I would agree about the fewer games. Personally I would do the 23rd's. Then have the Augest bank holiday as the GF weekend. Moving the challenge cup to a may bank holiday weekend. I would probably also have magic weekend as the last rd of fixtures. And the WCC the weekend of the current GF. This would also give the players a proper rest before internationals in oct/Nov. And allow the season to kick off a bit later. Injuries are part and parcel of the season, but at the moment we risk more simply because of how the season is. People want to see the best players.

Also by less games, marketing, hospitality have less to chose from, so clubs can up the prices slightly.

As I put before, until we get a proper known international calander, we are not going to attract a newer ordinance as it will always be perceived as a local northern sport. As has been shown when games are on the BBC there is an ordinance to tap into. Maybe we should look at taking a game on the road again.

I will stick up for Rovers here, as we do make alot from mmerchandising. But I also feel that as at most clubs the match day experience could/should be improved.

To a degree in agree about America. My worry is that should they establish a proper league there. America will follow Australia's leading and go insular. Which would lead us back to were we are. So I don't want to put faith completely in it. As you say, there is a massive market there, and if we start attracting other markets maybe the RFL will be in a better position to promote the sport. But again we need a proper international map.
We are making slow progress in other countries, but we need to get the ground work going. Getting clubs going, leagues rising. And then we would open up a bigger market. Bigger audiences. Clubs going into partnership with developing clubs in Scotland etc would promote the clubs more (instead of the stupid duel registration we have at the moment).

Until we start laying the groundwork, until we prove that it's not just a northern game with the odd club from somewhere else thrown in. We are going to struggle.

The NRL is a closed shop league, they seem to do alright without promotion and relegation, why wouldn’t Super League be as successful with the same structure.

The England team that got within a gnats pube of lifting the RLWC was developed during licencing....and London shifted LMS to Saints and Clubb to Wigan...if anything, Licensing delivered development of payers.....

Yes it did...we had fewer overseas imports and we started to export players....

6 Years of Licencing delivered 9,276 across the board with a 5 digit average in 2012.....crowds are on the decline again under the middle 8's......down 15% this year compared to 2015!

No argument from me here other than the clubs have always been at marketing themselves.....

That's down to the RFL......nothing to do with licensing.

No it didn't........but dropping "names" like Bradford and HKR back into them has definitely given the 2nd tier a shot in the arm......but I suspect once Toronto (and maybe NYC) pass through we'll be back to park footie crowds....

Yes there is.....there's new money on the table and the owners of this new money will not stand for any of the flat capped bullcrap of woods et al......binning licencing was a mistake, but sometimes mistakes can produce a better outcome and if done properly with an independent management of the licensing system, it could make the sport more stable, more noticeable and more attractive to both sponsors and spectators......and I'm sorry if that means that clubs like Barrow or Hunslet miss out on the big time, but this is the reality of 21st Century sport.

Abolish the “cap” part of the salary cap so clubs with the necessary levels of turnover can spend more. Like a percentage of turnover with no ceiling. That will do more for the game here than any licensing or P&R. As it stands we aren’t raising the standard, we are dumbing it down so lesser clubs can compete

Regards

King James

well to get back to the original topic,two championship clubs with a mini bus full of fans between them.i wonder how many people will be watching this one.yet another bird brained idea from the rfl.

The problem I have with this, is the blatant favoritism of 2 sides. You either play all the championship games, or non at all.

1) you could argue that as most ply there trade down NRL. And the intense nature of there competition is why we did . Leeds side was before then.
Given that only 7 sides have played a GF (4 won it). And that only Warrington appeared during licencing, and only those 5 finished top of the league. could argue the other way.

2)I admit I could be wrong about this.

3) one of the main reasons we left licencing was because of crowds. Yes crowds are down, but that's a problem year on year. Most clubs don't do things to improve. But a personal view is the Thurs/Fri games. I can't go to a home game due to other reasons Work etc. This effects a crowd, both home (people who don't live in the city/area), and obviously away.

4) not giving clubs a chance of going up, hampers there crowds, how they can market the club. Gives them nothing to aim for. And possible new fans would find new things to do. Plus loses local sponership who could move on to bigger sponsorship. Plus it makes the game go stale after a couple of seasons.

How has this played out at clubs like Batley, Dewsbury and Featherstone? These are clubs that simply aren't going to make themselves into competitive Super League clubs under any model (indeed, Batley's board are on record as saying they're not interested), but the clubs don't - on the face of it at least - seem to be dying.

I went to Batley v Catalans a few years ago and what I saw was a vibrant community club with a lot going for it. Some challenges, yes, but a lot to be positive about and a lot to market to the local community.

I don't see the lack of P&R as this death-knell for the lower leagues - at least, it only is if the clubs want to let it be.

Jesus that's pushing it trying to back licensing with that. Had the luxury of not facing a good NZ team in the SF and still almost messed up against Tonga. And we weren't within a gnats pube, we failed to score a point, even then we'd need a conversion to just level and still have to find a winning score. And the same team failed to get to the 4N final a year earlier or the 2013 WCF.

What about when we did actually beat Australia last in 2006?

The attendance issues are more to do with the style of rugby, tired and injury hit teams from overplaying, frustration at referee standards and general poor marketing than the league structure. I think we'd be struggling more if we kept the old system.

Going back to licensing would see teams get comfortable again. See where Cas, Wakey and Hull have come since we introduced this new system as they've started to push themselves more and not just making up numbers in SL.

Featherstone could. The others I'd agree about, Halifax didn't want to go up last year. But in a few more.

If you want to go back to licensing (which as you may have noticed I'm against), the possible solution would be to return to 2 leagues.

will the game be on sky, as part of the magic weekend package, or premier sports who are showing all league games upto the middle 8s??

You honestly think that Featherstone, a club in a town of about 17,000 people, could be a competitive Super League club and cope with the standards that we really should be pushing clubs to attain?

Printer - we beat Australia in 2006 in a game they didn't need to win. Comparing that to a World Cup Final is nonsensical. As is saying we didn't score a point but ignoring the fact that the best team in the world, with several all time greats in key positions only managed ONE try against us. In the past twenty years I've seen two really top class performances from England/GB - this year's WC final and the semi final loss to NZ. Sadly both were narrow losses, which reflect the fact we simply don't have enough quality players in key positions yet.

Anyway, back on topic, I'd say the only realistic hope for growth in our sport in the near future is expansion in France and ideally a genuine north american presence (which again will need more than one team). Its a big if, but if we get a properly funded Toronto, with the ability to tap into a completely new market in terms of revenues, they at least should be given exemption from any threat of relegation for long enough to get them established.

It's a fact......6 points from a draw or 7 from the cup....when were England ever that close?

Yes.
I don't think it's about the population of a place. But about the ambition of the board. Who they could attract, weather they'd get 3/4 full or more stadiums. And I believe that Featherstone could be all those things.