Where would the extra three rounds go? You can't play mid-week games as players need time to recover in between games. I'd stick to the number we have now (as we clearly need it) but just add a cap to the number of games.

Peacock is probably coming at this from the POV of England test players, who play more games, on average, than any of the big 3 in Rugby League AND the SANZAR nations in Rugby Union AND the Home Nations in Rugby Union.



SL clubs won't rest players from SL games, because it could mean the difference between winning and losing games, and making the SL finals or not. That stance is understandable.



You can reduce the number of SL games, but make up the shortfall by allowing SL clubs to enter an existing competition - the Northern Rail Cup.
SL - 16 teams, 17 rounds (one being the Millennium Magic). A team plays ever other team once, plays two teams a second time.
NRC - English SL clubs join English Championship and C1 teams. 4 pools of 8, 10 regular rounds, where a club could play every other in its pool once, and one from the other 3 pools. If test players are on representative duty for a particular weekend, they would not play NRC that weekend. Welsh and French clubs could form a similar competition with French 1st and 2nd division clubs.

Not including pre season or Challenge Cup, SL clubs get 13 home games, Championship clubs get 15 home games.

If every other team had to rest players then what is the difference? The only difference is one team apparently has a better "manager" than another. Coaches would have to be more strategic about when to play players and when to rest them (i.e. play them in the big games). It would also see teams blooding more youngsters.

I don't think that stance is understandable at all.


That would lose tonnes of money. You wouldn't get a good TV deal on a shorter SL, and you definitely wouldn't make up the windfall with an inferior competition.
And Welsh and French clubs? There's only one pro Welsh club outside SL, and most pro French clubs are tiny.

irony is you and others you acting like experts on what makes an expansion club succcesful or not

I'd have a 16 team two conference league

The ESL and the WSL (East and West). 8 teams in each. Play each team in your conference home and away and the other conference teams once, either home or away on a rotating annual basis. Playoffs feature 5 teams in each conference playing each other with the 4 semi finalists going through to an inter conference semi final and then GF.

Advantages: supports local rivalary and may engender an eventual county of origin with meaning, increases SL without adding too many games, more interest in playoffs, less travelling for fans.

Disadvantages: Costs more money with extra teams. One conference may be alot stronger than the other meaning better teams miss the playoffs, may be seen as too "American". Fewer games than currently (although the extended playoffs will make that up for some clubs)

Asking clubs to stand down players has the potential to be hugely problematic, inconsistent and unfair. E.g. there is potential for huge disparity in the class of opposition - resting players against the 2009 Crusaders is a totally different prospect from rest them against Leeds or Saints. In the NRL, clubs re forced to stand down players from club fixtures before a State of Origin match. In recent years, Brisbane Broncos fixtures have deprived of sometimes up to 8 or 9 players to Origin, and Brisbane invariably suffer a slump mid-year, every year. The NRL and clubs do not want a reduction in the overall number of regular round fixtures, it has unanimously voted against every year, yet clubs and fans complain every year when their club stands players down.



If the RFL structured their broadcast deals carefully, they could gain revenue from three offerings – the first tier professional competition, the second tier, and the representative program, then they could have the potential to attract support that can make up for any potential shortfall from a shortened SL and expanded NRC. A stronger representative program, where England and GB are allowed (with the buy-in of the the clubs) the preparation and resources to compete realistically, has the biggest potential to command national attention and generate the most revenue. It has been shown in the past in RL, and shown in the present in other sports like Rugby and cricket.

Other Rugby governing bodies successfully run second tier club competitions, resting their international players for large tracts of those competitions, with the support of their clubs/franchises. The Rugby Unions of England, Wales, NZ and South Africa all do so. In England and Wales, the [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–10_LV_CupLV Cup (Anglo Welsh Cup)[/url is staged during November tests and during the Six Nations, so it does not include players selected in the England/Wales matchday test squads of 22 over the course of the entire competition.

The South African RU (SARU) stage two elite professional tournaments - the SANZAR Super 14, and the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_CupSouth African Currie Cup[/url. Both are very well supported. The Bulls (and CC counterpart the Blue Bulls) hosted the finals of each competition respectively in Pretoria and attracted sell-out crowds of 60,000 spectators both times. The Super 14 is staged early in the year, and Springboks play in all 13 regular, a semi final and final. The Currie Cup starts during the test season. Obviously Springboks included in the matchday squad of 22 for tests in that period (e.g. the Tri Nations) miss CC matches, but they return for certain matches, including the semi final and final. After a few years of Super Rugby, SARU differentiated the Super franchise brands the traditional Currie Cup provinces, as shown here (not saying this should be done with English RL) [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_14_franchise_areas#South_Africa[/url Similarly, New Zealand Rugby Union teams also participate in two competitions - the SANZAR Super 14 and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_NZ_CupAir NZ Cup (New Zealand National Provincial Championship)[/url. The Christchurch-based Crusaders may participate in Super 14, whereas the Christchurch based Canterbury Rugby (the senior Union in the Crusaders catchment area) will participate in the Air NZ Cup. All Blacks captain Richie McCaw is the captain of both the Crusaders and Canterbury Rugby. Similarly, All blacks vice captain Rodney So’oialo is captain of the Wellington based Hurricanes (during the Super 14) and the Wellington Lions (in Air NZ Cup).

If those bodies can create such a structure, then RFL has the potential to do so, if it and its constituents form a united approach which is geared towards the success of the national team. Neither the NZRU nor SARU have ever attracted a match day attendance nearly as large as England/GB RL.



Catalan Dragons, Toulouse Olympique, Wrexham Crusaders, South Wales Scorpions would join 9 Elite One clubs (UTC left out) and 9 Elite Two Clubs in an NRC style competition.

I try and take my lead from your very informative but fact-less posts. Garbage is difficult to recycle into common sense though.

A SL with fewer teams need not result in a smaller TV contract, if clubs had a bye week when they're not on SKY. I'm sure it could be worked out such that the season was just as long as it is now with the same number of televised games but fewer matches actually played by each club.

It's still a daft idea though.

If Peacock said that, then he simply echoed what has been said in both hemispheres and both codes of Rugby. If the RFL want to beat the Kangaroos in a tournament, then the physical and emotional welfare of elite British players like Jamie Peacock should be of paramount importance. As Quins RL coach Brian McDermott said in the article [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/8378892.stmLearning Lessons from Union[/url



Prominent figures in sports medicine have examine the issue of player welfare in the Rugby codes around the world. Elite teams like the Wallabies, All Blacks and Springboks closely monitor and carefully game time, rested and rotated elite test players to refresh and prepare the for major tournaments. Such strategies propelled them to success in tournaments AND World Cups. Meanwhile England RL national team coaches do not control player appearances for their clubs, and they subsequently perform poorly in the national team.

NZ Warriors (and former All Blacks) Doctor John Mayhew has said that to preserve the physical, psychological and emotional welfare of players, to avoid the risk of physical/psychological burnout, prevent injury, and maintain a high quality in performance, a reasonable workload for RL and RU players is 30 matches per season. South African Sports Science Institute and University of Cape Town Professor Tim Noakes advocates a player be limited to 23 to 28 matches in a season, preferring a ceiling of 2000 minutes or 25 full games. The RFU and Premier Rugby (club body) agreed in their Long Form Agreement to restrict test players to a maximum 32 matches per season.

In 2005 and 2008, English RL test team averaged the highest number of games per player of any elite national team in either code, with a test player participating in 32.95 games per season. Players like Keith Senior and Rob Burrow playing 41 matches in 2008, Paul Wellens playing 41 matches in 2004, many more than any Kangaroo, or nearly all Kiwis, then it is no surprise England/GB lags behind.

Aah, sorry I honestly hadn't seen your post first, was just trying to see the response to an idea I had heard, that I personally quite liked. Personally I would introduce the new scheme with the view to reduce or even remove the playoff system, which seems to add extra games to the best players on top of the CC whilst they complain about fatigue. I appreciate the view of Sky on the matter and the occasion that the GF is, but for a competitive international scene, with hopefully not too many negative effects on the domestic competitions, I do like the idea I heard, although it does require more thought obviously.

Quite simply we dont have enough money in the sport

The clubs need more games to finance themselves [ Which it seems isn't even enough at the moment , but the top players need less games to be competitive internationally

Unfortunatley success means the best players play more games , that is quite simply a fact of life

So sorry Jamie , either live with it or go and get another job at a less successful club

A successful national team would generate more money for the clubs than the clubs themselves could do. The clubs would need to take a chance to allow this to happen. International RL attracted these record crowds in the UK in recent times:
1) 73,631 - 1992, Great Britain vs Australia, RLWC Final, Wembley.
2) 66,540 - 1995, England vs Australia, RLWC Final, Wembley.
3) 57,034 - 1994, Great Britain vs Austraia, Ashes 1st test, Wembley.

Far in excess of any average round of Super League fixtures, and attracted TV audiences that would not watch SL or the Cup. Meanwhile, since the Grand Final crowd peaked at 71,352 in 2007, it has declined.



The problem is that they aren't the only two choices. Players like Jamie could go to Rugby Union, play fewer games, earn more money, play in more countries, and play for the England RU team at Twickenham, just like Jason Robinson, Andy Farrell, his son Owen, Vainikolo, Henry Paul, and now Chris Ashton and Shontayne Hape.

Peacock couldn't go to RU.
Completely the wrong build for any position, the Farrell issue if you will

No, Peacock is the right build for blindside flanker, number 6. Farrell also played that position for Saracens, and did so reasonably well. The reason he didn't stay in the position is that England had significant depth in the backrow, but not at inside centre. Farrell wanted to break into the test team, but also fancied himself to be a playmaker.

My point is that while Peacock may not go (he's near the end of his career), younger international players might e.g. Eastmond.

Top flight Union Players play more games if you count the Hienekan Cup, thier playing schedule includes a similar number of league games, "challenge cup" and Hienekan Cup it's about 5 games more and that's before any international call ups.

I agree with what you say , but stating what is without suggesting an alternative is pointless

So what is the answer ?

Have a look at my earlier posts on this thread, I've given my suggestion there:
* post 42 (4th last post on page 3), and then
* posts 46 and 49 (1st and 4th posts on page 4)

In a Galaxy far far away.....

Eastern SL conference
Hull FC
Hull KR
Toulouse
Les Cats+Barcelona
Cas
Leeds
Bradford
Hudds
Wakefield
(one day Gateshead and York)

Western SL Conference
London (Quins)
Sth Wales Scorpions
Wrexham Crusaders
Wigan
St's
Warrington
Manchester (Salford)
Widnes
Cumbria

Top flight players in England, Australia, NZ, and those based the Celtic nations all play fewer games than English RL players. In 2001, the RFU and Premier Rugby struck a [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/1454059.stmLong Form Agreement[/url that stipulates the workload of test players:



The LFA was further explained on BBC Sport Online in the article [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/1455513.stmBlueprint for England rugby success[/url.
In 2008, [url=http://www.rugbynetwork.net/main/s245/st122929.htmthe RFU and PR extended the agreement[/url, and the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/english/7910306.stmgame limit was kept[/url

Some players may play more if they:
a) were not initially in the EPS at the beginning of a season
b) play less than 40 minutes of a match (under Premier Rugby's definition, apparently playing <40 does not count as playing a game)

Even so, English RU and French RU test players played fewer games on average for their season 2007-2008 then English RL or Super League based French RL test players in seasons 2007 or 2008. 2 rounds of the GP are held during the Autumn Internationals, and 2 hed during the 6N.

Not sure about your play-off format. I'd stick to a format similar to the current top 8 (just without the club call as it wouldn't be possible in two conferences, there isn't a highest ranked team)...

Week 1:
1) 1st East vs 2nd West
2) 1st West vs 2nd East
3) 3rd East vs 4th West
4) 3rd West vs 4th East
Week 2:
5) Loser of 1 vs Winner of 3
6) Loser of 2 vs Winner of 4
Week 3:
7) Winner of 1 vs Winner of 6


Winner of 2 vs Winner of 5
Week 4:
9) Winner of 7 vs Winner of 8

A fair, uncontroversial play-off system where the two best ranked teams should meet in the final if they win all their games, and the only possible chance of a repeat game would happen in the final itself (unlike currently where both semis could be repeat games).

My two conferences would be:
Eastern - Bradford, Castleford, Harlequins, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Wakefield
Western - Catalans, Crusaders, Salford, St Helens, Toulouse, Warrington, Widnes, Wigan

Home & away against your conference (14 games) and alternate home and away against other conference (8 games) leaves you with 22 games.
Try and get three TV games a week and sell them in these packages: 1 Eastern Conference game, 1 Western Conference game, 1 Cross-Conference game.
Move the Magic Weekend to the Challenge Cup.

Now, just need to find a way to make up revenue for 5 lost games (which we're looking at 60-70,000 people across each round)...

I do believe that IF we were going to adopt this sort of league structure (which I am very sceptical of), this would probably be the best playoff structure, so I agree with you on this point - that is the fairest.



Unfortunately this split is slightly unfair, as the Western league would be at a massive disadvantage here in strength, as as well as including two new additions to the current 14 in Toulouse and Widnes, you also have the two most recent additions, meaning overall this side is nowhere near as established. Also it may be unfair to have the furthest distances to travel on this side. Also how would the promotion/relegation/franchise system work with these in the future?



A similar set of games to state of origin perhaps? East vs West? Although that is not likely to be anywhere near as good for club revenues, which indeed makes it a dilema.

Tbh overall I would not really support this idea.

All these new league formats are fine , except they all need more money to fund them , money we dont have , money we are unlikely to have in the near future 10/15 years

Some are suggesting this money would become available if we started beating the Aussies , we wont it wont , having clubs in Wales and France wont produce it either

The only thing that will produce it is a doubling of the current level of attendances at all levels which will finally produce a competition that nobody knows who is going to win season from season

I believe something like this would come in about 2020 with a bigger European influence.
If not a stronger second division would be nice

Agreed.

How will you achieve this ?