I'm interested in how they'll decide the 14. This season was supposed to be the Middle 8s at the end. Will they just have 6th v 7th as the MPG instead? Or will we see a return to licensing? All seems way too short a turn around. You'd think a transition year would be required for any major structure changes.


For me, it would be preferable to have automatic relegation for 14th spot so that the Championship can have a meaningful Grand Final (which used to be a huge part of the game's calendar). I've loved the Middle 8s concept of SL v Championship clubs though, so would have 13th join the playoffs also, but for a second promotion spot. Something like:

Week 1: 2 v 3, 4 v SL13
Week 2: GF (1 v winner of 2/3); loser of 2/3 v winner of 4/13
Week 3: Promotion playoff: GF loser v play off winner.

Whatever relegation/promotion playoff system you have has to last 1 week less than the SL playoffs IMO.

The final week of the season should be the SL GF on the Saturday with NO other fixtures at all as all attention should be on that.

So if your SL playoffs remain as they are at two weeks then you should have only 1 week of P/R playoffs. Say 13th in SL vs 2nd in the Championship (14th and 1st automatically p/r)

If you extend the SL playoffs to 3 weeks with 5/6 teams then you could extend the P/R playoffs to 2 weeks.

Week 1
12th vs 13th SL
2nd vs 3rd C

Week 2 the winners of those matches (again with 14th and 1st automatically P/R

Super league needs to be 14 or more teams and the sooner the better if we are going to have relegatesion 1 up 1 down

Much as there is a fundamental flaw in the current system, which rewards/punishes clubs for stinging a few good results together at the end of the season, the 3 x 8 structure does liven up the end of the regular season. Back in the day, clubs at the lower end of the table could just go through the motions.
However, IF the idea behind expanding SL is to include Toronto and Toulouse, then promotion and relegation could be the death of either or both of them and whilst many would say "so what", there is little point in changing the structure (again) to a system that wouldn't achieve its objectives.
We have to remember, RL is less about sport and all about the money and do we really think the current SL CEO's are bothered about the game as a whole or, will they be more concerned with their own clubs' future's.

When do the clubs meet to vote on this?
I’m sure Nigel Wood said a while back, all would be decided through a vote, at the next meeting of clubs, before the start of the season.

26 games, 13 home and away, team that are top are champions, have a 4 team minor premiership play off if you like (1v4/2v3 winners to meet in final) or better still a 4/6/8 team end of season group of games with against Australian (or even international sides) with top teams from SL/NRL playing each other to be WCC and the 2nd placed teams playing on the undercard with possibly other teams playing a double header night before.

Would rather have a few weeks off mid season to have international series/rep games and bring the challenge cup final forward to June. Scrap the good Friday/Easter Monday , ridiculous situation and not good for player welfare, one or the other.

Re relegation, CH1 up, SL14 down, CH2v3 for right to play SL13.
Just some ideas

If anything, SL should be going down to 10 teams, not expanding. Not unless they're ditching promotion and relegation and breaking away from the Championship. There just isn't enough quality or money in the UK game to support 14 teams.

I must be honest, I too don't see the benefit in 14 teams.

We moved from 14 teams because the RFL acknowledged that the player pool couldn't support a 14 team league without reducing the intensity of the competition (something which was cited as a factor in our inability to compete with Australia).

Since that decision, the player pool has got even smaller, and now we're clamouring for 14 teams again?

Is the desire from fans for a 14 team league based on the desire to see a better competition, or based on the desire for their team to have a better chance of being in that competition?

SL clubs get a bigger slice of the TV money.

I wouldn't expand the league unless newcomers run an academy and reserves plus have an established relationship with local community clubs. Mind you that should apply to SL clubs already. If we can run an academy (and it was a condition of the RFL that our new owners ran one) then surely everyone in SL can? Salford?

As for reserves if Fax and Keighley can do it surely SL clubs can?

How many UK players will Toronto and Toulouse need ?

Let's face it, the desire to expand SL is not being driven by the wish to have Leigh and Fev back in SL, it's all about Toronto and to a lesser extent, Toulouse.

As for quality and money, IF we are to include any additional overseas clubs, the have to bring something to the party and not just be chasing a slice of the Sky cash.
Although their inclusion may theoretically add some "glamour" to the comp. it shouldnt even be considered unless there is something substantial being added to the "pot"

Academies I agree with. I'm less inclined to suggest that reserve sides should be mandatory.

I personally would like to see Leeds run one, but even when the club did, it didn't really take the system seriously - instead preferring to farm players out on loan ('batches' of players have turned out for London, plenty were sent to championship clubs, and many in the early days of Super League turned out for Bramley).

I know that some people see reserve teams as a big part of player development, but there is one way to skin that particular cat.

This is what is going to be the biggest turn in RL. When do those top clubs finally say to the smaller clubs "your lack of future trajectory through lack of money and/or ambition or lack of size of support is no longer good enough for us, we are capable of so much more as individual clubs and to take this sport on as a collective that we are leaving you behind...so, goodbye!"?

A sport, or any business, cannot keep being run from the weakest link up, just to sustain those weakest links. It has to come from the top down.

It should be mandatory to take reserves seriously. From discussing it with our coaching staff I'm totally sold on the idea. Far too many players are lost at 19 under the current system. There may be more than one way of developing players but the current system is clearly not working.

Farming them out to championship clubs is development on the cheap and de-values the game at that level when done under the current dual reg system.