think that should read in the hands of 4 maybe 5 of the most powerfull chairmen the rest will just follow suit depending on what is promised to them as when sl was first muted but then when it was done and dusted some were given a kick in the knackers and just told tough, the big 4 money men will allways get there own way in the end

P&R Is a catastrophic idea....why do people think the problems that led to licensing have suddenly disappeared?

even in the richer code of Union p&r is a joke where a club wins every game in the championship then goes up and loses every game week in week out for the whole entire premiership season

The problems that led to Licensing havent disappeared, but a whole new set have appeared, boredom and ompotence

Who's bored??

certainly not me we have on of the closest SL seasons for a long time

we have 4 teams with a shout of the league leaders shield and all look like they are good enough to win the GF

just because they're are a few teams at the bottom that aren't up to scratch which by the way happens in every sport in every league we should totally change the structure of the game.

at least with licensing the bottom clubs get time to develop they're squads to a competitive level. just swapping the bottom teams every year will bring nothing to SL. clubs will go back to the boom & bust football hiring & firing coaches buying a load of expensive aussie's that once they get relegated have to get rid of.

Not really correct, the onus is on the "big 4" to try and stop the other 8-10 from voting for more money and security.

If it's 1 man 1 vote, then often the smaller clubs win the day as they are the one's that don't have the money and rely more on the SKY Money.

I am not suggesting any change of the structure, just pointing out the facts

come on we all know how it works,you vote this way and we will make sure you are ok but when the time comes sorry old lad we didnt mean it the big 4 will allways get their own way

A major hurdle with P&R is the OCC anti-tampering deadline.

By the time promotion is confirmed any quality players that were on the market have long since signed elsewhere, meaning the side that needs strengthening the most only gets the leftovers to pick from.

This wasn't such a problem when the National League season finished before the OCC deadline but since the seasons were aligned Hull KR are the only team to achive promotion to SL & not finish bottom the following season.

P&R was abolished for a reason. Relegation last year would have set Widnes back a long time and Sheffield would now be getting flogged every week, probably with other SL clubs cast offs. Licensing shouldn't be dismissed as not working after just one and a half licensing periods. There should be at least a couple of more periods before any discussion is made.

The main problem with the SL structure is too many teams in the playoffs, as most of the playoffs teams are decided already by this stage of the season and the second half of the season just trundles along until the playoffs start. Reducing the playoffs would mean a more intense fight for playoff places but the season would be over for the teams in the bottom half of the league as the season goes on, but pro sport is supposed to be about winning to try and be the best, not winning to try and avoid being the worst.

One of the best ways to increase commercial revenue is more exposure to a wider audience on the BBC. As there isn't going to be a new knockout comp introduced anytime soon the best solution is probably to split the playoffs between Sky and the BBC and, if the BBC can't replay the Grand Final in full, at least have more extensive highlights on the BBC than there usually is.

Agreed, but whilst the 8 team play-off, us and then scenario continues, it is stillthe responsibility of the clubs to sell themselves to their target audience.
I can only really use the London Shambles....sorry, London Broncos as an example, but AFAIK, sine Ian Lenagan was told to "let go" by the RFL, the club have....

1. Placed 5 quarter page adverts in the London edition of METRO,
2. offered 2-4-1- tickets on Grab one (or the like),
3. given away free tickets twice in exchange for facebook likes,
4. handed out 15,000 travel ticket holders at Canary Wharf,
5. released 2 "viral" videos that have been seen by less than 3,000 people,
6. included info about the rebrand in the wembley double header programme,
7. flyered fans on the way to England v Australia at the big house in 2011.....
8. in 2013 started placing 1/8th page generic ads in the local papers.
9. leveraged increased coverage in the Evening Standard
10. stickered/liveried 10 London black cabs

Now, if this had all been done the week after IL walked away or even over a few months, all well and good, but [sizeTHIS IS THE TOTAL MARKETING ACTIVITY OF THE CLUB FOR THE 5 AND A HALF SEASONS SINCE LENAGAN LEFT US.....[/size.....it makes my blood boil when I think of the number of missed opportunities the club have experienced.....the latest rumour regarding our new home is a 5,000 capacity stadium in North West London.....

Whatever system the RFL come up with, it should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

The systems in place since the inception of SL have been exclusive—the top table clubs have always had access to massively more money than clubs who were strongest in the division below, and this discrepancy has continued to grow. It quickly became next to impossible to successfully transition from the 2nd tier to SL.

As a result of the growing artificial financial cliff introduced by SL, licensing was introduced as the solution; It being much less transparent and far more exclusive than any of the systems that went before it.

The gulf in funding between SL clubs and Championship clubs needs to be addressed. There must be a natural path to achieving better, one that doesn't require huge financial risks to pull off.

Once we have an inclusive system, the actual structure of the leagues is reduced in importance as competition can thrive and the entertainment value of the product on the field is likely to improve.

Currently, the system protects SL clubs and their cash pile.

The cliff isnt artificial. It exists, and it always will exist.

Remove the SKy money, Hell give it to the championship clubs instead, wont make a difference, Featherstone cannot financially compete with Leeds. The whole town has a population less than Leeds average. The Stadium's entire capacity is less than half of Leeds average. They dont have the sponsors or corporate opportunities Leeds have, they simply would never get close. Wire, St's Wigan similar.

In SL leigh were getting about 4k. Leeds and Wigan are looking at 14/15/16k, Regardless of Sky money, there is massive difference and it is a difference which is exacerbated in a professional sport.

Under no structure are Leigh going to be able to compete with Leeds and Wigan off the field, which means the only way they will compete on it is by holding Leeds and Wigan back.

This same cliff exists between the top and bottom of SL.


Yes it would.


They don't need to, just compete with the bottom 6 then build on this.


You mean like the rest of SL are holding them back now?

It's sugar daddies, not good management that's keeping half of SL afloat. If all clubs were run like Leeds then SL would be in a much better place, but the simple truth is they aren't.

And we need to eliminate it.
No. It wouldnt. Leeds turnover ten times the TV money. Giv e Fev £1.2m. They still arent getting anywhere near £12m
Yes, they do. If Fev arent aiming to compete with Leeds. They shouldnt be in the same league as Leeds.