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.

Something along the lines of this in structure, although I don't care for what teams are in which league, salary cap limits etc as long as we get back to some more competitive games again, at both ends of the table.

We simply have to go back to ten teams in the top league and soon, we don't have the player pool to provide enough competitive squads for a 14-team league and I for one am bored of watching walk-over games in SL every week. Would sooner watch union at the moment.

Wigan
Warrington
Saints
Leeds
Hull
Huddersfield
Catalans
**Toulouse (or other French side)

Then 3 out of Cas/Wakey/HKR/Bradford
One of Salford/Widnes


There aren't enough good quality players around to spread over 14 teams, reduce it to 12 teams who all have the ability to spend to the cap, and have decent stadiums. Use the extra few weekends to schedule the cup earlier in the season, as well as allowing free weekends for a 3 series exile game (or something similar).

6 team playoffs, similar salary cap to what it is now (At least at first).

No P+R, but do try and focus on giving the championship some more attention, hopefully with some of the better quality teams in there it will help but somehow, someway, try and at least reduce the gulf between the salary caps. I don't know how, but thats surely go to be a priority.





However, I say all of this, but we need to give time for this franchising to work. The improvement made in stadiums across the competition are a big plus, and we need to give the system more time (as it is still in its infancy) to enable the junior development to kick in. There is absolutely no point switching and changing strategies every 5 years, before the previous one has even had a chance to work. Yes, there are flaws. However I definately don't believe P+R is the answer.

I do however think that the next round of licensing needs a major shake up, Broncos need to go (despite me being a big advocate for RL in London), Cas+Wakey if they haven't sorted stadiums (if they haven't already gone before then). Hopefully Widnes will have improved their on-pitch results, cos I believe with the setup they've got and the support from the owner that could be a playoff team by the end of the round of franchises.

Give it time, it might work. Same with the quota rules, there are loopholes, but they are slowly becoming rarer and rarer as the years go on, in 2 years time there isn't likely to be any way in which a club can have over 5 non-fed trained players. There isn't always a quick fix for certain problems.

Depends whether you are saying the ideal set up based on current team capabilities or ideal in some Rugby League nirvana

On current set up I don’t see why it has to be different to how it is now. Teams are gradually getting their houses in order, with some exceptions of course.
Whether I’d prefer Featherstone to Bradford is really not the point. The one that is sustainable and offers most in terms of support and player development should be in. Same across the board.

The reason Leeds or Wigan are always on the ideal list is not because of they are the best teams. They sometimes are not. It is because they have good support with potential for more, in a stadium that supporters are willing to come to, within a geographical area where lots of young people are interested in playing rugby league.

If you apply that scenario to say Bristol or Newcastle or even Sheffield then they would be ideal for Super league……but they don’t have those attributes, apart from number of people in the cities.
No one would ever question Wakefield’s place if everyone in Wakefield came to watch. Same with Salford. They have far more potential than Wigan or St Helens in terms of size….it’s just Wigan and Sts have actually achieved it and sustained it and deserve the credit for doing so.

So for me the ideal Super League is one that is financially sound and even profitable and is marketable. I want my team in of course but that wasn’t the question.
If we got 12-14 teams with minimum 10-15k crowds and constant British quality players coming through the ranks each year, then it won’t matter if it is northern based. The other areas will be breaking the door down to get in and Sky and the BBC will be throwing money at us to televise the games.
Unfortunately that is an intelligent leader and a lot of money away. Not necessarily a long time away.

I'd strip it down to 2 leagues of 10 clubs. A promotion/relegation of 1 team each year.

SL1: Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Warrington, Hudds, Hull FC, Hull KR, Catalans, Bradford, Salford
SL2: Castleford, Wakefield, London, Widnes, Halifax, Fev, Leigh, Batley, Toulouse, Not sure on the 10th

I wouldn't make a rulechange just for SuperLeague, but if I could I would seek having the same ruleset used all over the world, as currently the SL ruleset is different to the NRL ruleset, and both are different to the International ruleset.

Having a 10-team top tier, plus promotion/relegation, should concentrate the quality of players and give teams something to fight for (promotion/not being relegated).

I would have the top 4 sides in the playoffs.

As it is now with Hull KR Champions (I can dream can't I?)

As usual people automatically lump Wakefield with the teams they would like to cut.
People who as usual are ill informed.
It is now only 20 days to the decision of the Secretary of State re. the go ahead or not for the new stadium.
If the decision is positive it is onwards and upwards for Wakefield.
Already this season great strides forward have been made with revamp of existing ground as promised.
Crowds are averaging well over 8000.
Why be so eager to blow apart something that that is obviously moving forward apace.
Imagine the crowds in the new stadium with a successful team.
History demonstrates Wakefield potential.
Despite everything unlike other contenders Wakefield have never been relegated and never finished bottom.
Look at Huddersfield, not so long ago they were abysmal in every way.
Perhaps they should have got the chop then.

But you DON'T have a new stadium yet, so therefore your going to get lumped in....

Magicking six extra clubs capable of running as full time professional outfits (across the board, not just first team) isn't stripping down. It's expansion. It would be nice expansion if there were six such clubs out there. There's no evidence that there is, though.

Leeds
Wigan
Warrington
St Helens

6 Magic Weekends, once in Oz, twice in the USA, one in France, one in Cardiff and one in London.

Then they must all play each other another 3 times, games should last no longer than 60 minutes, then the top 4 should have a play off. London Broncos should play the winner of the Super League in the "Ultimate Cup". No promotion or relegation, no overseas players, there should also be 5 referees on the pitch at any single time, one to check for knock ons, one for offsides, one to see if the markers are stood square, one for dangerous/high tackles and one to referee the other referees.

Decent.

You have me confused inside man I thought you were a Wakefield supporter,or are there two with the same monicker?