Not forgetting the usual 7 London Broncos fans.....what a joke of a club, eh CALL ME GOD !

The reality is we currently have 14 English clubs capable of a place in SL, 2 French and 1 Canadian. Now get Avignon in the Mix with New Jersey/NYC and we almost have the 2 x 10 Structure we need to grow into and from.
The uneducated Chorley rabble are holding our sport back

SL 1 & SL 2 sound like a good idea, until you think a little deeper.

Unless you have 2 conferences say, East & West, having SL1 and SL2 is effectively a re branding of SL and The Championship.
You would actually be cutting the top flight by 2 teams, not too wise really.

You could go for a much larger league of 16/18 clubs but just play each other once, either home or away , depending how the fixtures are drawn up and then have some kind of split/play off system.

who is 'holding it back' ? Us Chorley fans have NO say in the matter.....

Promotion and relegation between them would be essential, as would minimum player salary spend. The fundamental difference between what we have now is that all 20 would be FT and forced to spend a minimum of say £1.5m in tier 2 and £2m in tier 1 - that would make the gap too much for most championship clubs surviving on 1200 gates or less without a rich owner.
Licences would be 3 years and the objective would be to expand not stay still, allowing the clear platform for cashed up expansion or heartlands clubs to realise ambition whilst protecting a sound business from going PT in the Championships
Basically if Batley can show they have the ability and infrastructure to finance their ambition then the sport should encourage that, same with Montreal or Detroit

It was just to annoy 'Call Me God'.

Therefore, you want to water down the quality of the top flight (SL1) to "prop up" the second tier (SL2)
What you want could be easily achieved now, just by spreading the Sky monies between more clubs.

The key is to find a way of getting more cash out of the sports primary sponsor and therein lies the million dollar question ??

As I said previously SL 1 & SL 2 cannot work, unless they are conferences, with some kind of play off system towards the end of the season.
RL is just so far behind Union or NRL that diluting the resources further, would just increase the "brain drain" either to Aus or Union.

The bald fact is that RL in it's present form, RL is just not attractive enough to generate the cash that it thinks it needs.
Perhaps we could expand into N. America, that might get a few more quid

Conferences are the way to grow the number of pro clubs. SL1/SL2 is just another name for what we have now. Clubs will be doing their damnedest to avoid playing in SL2 and the best players will naturally gravitate to SL1.

Have 1 top flight division and add to the league as and when clubs (both traditional and new) feel and can demonstrate they are ready. Have a lead in period so they can prepare. They key is the conferences have equal standing.

Fag packet structure - Start with 16 teams now, split into 2 conferences, home and away fixtures. Top and bottom half of each join up and form the second half of the season playing other once. Top half play for title, bottom half for a shield type trophy. Play off system at the end to suit.

Could we not have 2 leagues playing side by side rather than league 1 and 2.

You mean conferences ?

Unless there is additional funding or, SL clubs reduce their share of the Sky revenue OR, The Championship negotiate a seperate TV deal, things will have to stay pretty much as they are.
IF there was some major additional TV deal from N. America, which, as things stand, would be unlikely, why are we changing the League format again, so soon after the current system was implemented.
There seems to be only one potential answer, which would be to include Toronto and/or Toulouse and IF this is the reason, there seems little sense in the change, without protecting them as one or both could be relegated in their first season.
Btw, I'm not saying that this would be right, only that it seems the only reason to have a major change.