I reckon RLHQ would not only agree with you, but have wet dreams over this scenario.

Adelaide, Auckland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury, Cronulla, Hunter, North Queensland, Penrith & Perth

SL1:-

Wigan
St Helens
Warrington
Leeds
Catalans
Hull FC
Hull KR
Huddersfield
Bradford
London B

SL2:-

Castleford
Salford
Widnes
Featherstone
Leigh
Halifax
Wakefield
Sheffield
Toulouse
Midlands Team (Northampton or Coventry)

Sky money split equal between the 2 divisions with P&R 1 up 1 down each season.

All remaining clubs into 1 division with P & R each season with SL2 ( 1 up 1 down).......as long as they reach new standards set by the RFL.....Improvements to ground being carried out etc.

Also the lower division to get a bigger payout each season from the RFL.

Salary caps......

SL1 - 1.7 Million
SL2 - 1 Million
Champ - 400 grand or lower depending on income (each clubs cap decided by RFL off previous seasons figures)

12 team superleague playing home and away only, get rid of the extra contrived fixture of the magic weekend.

Magic weekend would be a 2 day seeded super 9 competion guaranteeing fast open rugby to attract new supporters to the game.

Replace franchising with promotion and relegation every 2 years. Promoted team to receive reducing subsidy from RFL to finance structure of the club over period.

Make the game more intense by making the clubs fight all through the season for a top 3 play off, top team needs rewarding by going straight into final.

Massive spend by RFL on TV advertising and Media presence to give the game some stature through superleague promotion. Similar massive change in the marketing arm of RFL to attract real global sponsors.

Where's the extra money coming from to allow the Sky money to be split 20 ways instead of 14, allow for an increase in the salary cap of £100,000, give the lower division a big payout and reduce clubs number of home games to 9 per season?
Plus will the clubs in SL1 be happy that they are subsidising SL 2? As eventually Sky would only show SL1 games.

How would P&R every 2 years work? Who goes down? The team who finished bottom in year 1 or year 2? The same for promotion?

Would that make it more intense? Or would the mid-table teams simply have nothing to play for?

Great, with what money? Who's going to lose out for this huge marketing spend? Is it the pro clubs or the grassroots?

Year 2 for P + R, year 1 to allow the new team to adjust to superleague.

Mid table would have nothing to play for , do you want a mid table team who maybe has lost 10 games be superleague champions against a team who maybe could have only lost 2 games. In year 2 , I,m sure teams 4,5,6 would be competing for that 3rd place. Similarly 9,10,11 place would be fighting to
avoid relegation. So yes a couple of teams in the comfort zone would have nothing to play for.

These great RFL profits should be raising the profile of the game, marketing is the most important attribute in business, but the RFL don,t realise this, I,m not sure if we have a marketing director anymore in a similar way we don,t look as though we will have a new chairman in place this year.

Some good ideas

Keep the leagues as they are now

Every year instead of franchise at the same time as the playoffs are happening have a mini league of the bottom 3 SL clubs and top 3 Championship clubs.

Top 3 clubs play in SL, bottom 3 play in the Championship.

Would you allow the Championship clubs to bring in numerous new FT players overseas or home specifically for the play offs? or would you only allow the SL clubs to use players whose combined salaries come under the Championship salary cap??

The ideal SL would have none of the current clubs , it would consist of 12/14 clubs all at least 30 miles apart except 2 in London , ie the original concept

But would anybody on here be happy with that ?

No

It was an idea. I never said it was perfect.

You could always do it as a series of one off games between the top and bottom 2

SL 13th v C 2nd
SL 14th v C 1st

Winners play SL the following season.