Well, it's being widely reported that the decision is made.

Super League will stay at 12 teams this year with a strong possibility of a move to 2x 10 SL1 & SL2 for 2023.

The Turkeys have voted, Leigh being one of the said Turkeys I hope we voted for a 14 team SL followed by 2x10 for 2023.

Any betting that Wakefield, Salford, Huddersfield & possibly K.R or maybe Cas voted to stay as is for 2022 ? With 4 down at the end of 2022 *proposed plan* those were the Club's most likely *with Leigh* to be relegated, so would have been Turkeys voting for Christmas. Not forgetting that Sir Ken of Davey is the current Super League Supremo !!!

Edit.

Question also, which Super League Club's can't afford to share the pot 14 ways ?
They should be the first out of the door !!!

Maybe I should have renamed the thread I started earlier rlhttps://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f....but as I said in that one, the turkeys don't call the shots, the BUTCHER does and SKY are the ones in control now, so when the fans and game in general continues to dilute, SKY will find somewhere else to put their cash.

You'll have at least 6 clubs go bust or close to bust trying to make the 10......

SL1
Wigan
Leeds
St Helens,
Warrington
Hull FC
Catalans

then.....Wakefield, Salford, Leigh, Featherstone/Toulouse, Huddersfield, Castleford, HKR.....all scrapping to avoid the drop

If it's 5 down in 2022 and 1 up, it could be argued that the way is being cleared for London to dominate that comp, explaining why no money has been spent on 2021. Then the drawbridge is pulled up....

Your forgetting for 4 to go down, 2 would have to come up this year. Surely the 2 'new' teams plus Leigh would be favourites for the drop in 2023 along with one of the above.
There is always the possibility that one of the 'big boys' could have a nightmare and finish bottom 4. If Wigan or Saints were in the mix, as unlikely as it is, I could see a massive back track and way to manipulate the rules coming in.

Yes, of course you are correct on that score. 2 up then 4 down, so maybe Cas & Wakey *on current standings* would be fine, so Leigh, Fev, Toulouse, Wakey & Salford + maybe Giants fighting to avoid the drop to SL2.

As it is, all semantics now.

If Toulouse go up this year, I expect they'll perform as well as London did a couple of years back. If Fev go with them, I expect them to perform as well as Toronto were doing last year.
Wakey, Huddersfield, Leigh, Salford, Fev, Castleford and HKR will all be scrambling and overspending to avoid the drop....one of the bigger clubs will have a wobble (great if it's wigan AGAIN).....but you'll end up with
WIGAN
ST HELENS
WIRE
HULL FC
CATALANS
LEEDS
TOULOUSE
and 3 more teams from the 7 I named above and a couple from the 2nd tier.....personally, Watching Wigan v Leeds 5 times a year is a massive bore and I suspect a 2nd tier with the likes of Haven, Wakey, Fax, Bradford and Castleford will generate better games and decent gates....

I’ve no problem in principle if 2 leagues of 10 providing we finance the second tier enough for them to be full time pro.

What I don’t want is the loop fixtures.

As a sport we should be striving to increase the quality of the competition which has been on a downward trajectory for a while now. We need to reduce the number of games to allow the players to rest, recuperate and train properly between games and reduce fatigue.

I’d like to see a league of 10 with 18 games, play each team home & away plus playoffs.

We’d then need something else to provide a few extra home games for each club. I like the suggestion Castleford made. Run a 9’s competition throughout the season. This could involve all 20 clubs split into groups of 4 at a time so 6 matches at each venue. Maybe 8 weekly rounds so each club gets 2 home fixtures out of it. The 9’s league can then culminate in a play off to replace the magic weekend to determine the winners. I hope it might take off like 20-20 in Cricket. Clubs to name a squad of 14 for each fixture allowing players with niggles to rest up a week.

Surely the rationale of two tiers of ten should be home and away once against everyone in your tier...18 matches, plus a blended fixture list home and away (5 home, 5 away) against the clubs in the other tier....playing them only once to avoid too many blow out scores etc.
So you have a real 20 team league with 28 games. Top of tier two replaces bottom of tier one every year!

It’s actually the structure I suggested in a letter to the rugby leaguer about ten years ago!!!

18 games plus a few play off games wouldn't yield enough revenue to sustain a club.

Nothing has been confirmed yet has it ?

Complete self interest.. The game is now officially dead.

The five teams you mentioned are still a minority of the 12 teams in SL, and wouldn’t win a majority vote, therefore, some of the so called bigger clubs must be voting against any change at this time. I would imagine most RL fans believe whatever decisions are made, it’s the CEOs /Chairmen of the top six clubs who make the real decisions.

The up to 14/down to 10 proposal was inherently a bad idea so it's no surprise if some of the larger SL clubs voted against it. Anyone with a brain would understand very few fans wanted a 10 team league.

The league structure is not the problem with the game. It's amazing that people still think tinkering with this will fix up the real problems the sport faces. If anything yet another change just further reinforces the impression of drift and malaise some people think the game has.


This however....

What complete BS. Accusing other people of self interest because a very bad proposal which would have benefited your club more than almost any other didn't go through. Unbelievable.
And please stop using the "game is dead" crap too. It's lazy and tedious in the extreme.

These sort of suggestions are just wish lists with no regards to the commercial realities.

Inventing a league that would see the season ending pretty quickly won't suit SKY

Inventing some other comp to fill the gap won't suit SKY

avoiding loop fixtures that often have produced massive gates and great TV like Leeds and Bradford clashes won't suit SKY

Don't some people realise if you don't provide what SKY want then that will be that for the game.

Same blind nonsense we had when people were inventing a cross atlantic league that wouldn't get tv coverage from here of from North America.

McManus noted if at least 9 top English clubs were not in it SKY would pull the plug.

Had no effect, the dreams still flowed thick and fast.............. And now they are back,,,,,,

Is having 3 league games against each of the other clubs any better than "loop" fixtures"
It would be a "balanced" fixture program of sorts but, playing every other club a MINIMUM of 3 times a season (plus cup games and play offs) doesn't really improve things.

Having a 14 club top flight would do though

As Sky keeps reducing their investment, how long before the 10 club top flight becomes 8.

The "soft sell" and pretense that the 2nd tire will still be Super League shouldn't fool anyone but, already, plenty seem happy with the Championship "re branding".
How can SL 2 have any level of serious funding ?
The main reason for change is to allow SL 1 to maintain a similar level of funding for a reduced number of clubs in the league.

This purist idea that clubs must only play each other twice is ridiculous. It totally ignores the commercial realities.

So Lenegan & co, say to SKY [i"we are only playing each other twice, take it or leave it"[/i so SKY says "We will leave it" and the game collapses.

So Lenegan says "we will invent some other competition to fill July and August, (and in that competition like a 9's clubs still end up playing each other a third time or more )

Season 2003

Leeds.v.Bradford 71,000
Bradford.v.Leeds 22,000
Leeds.v.Bradford 23,000
Bradford,v,Leeds 21,000
Bradford.v.Leeds 20,000 It's the entertainment business, if we want "sport" try the Pennine league.