Quote: headhunter "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.
'"
I agree that there isn't a championship club (at the moment) that would be anywhere near good enough to be in "any sort of superleague". But that's the point, the gap between SL and "the rest" is too big. Make no bones about it, the saviour of the "elite" clubs was Sky money, without it RL was heading for trouble. Even so, there are clubs that are still in the brown stuff because they don't have what it takes to compete at the elite level. An SL2 with funding would allow them to compete at a level higher than the championship and make the jump to the elite level more attainable.
If they were just dropped into the existing championship, then I agree that eventually their standard would drop rather than raising that of the rest. But that is not what I have proposed. My scenario shows a funded SL2 who would be able to retain some players on a full time basis and be able to market themselves more effectively and raise the quality of the on field product.
Quote: headhunter "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.'"
If you read my post you will see that I admitted this was the difficult bit. But then Sky were sold on the original concept of SL because uncle Mo found someone with vision to write the proposal. Remember, the concept of a European superleague playing in the summer was unproven and sky were taking something of a gamble. It would again require a good negotiator and someone who could express a vision of an improved product that could gain audience and sell more sky boxes.
Quote: headhunter "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.'"
Under the current system we would wait for ever to see 20 full time clubs of SL quality.
You talk about "potential to improve". The only potential that some of the current SL clubs have is the potential to buy players through the cheque book of a sugar daddy. Not exactly long term security. Even then , some can't muster a half decent crowd.
Quote: headhunter "Really? I can't think of any examples where a promoted club have been given a one-year stay while other teams have been allowed to be relegated. Either way, it's an absolutely stupid idea and one that I don't think anyone would want to see.'"
I believe I said "exemption is not a new idea" not "exemption of a promoted club is not a new idea". It was a tongue in cheek comment made because the pro franchise lobby seem to think the 3 year format is somehow aimed at protecting newly promoted sides. If this was the case, then no one would object to exemption to protect a promoted side. As I said earlier, the real purpose of franchises is to make existing SL clubs stronger.
Incidentally, you seem to imply that "dropping" sides to a lower division is a "no go" so what happened at the start of SL?
You talk of ideas being "stupid" but I seem to recall many saying the same of summer rugby and the "European" Superleague.
Personally, I want the [iwhole[/i game to improve not just SL. I would like to see the intensity of the [ireal[/i elite to improve to match the Aussies and as things are at the moment that will not happen any time soon. I want to see British talent and true Aussie stars in our elite and our lower divisions to prosper.
I'm quite prepared to accept that you, or anyone else disagrees, but that's what a forum is for, isn't it?
