How and where?

I would suggest that if Sky were upping the money then that should be invested in all clubs. But there is no way the sport can sustain 20 clubs at the top level, and a reduction to 10 raises all sorts of issues.
14 is about right.

If we had a two tier superleague would teams not just be playing each other 3 times? that way there would be 27 fixtures the same as now. That would obviously lead to one of the sides having one home game to the other teams two each season but that could be done on a rotational basis. The magic games could still be played as part of those 27 fixtures if they want to continue the concept.

It would take some working out if the format was to change around the salary cap limits for clubs and the TV money each tier would receive as it couldn't be the same at both levels or there's little point in doing it. The aim would be to improve the quality of teams at that top level and make every game competitive but if the funding and salary cap was the same in that second tier it would have the complete opposite effect.

If a move like this was done correctly it could work out extremely well a bit like it did with County Championship cricket a few years back but the RFL would need to get it right.

The 18 First Class Counties received over £50m from the ECB this year. Which is nearly double that given to SL clubs. Plus the significant extras that the ECB provide to Counties I'm not sure a comparison is valid.

We can just about sustain a 14-team SL, we cannot afford another 6 clubs and we cannot afford to cast 4 clubs adrift. A 2-tier of 10 SL would be a disaster.

Any increase in TV money should be used to help stabilise the clubs (in SL & Championships) as they are.

Pretty much anything would be better than ploughing money into undeserving clubs in a vain attempt to bring them up to an unattainable standard so that we could try to artificially contrive some sort of system of automatic P&R, which is pretty much what is being suggested here. If Sky were willing to offer more money (which they aren't), then it could be given to the current SL clubs to ensure that they are all able to spend the full salary cap and there would be a 'competitive competition' straight away, in a much more effective and logical way than what was suggested in the OP.

So your answer is to give more money to ' deserving ' clubs, thats it? , and in this case ' deserving ' is SL status? Can you quantify that?

You're missing the point completely.

20 teams wouldn't compete with each other. Two groups of ten would.

All this talk of not enough money or talent or this or that is lazy and unambitious.

He isnt missing the point at all, he is deliberatly ignoring it

No, there is no 'answer' to anything because Sky are not about to pour masses of additional money into the sport on a whim. What I posted was just a preferable scenario to the stupid idea detailed in the OP and subsequent posts, because having 14 strong full-time teams would clearly be better than having 10 strong full-time teams. The current 14 Super League clubs are the most likely to succeed in Super League at the present time. Nobody outside Super League would have any chance of competing at present and the majority never will, so throwing money at them in an attempt to force them to that level would just be stupidity. They are undeserving in that they don't have the potential to be Super League clubs, and the majority are aware of this so I'm not sure why this debate is even going ahead.

You mean you would be effectively relegating four clubs and making them part-time for absolutely no reason, taking a large percentage of money from the remaining 10 clubs and consigning them to a fate of continually having to look over their shoulder and scramble for survival for fear of being relegated into a part-time division? Yeah, great ambition.

There is nothing 'lazy' about not wanting to adopt a totally unsuitable, illogical and ridiculous system to the massive detriment of the sport, and anyone trying to pretend that this is anything but that has either put absolutely no thought into it, or is a complete idiot.

What point am I 'deliberately ignoring'? That you want your club to be unconditionally given money that it has no claim to, because it is unable to generate anything like the required level of income itself?

Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of people in the game, from the top to the bottom want to make the game as a whole better? Yes, everyone is biased to their own club, but everybody also understands the need for a healthy sport. You may disagree with proposals because of the outcomes you predict, but you talk as if people are deliberately (or at best recklessly) out to 'screw' the game. Why would anyone involved in the sport want to screw it up?

The effect on those clubs outside the top 10 (say) will in fact be very much dependent on the actual details, such as how funds are distributed, how many clubs involved in P&R, amongst many other things. Done badly, it could screw things up, yes (doing nothing is doing a decent job of screwing things up too). Done right, I think there's a good chance of everyone benefiting. I may be hopelessly deluded along with the others that share my opinion, but I can assure you that our motivations are sound.

I totally agree. Your last 'but' is what scares me, but nevertheless, despite the reasonably high chance of the RFL making a mess of it, its got to be better than plodding on with the current system which is taking the game precisely nowhere, fast. I just hope they can push through the changes that need to happen, in the face of the inevitable protests (doesn't matter what the change is - someone won't like it). It's a crying shame the sport (as a whole that is - no idea who was to 'blame') never did a proper job at the start of superleague by pushing through the mergers that were needed.

Its happening for 2015 season and will be announced this year. It will make the WC a great success now we can have unity again. The game will expand, we will have a greater playing pool ( Hill and Hardacre were Championship players not long ago) and a more intense fixture list.
I fear for the luddites on here though who have fought expansion.

This.

By nature, it would mean that four clubs already struggling financially would be further deprived of funds, and would almost certainly be forced to regress to part-time status. Thus 'Super League 2' would effectively become the Championship under a different name and all the problems caused by automatic promotion and relegation between a full-time and a part-time league would be reintroduced, except this time the threat of relegation would be faced by current mid-table clubs and so would be much more damaging to the sport as a whole, and we would be needlessly deprived of four teams that are currently capable of existing in a full-time environment. Therefore, it is a terrible idea. End of debate.

but isn't the whole idea not to have a championship under a new name but have a 2nd league ran by the same body as the first league operating with professional clubs?

then the transition for a promoted or relegated side would be survivable (not that i really remember promoted or relegated clubs actually doing that badly anyway, certainly not in the former case)

and come on imagine the excitement of london v halifax last day of the season promotion decider with both clubs buoyant after a season of winning most of their games and the prospect of going up

whilst on the other table wakefield just pip kr on the last day to stay up... this would have the added benefit of hull kr's 30000 strong travelling faithful boosting the gate receipts of everyone in the 2nd league the next season

what could go wrong?