You are correct, it doesn't prevent clubs from overspending. It provides a better structure to avoid overspending and removes the salary arms race aspect of Promotion, but it doesn't stop clubs from overspending. No system could do that. However idiot proof they made any system, I fear they would underestimate the stupidity of some club chairmen.

Leigh nearly went bust last year, not because they overspent, but because their major backer's companies went in to administration due to unpaid debts to them (the chairman's companies not the club). It did, however, prove the perils of relying on a sugar daddy... One of the reasons given for not giving 'Fax a SL licence... ie they didn't have one!

Franchising was not brought in “just” to help aid the transition of Championship clubs to SL. The RL may see this as an ideal, but the SL chairmen are only concerned with themselves (and some may say rightly so). If the roles were reversed, I’m sure the Championship chairmen would be the same.

The major reason it was brought in was to help the SL clubs themselves:-
It gave longer term security for them to attract sponsors and invest in the infrastructure of the club.
It supposedly allowed them to wean off the reliance on expensive overseas imports whilst bringing through home grown talent.
It allowed them to extract themselves from the expensive cycle of chasing success with the knowledge they had a three year safety net and even then, if they could pass an exercise in showing they were suitable, they were still in.

The demise of Crusaders and the meltdowns at Bradford and Wakefield, the debt at Hull KR and the reliance of many of The SL clubs on a Sugar daddy perhaps illustrates how fragile SL actually is and why SL chairmen thought they need more security.

I would suggest that “helping” Championship clubs was the least of the reasons franchising was brought in. It is about making SL clubs stronger.

I’ve always thought that RL should have a divisional structure where the transition from one to the other is possible. However, at the moment it seems that the glass ceiling above the Championship is getting higher and harder to breach.

As an illustration: Castleford were demoted and bounced straight back up, would they be able to do that now?

Demotion from SL was always considered tough, but now it’s thought of as a death sentence.

I can see the point in franchising but I would prefer a two division SL.

I think everyone would, but that isn't possible at present. We barely have enough strong clubs for one division.

I don’t agree.

SL1 would be a 10 team elite division playing higher intensity rugby week in week out with a higher salary cap to make sure they can retain the best young talent. There would be an emphasis on reducing the reliance on overseas players but the higher salary cap would allow teams to buy a few genuine “stars”. Anyone going into admin or cheating the cap is relegated to SL2.

TV money from the “dropped” teams goes to the lower divisions.

SL2 would be for those teams ready for, getting ready for and expansion sides. 12/14 teams.

P&R between SL1 and 2 and between SL2 and the Championship.

Promoted sides are given a years grace in the higher division.

TV coverage would be mainly SL1 but SL2 shown also.

Here’s the hard bit - A good negotiator at the RFL who can sell the “vision” to Sky and make sure they get the money and TV coverage needed. It would become more of a possibility were there to be a credible challenge to Sky for broadcast rights from another network.

Above all we would need a desire to make this work, but I firmly believe that SL clubs are onto such a good thing with franchising that they would have to be dragged kicking and screaming along. That’s not an insult, just the way it is.

One can dream.

That would cause the exact same problems that were faced last time we had P&R. Clubs like Leigh and Featherstone pretending that they are good enough doesn't mean that they are anywhere near good enough to compete. This fad idea of a two-tier SL needs to stop, the only thing it would achieve at the moment would be needlessly dragging down the standards of four of the current SL sides who would effectively be relegated to the Championship. When we have 20 full-time teams at the level of a Castleford or Wakefield, then we can consider bringing back P&R. Until then, it would be a backwards step.

Also, the idea of a promoted team being given a year's exemption from relegation is far, far more 'unfair' than any concept of licensing. The fact that you felt the need to add that stipulation shows that you are aware of the problems caused by P&R, so I'm not sure why you are arguing in its favour?

"SL1" and "SL2" is just tarting up the Championship - you're still technically relegating 4 teams and promoting some Championship teams. Here's what I'd go with: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=528438&tsmp=1337947392 No splitting the league into "1" and "2" have them running alongside each other at the same level and the grand final is the best of the 2 divisions playing each other. More teams but Less league games (or 27 still if you have a 3 match all star game series) and more weeks off so the players get more rest. There's even scope for individual sponsorship of the leagues, something like the Engage conference in the Stobart Super League etc.

"SL1" and "SL2" is just tarting up the Championship - you're still technically relegating 4 teams and promoting some Championship teams. Here's what I'd go with: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=528438&tsmp=1337947392 No splitting the league into "1" and "2" have them running alongside each other at the same level and the grand final is the best of the 2 divisions playing each other. More teams but Less league games (or 27 still if you have a 3 match all star game series) and more weeks off so the players get more rest. There's even scope for individual sponsorship of the leagues, something like the Engage conference in the Stobart Super League etc.

No it isn't. It's providing funding and the oxygen of a degree of "proper" TV coverage to allow there the be a balanced step to the elite level. A side that gets into SL2 can make itself much more ready to make the "leap" into SL1 thus making failure less likely. A demoted side isn't dropping as far so does not have to go into a free fall spiral downward. SL2 could be made attractive enough that sides with less ambition are happy to remain where they are.


So what's new? Isn't that what happened at the start of SL?


In the format you have shown, two of the conferences look most attractive and would garner the lions share of deals.

You do it east and west, simple. Yorks, Lancs, anything and anything but 2 x 9 and so forth

I don't agree. SL2 would not be the championship under another name, it would have more funding, more TV exposure therefore the potential for more sponsorship and likely have half a dozen full time players. It would be halfway house between the full time elite division and the part time championship.


How will we ever achieve 20 full time teams under the current system?


Exemption is not a new idea, it was used under the pre-franchise system also. I mention it only because the pro-franchise lobby seem to hold it as being an essential requirement

I quite like the idea but was trying to think of a system that would make progression possible from the lower divisions without impossibly large hurdles to overcome.

I wouldnt put any hurdles in the way, you get a decent business plan and youre in, pick a conference haah

Yeah balance is a bit of an issue but that can easily be sorted by just swapping a couple of teams, when I did it last night the first groups were just on the basis of ah local teams and derbies then the balance didn't end up being right - swapping Fev & Leeds round for an example evens out the East a fair bit.

No, as someone else said, it would be a 'tarted up' Championship. Castleford, Widnes, Wakefield and London (assuming they are the clubs that would miss out on the 10 team SL) are all at roughly the size where they could operate either at Championship or SL level without looking out of place. If they were demoted, they wouldn't be big enough to provide enough of a boost to the other, inferior teams that would make up the league, and over time their standards would slip so that they would effectively settle at a similar level to the current top Championship clubs. The point is that clubs like Featherstone and Leigh aren't ever going to be big enough to compete at any sort of elite level. Of the current Championship clubs, Sheffield look like they might have the business strategies and potential for growth to potentially make a fist of it in a hypothetical SL2, and possibly Halifax and somewhere like Barrow might also be able to improve the required amount to allow them to compete at a similar level to the likes of Cas now. Apart from them, I can't see any Championship clubs that would be anywhere near good enough to be in any sort of 'Super League' by any definition. If clubs like Leigh or Featherstone were competitive in such a league, it would almost certainly be through a lowering of the overall standards rather than through those clubs raising them.

Your model also assumes that Sky would be interested in providing funding and coverage of the 'SL2', when the reality is that they would almost certainly treat it like they did with the Championship when they had the rights. Effectively we would just be relegating four current SL sides.
By adding teams to Super League when they are ready. I never said it would be a quick or easy process, but it's better than attempting quick-fixes and putting structures in place to try and allow substandard teams to artificially compete. Like I said earlier, the crux of this problem is that virtually none of the existing Championship clubs have the potential to improve enough to compete in Super League. It's tough on the fans who might not want to believe this, but that's just the way it is. If we introduce any sort of system to try and allow these clubs to compete, then we will inevitably be lowering standards rather than raising them.

What potential are these clubs missing?