The proposal for a 2 x 10 superleague meant that Superleague would administer a 2 division x 10 clubs league with P & R between the two. At no point was it said or even indicated any SKY deal would be evenly shared by the 20 clubs. You've assumed that.............

The "anything else" was SL taking over the top 20 clubs and leaving the bottom 16 with the RFL. And the RFL right royally stuffed. So (and you would have worked it out in time) this was about Superleague stuffing the RFL, not splitting the SKY deal 20 ways.

SL reckoned that if they created a 2x10 SL then they would win the vote and could effectively marginalise the RFL, but several championship clubs especially Batley and Dewsbury stayed loyal to the RFL. I don't think they wanted to become part of a smaller league where they would be bottom of it, I don't think the two chairmen wanted to be used as pawns in a game.

But the reduced SKY deal and your own predictions that Covid will destroy many smaller clubs may leave us with just 20 clubs anyway. If that happens who will administer these clubs? There is no room for two governing bodies, and as you will appreciate this was highlighted when two different RL bodies were chasing the government for money.

Why would teams in the championship expect money from sky when sky don’t show their games?

Quote: Ste100Centurions "Championship & below could form their own Leagues outside of the RFL, rid themselves of some of the rules set by the RFL & ultimately attempt to sell a slightly different game with a view to becoming a better product. It's a very long shot, maybe achievable, maybe not.'" https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/ ... rfl-741881 Not achievable really Ste. A whole list of clubs won't be viable so it's a massive shake up coming. It poses the question who will countenance Livolsi being given £Millions from the new TV deal when so many real clubs will have gone to the wall??

Quote: Ste100Centurions "Championship & below could form their own Leagues outside of the RFL, rid themselves of some of the rules set by the RFL & ultimately attempt to sell a slightly different game with a view to becoming a better product. It's a very long shot, maybe achievable, maybe not.'" https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/ ... rfl-741881 Not achievable really Ste. A whole list of clubs won't be viable so it's a massive shake up coming. It poses the question who will countenance Livolsi being given £Millions from the new TV deal when so many real clubs will have gone to the wall??

They don't expect it, and for years never got it after giving it up years ago.

But the last deal negotiated by the RFL managed to give them £Millions to be part of a league system the RFL thought would bring in more fans and more money.

But it didn't so we are to go back to giving the Championship nothing, that is if "The Championship" continues to exist in future years, but many clubs who have shut down at the moment may never open up again with the double-wammy of Covid and withdrawal of TV funding.

They will be already be considering closing down as professional enetities in numbers. All this was on the cards long before COVID when Superleague thought the cut would be 17 clubs? with the game running at 20 clubs from the new deal onwards, the 2x10 set up Lenegan suggested.

Lenegan tried to get 8 Championship clubs to jump the RFL's ship. Now the RFL is sinking as the reduced SKY deal becomes a reality. You have probably seen the back of a lot of clubs, some very historic ones at that?

Which 25% haven’t held it back?

This could be interesting identifying 2.75 clubs.

Equally, I dont think that a substantial majority can hold something back, this would be a contradiction.
It maybe that 2.75 clubs, wish to blame someone else for their own shortcomings.

I don't think the clubs have held the game back, but the blazers at the RFL and certain individuals have, especially the individuals that 'have the ear' of the RFL.

I wouldn't worry about it the proposal was just part of a post to get a reaction not a discussion.

.
I was in favour of re-admitting Toronto but only if they could prove they had the funds. If the owner is only willing to reveal his net worth after they have been voted in that does not inspire confidence. This is a Trump - style move and far too vague.

Very perceptive. Livolsi merely saw an opportunity to lever exposure for his Wolf grooming products in the UK via Superleague. He refused to give proof of funds without a guarantee of an SL place. You can be sure that had SL said yes and Livolsi had come here peddling his appallingly named mens products and failed to sell many, he would have been straight back to Canada,

I disagree with most of that. Why do Fev need to pay players? You can play without having to pay players, flippin heck, most RU clubs around here don't pay players.

"SKY Sports hopes of slashing their Super League contract have been complicated by BT Sport's interest and a possible bidding war. Sky had wanted to trim £10million off their £40m a year deal."

Sounds promising!

Let’s hope BT’s interest is genuine.