To all the ones saying the RFL brought in a zero sponsorship cash deal, get your facts right. There were two deals on the table.

THE SL CHAIRMEN VOTED FOR THE STOBART DEAL.

Also we are not Australia and people in this country like to watch competitive sport with something to aim for. Even RU have promotion and relegation.

not all the super league chairman voted for the stobart deal actually.. it was 9 to 5 in favour

rlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/9050409/Hull-FC-and-Hull-Kingston-Rovers-both-voted-against-the-Stobart-Super-League-sponsorship-deal.htmlrl

Thank god I support a team that got it right the deal was

Hats of to Ian Lenegan, it is about time someone said enough is enough. The way the RFL has been going it was only a matter of time until this happened.

All that has happened in the last 12 months is the RFL have undone all the good choices they have made in the previous 10 years. Despite it not being popular the licencing system has been successful. It has made the league stronger, protected teams in and out super league from over spending to gain/avoid relegation. Most importantly it has increased the number of good young players in the league. The stadia has also improved directly because of licencing, despite what Blake Solly says.

Everything has not been perfect but that does not mean you change everything. If the licencing costs too much stream line it. What is the point in Wigan, Leeds, Warrington, Hull applying for a licence every 4 years, they are always going to make the grade. Tony Smith hit the nail on the head when he said you should have a licence system but when team breaks the rules i.e. go bust, they should be kicked out.

Hull KR close to 15 overseas players? Don't talk bolox man.

Close to 15 overseas players in one HKR side that took the field?
Care to name it?

I mean I know you have a clear hatred of everything HKR but good god man stop talking utter BS.

This is the attitude that is inherently wrong with licencing. Why the heck should anyone think that Wigan, Leeds, Warrington and Hull have a God given right to be in the top division for ever? A quick scan down the history books (in all sports) show that a constant presence at the top table isn't viable. Neither is it healthy for the continued existence (in the long term) of any sport.

I cant be bothered trawling through ever HKR line up, but their squad contained Ford, Webster, Aizue, Fisher, Tangata-toa, Gene, Gannon, O’niell, Vella, Dyer, Bauer, Lennon, Tandy, Lovegrove and at least 12 of them played together in the Hull Derby 2007.

Erm, a quick scan of the history books would tell you Leeds and Wire have been in the top division for ever……

...but the point the previous poster was making is that we don't have a right to be there.

I like the 2x12/3x8 plan as it encourages teams to concentrate and do well throughout the year. It doesn't all depend on how your team performs at the end of the year, if they mess up near the beginning then come the split they could find themselves out of the top 8 and unable to actually compete for the Super league trophy that year. With the "bottom and middling teams" following the split they will find themselves in a league with similar clubs, leading to compettitive games all with a Grand Final of their own to aim for. Then the "middling clubs" will have the bonus that if they finish in the top half then next year they will get "promoted" giving them a chance at the Super League title in the following year. It's effectively promotion/relegation twice in a season.

Its not that they have a right to be there, its that barring a catastrophic series of events they always will be there. And even if that catastrophic series of events were to happen (which is very very very unlikely) then any fall would be temporary but very damaging.

12x12 3x8 will simply exacerbate the gaps in the league. The top will get much bigger, the bottom will get much smaller and the ones in the middle will be stuck in between getting smashed by the bigger boys and being left behind, smashing the little clubs and leaving them behind. The clubs promoted to the 2nd set of 12 would be making a jump from a league containing clubs not a whole lot better than the top amateur leagues, to a league with clubs (apparently)being able to spend £1.6m in wages. 12x12/3x8 will give us two leagues where the bottom clubs in each league get further and further away from the top clubs in those leagues. We would have 2 very very uneven leagues.

...like when Wigan were relegated in the 80's you mean?



I agree there will be differences to begin with, but I diagree that they will get worse. By playing against better team the lower teams will get better and improve, thus closing the gap.

problem i have with the 12/12 and 3x8 is the magic game...let's say for example after 23 rounds team in 9th have 14 points team in 8th have 15 points.....but team in 9th played the team who finish top at the magic and lost, and the team in 8th played the team who finish bottom (12th) at the magic and won.........oh dear.....going to be some fallout there.... Magic weekend should be based on league placing from previous year....1 v 2, 3 v 4 etc etc......or based on current seaon and played after 11 rounds with same format......that way no-one gets an easy 2 points

yeah, catastrophic series of events resulting in a damaging but short lived relegation.

Why wont the better teams improve at a faster rate because they are playing better teams more often? The only lower teams who would play better teams more often under this system would be the top championship clubs who would play the bottom SL clubs. This means the bottom SL clubs are playing at a lower level (going further away from the top SL clubs) whilst the top championship clubs would get closer to the lower SL clubs they would be getting further away from the top ones.