I sincerely hope none of those are adopted.

We left Option 1 a few years ago, for good reason. 1up1down is just a recipe for an unbalanced league and smaller clubs committing suicide.

Option 2 is painfully regressive.

Option 3 is unsustainable at current levels as it requires more FT teams than we can handle (and apparently it is complicated... though I don't see that myself).

Merely pointing out that as a sport we don't seem to know what we're doing or where we're going, I'm sure that's very appealing to potential sponsors.

My initial reaction to the structure was nah!

It just seamed to take to long to figure out, but then after 5 minutes I could see some merit in it.

After a week I can see a lot of merit in option 3 and I think it answers a lot of questions that clubs keep raising.

It answers questions about increasing the number of competitive games.
It justifies a playoff , because of the uneven nature of the league.
It should provide an increase in attendances for the first 11 games and then for the 2nd tranche of games, with promotion and relegation on the cards for division 2 and places in the playoffs for division 1.

With increased cross over between the divisions, you would expect this will bring more and more clubs into being fulltime, with bigger crowds to boost income.

There is a also a chance to increase marketing and with BT vision on the prowl for sport, why not split the TV packages into four parts.

League 1 and League 2 opening 11 games.
Division 1 and Division 2 14 rounds.

Also when the leagues split there should be an oppertunity to compress the CC into a set of games closer together week to week, allowing for more concentrated free to air coverage and for those clubs knocked out, allowing a mid-season break for resting players before launching part 2 of the league.

Crowds should be boosted by all aspects of this. Game 11 could be critical for up to 10 teams across the whole structure.

In the end it will be down to the clubs, but I can see a lot of chairmen seeing this and as time goes by seeing how it will benefit them money wise. For those who don't spend the max salary cap, it will allow them to build at a rate that is better for them, but it will also allow the Koukash's of this world to take a club like Sheffield and ratchet them up through the leagues in double quick time.

For those wanting to spend more than the current cap, it allows this too as it will not create as big a gap between top and bottom as the bottow will be sifted out part way through.

It offers a lot of flexibility and options, but when it comes down to it, the RFL can only provide a structure, it will be down to clubs to manage their finances and market the games to fans, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make RL clubs make the most of what is on offer.

option 3 is a disaster waiting to happen, all it will do is help to distroy 4 teams every year as it will slowly erode them to chapoionship level and not the other way round. there is not one team in the championship now that could make a fist of sl and the chairmen of them clubs are happy with their lot all they want is a bit more dosh so they dont have to spend there own money on the teams, we need to go to 16 team sl full stop teams below can be feeder teams with funding from the parent clubs pand r does not work just ask leigh they still haven recoverd from there disaster of a season

You mean the disaster of a season that we made a profit in?

It is the LSV that has caused us problems, just as it buggered up your finances when you moved into the ' Halton Stadium ' , nice fancy rented staduims dont work outside the top flight

we didnt move into the halton stadium we never left it was just redeveloped,and it was relegation that buggerd us up plus a shister called s vaughn we are slowly building our academy is starting to bear fruit and this propasal is only going to pull the rug out just as it is starting P & R does not work this holy grail and the championship teams talk about never used to exist when league was in its hay day it is relivtly new we have enough money to run 16 teams max at the highest standard its a cruel world BUT that is the way it is 16 teams in one league with feeder teams below them is the only way this game is going to grow

Yes it was developed , but not by Widnes RLFC , it was developed by Halton Council , and the rental was based on playing in SL , that rental agreement was changed when Mr O Connor took over , as it was crippling you previously

Yes that nice Mr Vaughan was most definatly a bad idea , but he only managed to get in a position to take over due to your already at that point financial problems

What your academy does is irrelivant , and I personally think any change of structure right now will just make things worse , it is once again both club management and the RFL desperate to find a ' silver bullet ' to save the game

When what is needed is hard work , investement in marketing and stability

Bingo, got it in one.

All the proposals are about downsizing, and moving the game back to a part time status. With fewer clubs retaining full time squads.

Nigel Wood talked about number one priority making clubs sustainable, which for most SL clubs means ditching full time professionalism, and operating part time squads probably on budgets of a few hundred thousand pounds a year. At the same time though these clubs want to retain access to £1million+ sky funding.

You will note also that there is no mention of championship one in these proposals. This league is full of teams from new areas.
Strange how the championship clubs demand a gateway to the promised land of SL but shy away from a trap door being opened to championship1.
Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

I dont actually see any mention of the pathway between Championship 1 and whatever crazy idea is adopted , however most if not all current Championship fans just assume it will be a ' normal ' promotion with a minimum criteria based on stadia , because thats how we think

I cant do a Smokey style dissection of your post but, you appear to be looking at option 3 through very strong rose tinted spectacles.
Although the system appears to give more clubs an opportunity of a shot at the big time, the reality is that it will be great for the top 8 clubs and an utter disaster for those outside the 8.
For the fans of current SL clubs that don't qualify for the 8, the season is like being in a plate competition and although clubs between 9 and 14 don't have a realistic chance of being crowned champions, the remote possibility disappear before it gets going.
If everything goes with the form book, all this system does, is to relegate 6 teams (who currently enjoy life in the top flight) into the second tier and leave them with nothing worthwhile to play for.
For a game that bangs on about being strapped for cash, this will turn supporters away en mass.
Equally, how can the teams outside the current SL, hope to compete with their more affluent rivals.
It is utter nonsense.
What we are undoubtedly moving towards is a 10 or 12 team top flight with another cull of between 2 and 5 current SL teams.
When SL was formed in 1995/6 many fans of the relegated clubs lost faith in the game and found other things to do with their weekends (myself included) and the same thing is going to happen again.

Our sport does not know where it wants to be in 5 years or 10 years time.

We need clear objectives and then work on a strategy to achieve these goals.
Do we want p/r, how do we expand the game (assuming that we want to), funding (which is the current major stumbling block across the sport), competing on the international stage etc, etc.

I would say if we adopt option 3 we have a clear objective .
Make it a success.
It offers more incentives to more clubs.
Gives more clubs something tangible to work towards.
The licensing system is so bad that a club can be cut adrift and easily go out of existence quickly or suffer a slow lingering demise.
Simple prom / relegation will simply encourage the yo yo system.

I am not so sure that it would. Certainly it did in the past, when a full time team dropped into a part time division.

But if the rules around the salary cap were followed this would not be the case.
Also
If let's say featherstone were promoted is it unthinkable that they could manage to get above just one SL team? Because I am not so sure that they wouldn't .

Take widnes last season, admittedly they finished bottom but were within a whisker of Cas and London.

I think it could encourage more investors in the lower leagues as there are more chances to gain promotion to the next level.

Those that are in the the SL and dropping to the middle 8 won't drop too much in crowds as they'll have season ticket holders. If you're hanging around that end of the SL your crowds aren't exactly going to be huge anyways! Flip that around with the top four Championship clubs who will be playing bigger clubs in more important games. Their crowds are going to go up. Then look at the top 8. Bigger teams playing each other in more competitive matches. Crowd pleaser.

It's just the last 8 I'm concerned don't have much to play for.

Option 3 is a very interesting proposition and one that opens up a vey competitive scenario.
First 11 games should be very intense to finish in the Top 8, then you will have to do it all over again to finish in the Top 4 (guess)
Top 4 in the second 8 gives the likes of Featherstone a great chance to be in the first 12 following season instead of being exiled into the lower league.
I reckon the RFL will have to reduce the gap of monies between the 2 starting leagues which might encourge a few players in the lower sides to go full time.

I've given up caring anymore, they never give the game long enough to stabilise without fannying about with it. The BBC aren't interested, SKY treat it with contempt, it now appears to be dying a death with the RFL holding it underwater.