No it doesn’t, im pretty sure I was pretty clear the first time, so ill just repeat it to you.[i No it doesn’t, Sky pays Super League (Europe) Ltd, of which the clubs and the RFL are shareholders, for the right to broadcast Super League games in this country. It is then distributed by the RFL[/i

It depends on what you call significant.

In Soccer in this country, the average attendance at second tier (Football League Championship) matches is 50% of that at Premier League matches (17,500 v 35,000). So, if the RL governing body got its act together and put a structure in place that provides for automatic one-up, one-down promotion and relegation between the leagues and with an appropriate level of funding to all clubs i.e. SL2 clubs getting just under half what SL1 clubs get, the second tier of rugby league in this country ought to be attracting an average crowd of c5,000.

Then, the game as a whole would have a structure that allows it to grow.

Yet it doesnt.

Apparently so.
Why? Would a club dropping from SL2 to what is no championship one, be less affected than a club moving from SL to what is now the championship?

Extract from Andy Burnham MP's letter to the RFL Chairman below about introducing automatic promotion and relegation between the leagues.

I'm hearing that some positive feedback is now pretty imminent.

"We believe this is urgent and essential to the long term health of our sport at every level and we cite the following specific reasons to support its re-introduction.

• It’s ‘the British way’ of doing things. Do we really think that the same old sides year in, year out playing in the top flight is good for the game? If you take away the dream of top flight Rugby League from the Championship clubs, you take away their lifeblood. Where is the incentive to invest in the squad if there is no prospect of promotion?
• Likewise, without the threat of relegation where is the incentive for Super League clubs to improve, knowing they can and will remain in the top flight year on year.
• Promotion and relegation adds excitement and drama to the season at both ends of the tables. Currently bottom of the table fixtures are played out as meaningless games.
• The loss of competitiveness, threatens in the long term to damage spectator and TV audiences for the sport. Too many predictable, one-sided games will make people switch off or not bother to turn up. "

Thats MP for Leigh Andy Burnham.

Hence the need for change.

That's Smokey Bradford Bulls supporter!!

Is it?

I concede the idea of 2 equal divisions may take a few years longer than is currently being talked about. But once in place I think it would provide a higher number of high quality games, due to the bias in the system through cross divisional games it will keep intensity throught the season as being the best in your own league would not be good enough.

But most importantly it allows for unlimited expansion assuming the sky money is correct, expansion can be geographically, or promotion from lower divisions. Minimum criterion would still have to be met, whether that be ground wise, fanbase wise or finance wise. Divisions would not have to be equal in size either 7 in one 8 in another would have no impact as the playoffs would resolve this. Also if the divisions managed to reach sizes of 10 or 12, the divisions could then be reformatted to 3 divisions.

In fact it could be done with the current number of teams although it would be far from perfect, 8 in each makes it more feasable.

Which ever system is picked, its always going to be money dependant.

No, thats leeds utd and rhino fan,wind up merchant, and chief monkey to the fat controller.

It should never be the job of a governing body to dictate how clubs organize their finances. This is especially true in our case, for the simple reason that I rate the business skills of most clubs higher than that of Nigel Woods.

More to the point, each club is subject to its own local conditions and financial ability. We may mock 'sugar daddies', but frankly I have no problem with rich people who want to bring money into the sport. A sugar daddy doesn't equate to a well run club, but nor is it mutually incompatible wth one.

The RFL needs to give up trying to be game's financial policeman. No chairman wants to go bust, and besides, the RFL doesn't seem to be much cop at protecting clubs anyway.

Tough squad limits are all the RFL need to impose to prevent a loaded club dominating everything. If you can only pay superstar wages to 13 players, you're never going to be totally dominant...but you can still let the sugar daddy, sponsor, dedicated fans, whoever, have the thrill of aiming to sign some of the world's best players by parting with their money.

Very tight squad limits, 6 points or whatever for administration, P&R with reasonable distribution of TV money, then just s@d off and train referees or something useful like that, and leave the clubs to do a better job of building the sport than the current incumbents at the RFL could ever do.

Do, even a little bit, of research into the structure of the game and you will realise that franchising, minimum standards, Salary Cap, etc etc are all led by the clubs. It’s the clubs who ask for them and the clubs who want them.