw the youngsters who wont get a game when clubs revert to bringing in aging antipodeans on short term contracts because staying up/promotion becomes a higher priority than youth development again, screw the 5 year tv contract we have just finished the first year of, Sky will definitely want to renegotiate a higher rate now, after all look at the market conditions, everyone is spending loads on everything and Sky definitely havent just shelled out £3billion for the premier league, screw all of them cos Leigh might get a slightly increased attendance.

Choose Life!

If SKY were upping the TV money so that the top 10 were on equal or more money, the lower 10 were on money that made the clubs viable and competitive AND able to step up when promoted and not be the seasons whipping boys then im all for it.

IF though it's basically how it used to be with clubs yoyo-ing and being the season long whipping boys, what's the point?

If Sky upped the TV money, it could be spent in far more effective ways than trying to artificially elevate certain clubs to a standard that they will never realistically be able to achieve.