New Super League Structure?

Quote: SEB "Definitely time for change at the RFL. Nothing seems to be going particularly well at the moment - other than RLWC2013 which from what I've seen is being run pretty well by a specially created team.

So, problems we have

I disagree. Certainly there are uncompetitive games, but not as many as we've had in the past. Bottom line is that when any two of Wigan, Warrington, Huddersfield, Catalans and Leeds play each other (and previously Saints), then you can't be sure of the outcome. That's a pretty competitive situation compared to pre-licensing, when there were rarely more than 2 - or at most 3 - teams in with a shout. Similarly, there's a second group of mid-table teams including Hull, Hull KR, (now Saints), and Wakefield who compete with each other, and then a bottom four who compete with each other too. I'll grant you it'd be better to have all 14 being equally competitive, but that's never been the case, and no system will create it.

The easy way to make sure we're not just doing the "oh, it were better in t'old days" thing is to get some stat-obsessed type to take a look at the number of games in each season of the super league era and see what the average winning margin was, or what proportion of games had a >18 point gap or something. I suspect we'd find that games now are tighter with fewer blow-outs. We'd all like more competitive games, but if my suspicion is correct then licensing has been delivering that in increasing numbers, which rather suggests the last thing we should be doing is changing it.

Quote: SEB "- lack of clear reward for ambition below SL;'"

I've never bought this argument, ever. If it were true that the only worthwhile reward for playing RL is the reality or opportunity of playing in SL, then there would be no amateur RL, and no semi-pro RL below the championship. It's a nonsense argument made by [isome [/ifans of [isome [/iclubs. In any case, licensing made very clear that ambitious clubs DO have a route to SL. The only difference with the past system is that they have to be ambitious to stay in the top flight, and remain solvent and functioning, rather than ambitious to have one season of endless defeats followed by bankruptcy in a dump of a stadium. Any club, when it meets the criteria, can apply to join SL. The fact that none of the aspirant clubs has put together a suitable package yet suggests that they lack ambition, and I have no time at all for the argument that we should therefore make it easier for the poor dears to bring an even less competitive and sustainable club into SL than the ones we're already having to deal with.

Quote: SEB "- youth development gone backwards;'"

Again, let's not just do the "hell in a handcart" business. Youth development over the last 5 years has been much, much better than what went before. There has been an issue arising this season as a result of a recent decision. But it was nothing to do with licensing. So changing licensing isn't the answer.

Quote: SEB "- waning media profile (from an already low level);'"

Well this is true, but how that's related to licensing, or the propsect that Leigh or Halifax might get promoted in a future system strikes me as a bit unclear.

Quote: SEB "- lack of sponsorship interest;'"

I put this down to rank bad commercial management at the RFL. The deal they gave away to Stobart was disgusting, and we're now reaping the whirlwind. Again, however, nothing at all to do with licensing.

Quote: SEB "- declining crowds.'"

Is this even true ? And if it is this year, does it remain true of the trend over the last 5 years, or 10 years ? I'd put any decline in crowds down to the fact that we're in the deepest and longest recession of the last 200 years, and RL is a sport played largely in some of the most depreived communities in the country. LIcensing is irrelevant to this.

Quote: SEB "
Some pretty big problems. However, do we really need to throw away everything we have and start again with some baffling, bizarre format? No, for me, all we need to do is

I'm fairly agnostic about this. I don't really have a view beyond the fact that 10 would be too few, and 16 too many. But the way to decide which clubs of whatever number is through licensing and minimum standards.

Quote: SEB "- introduce 1 up/down automatic P&R;'"

This would be disastrous. It's also irrelevant. There are no problems in SL which would be made better by promotion and relegation. There are an awful lot which would be made worse.

Quote: SEB "- reduce playoffs to top 5 or 6;'"

I agree. Too much like "all must have prizes" atm. Needs cutting to become more intense. Nothing to do with licensing though.

Quote: SEB "- implement the u23s teams that the RFL review recommended;'"

I agree. Nothing to do with licensing though.

Quote: SEB "- bring back the Great Britain team to play every 2 or 3 years.'"

I think this is a red herring. There's no Celtic players who wouldn't qualify for England who would make the team in any case. Also, nothing to do with licensing.

Quote: SEB "Job done - all the above problems are in some way addressed by these solutions, which whilst will bring about change are not too drastic and simple to understand.'"

Ultimately, though, you're making claims which are - at best - disputable, about the issues the game faces, few of which have anything to do with licensing as a process for deciding membership of the fully-pro comp. Then you recommend a series of solutions, only one of which would require a change to licensing, which is automatic P&R, yet the arguments against such a set-up remain the same as they were five years ago. Basically, I agree that there are problems in the game, and I agree that it's worth looking at some action. But suggesting P&R is the answer is like prescribing viagra to cure heart disease. It might provide some short term fun, but it'll hasten the end.