Incentives tend to be industry wide, or open at least.

Bailouts and taking a stake, direct or indirect, do distort the system. They're controversial and messy - especially when the company goes under anyway. If we have clubs that are too big to fail that raises some troubling issues.

Smokey makes an I interesting point that we should behave more as a collective and less as competitors. There is a good case for that. The RFL could have got the Bulls assets and lease for less than they paid for just the lease. The problem being that it would have been more difficult for them to walk away from the debts than it was for an independent owner.
If we did go for a collective approach, we'd need greater collective ownership and direction. Otherwise Leeds and Wigan will fear ending up like Germany in the euro crisis, which'd create all sorts of complications and resentments, as they'd understandably want greater control. Could we really run the sport from the centre, as one big club? It is still a competition, so there'd be a deal of natural tension between club 'committees' still - you'd need [isome[/i local control.

There would, there always will be. But we can limit that friction. If the league was run as a whole, then Bradfords success contributes to the success of every other club. It becomes in Leeds best interests for Bradford to be successful because they would contribute more to the pot as it were. Similarly clubs who don’t get in, don’t not get in because their face doesn’t fit, or because of bias, or because Nigel Wood hates them. They don’t get in because they cannot convince those in there they will help create a bigger pie, rather than just taking a slice of whats there.

Similarly London. Which is an even better example. Why should London get any special treatment, why is London good for all of us? Well under the new proposed structure for a lot of clubs London isn’t good. They have to go on the ‘new road’, travel to somewhere further than next parish, and they are competition. If we look at the game as a whole however, the potential benefits of a successful London are exponential. If we get London right, it would be a huge fillip to the game. If a large part of your turnover however comes from a central pie. A working London becomes very very very good for you.

Most sports are moving this way. For some reason our game seems intent on following Europeean football in to a devil take the hindmost approach, which it is wedded to through tradition, which is slowly hollowing out that game, which just isn’t going to work for us. At some stage, we need to realise our product is the game.

This has been happening somewhat in Australia, Newscorp along with the NRL purchased the franchises for a few clubs, eventually the ownership of the clubs reverts to a local entity, but with the NRL keep a share of the club.

Not sure where they are up to with it, last I heard they were letting go of the clubs and letting them stand on their own.

Simple, rational, as fair and as transparent as is possible. I like it. An election/re-election system. Which has the advantage over central control of not locking out benefactors.
It'd be political, but it'd be nakedly, openly political. There'd be bitterness from time to time, but the accusation would have to be one of irrationality, not dishonesty.
The first vote would be challenging to organise in a way widely seen as fair - but not impossible. Then you protect and give a vote to clubs that stay afloat financially and avoid bottom spot, each year.

Along with straightforward P&R, which requires greater efforts to narrow the gap, it is one of the two sensible ways we could finally reach a lasting settlement in the summer era, IMO.

P&R is more dramatic, 'sporting/fairer' and traditional (and thus familiar and easy to understand).

Re-election - it can become a self-perpetuating cartel, but as far as relegation is concerned, if you've gone bust or finished bottom, you can't have huge complaints if your peers boot you out.
Fans of Fax, Leigh, Fev, Leigh etc. can speak for themselves, but at least they'd know what they had to do - and the rate at which SL clubs go bust currently, there'd be ample opportunities to make a pitch, on top of the fact that somebody comes bottom every year. Also, other clubs would have the option of being patient with a new entrant if they thought that best.

Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read.

We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstephttp://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/pyramid-up-arrows-copyspace-showing-growth-progress-32071494.jpg" >

For example, Leeds shouldn't want a nicey nicey love-in with Bradford. Leeds should want to smash Bradford on the field every time, and want others to do that to their nearest neighbours so that they get relegated and Leeds can aim to expand their catchment area and get their crowds up. Leeds really would do the game a dis-service if it really did want a cosy cartel where it can coast along with crowds under 20,000. Leeds really should be doing everything they can to get their crowds up towards double that with their potential within the game.

If Bristol Sonics get into the third tier, then get promotion, why should their potenatial promotion to Super League in say 10 years' time be subject to the whim of Chairmen of other SL cubs? You can just see it "O no. We don't want to have to travel all that way. Keep 'em out, keep Widnes in"

The new 2x12; 3x8 structure giving the POTENTIAL for promotion and relegation (not AUTOMATIC P&R) will be the ideal structure for RL in this country for the next 50 years at least.

Going back to the one big league with all 30 odd clubs in it (that we had for a lifetime before 1973) would be preferable to the nonsense set out in the two posts quoted above.

Yeah, we get you like it. You told us before. You told us you like it, and for that you believe it will work, that because you like you are sure it will address concerns you aren’t even sure of and even though you don’t know how it will address those concerns you are confident it will do. It was funny.

The thing is, why would it want to become a self-perpetuating cartel? It is actively damaging to each individual club and the league as a whole for them to keep clubs who can grow the pie out.

It would also allow us to look at how we can benefit from economies of scale in terms of sponsors, kit manufacturers, websites etc, it would allow clubs to market together, it would allow us to look again at youth development.

it wont happen though, too many in the game are happy to go along with this stupid system and in 5 years they can ask why we have no better facilities, why attendances have fallen at the bottom end of SL, why the same clubs are winning things still, why our youth development is failing, why clubs are putting out squads with 10-15 overseas players again, why the teams at the bottom are still struggling, why nobody gives a about a competition to be the 17th best team in the league, why nobody really cares about a play-off to become the 9th best team in the league, why the gap between the top 5/6 and everyone else has become so HUGE as to be unbridgeable, why the game hasn’t moved forward one iota. The game will then see the ringfencing of a top 10 and those who think this is the panacea for the games problems because it benefits their club will be wondering how they have ended up further away from SL. I will laugh at them a little immaturely, and then maybe we can actually get a system in place that addresses the games problems rather than the complete abdication of responsibility and reliance on hope we have seen.

Good news for me is that my team for the next 5 years at least will be competing in finals with the other big clubs whilst everyone else simply tries to survive.

Quote: Mr Churchill "Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read. We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstep English League Football used re-election until 1986. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-electio ... all_League) It was used until more recently than that in Scotland, iirc. How do minor counties get first class status in cricket? Tbf, it has only happened four times - Worcestershire (1899), Northamptonshire (1905), Glamorgan (1921), Durham (1992), so they perhaps don't need a system. And RL itself has never had much of a pyramid itself - one big league, for most of its history and then make it up as you go along in the summer era. There's a lot to be said for P&R, but there are complications and difficulties with it (As examples - what happens if Catalans get relegated? How to narrow the financial and sporting chasm between divisions to make relegation less potentionally catastrophic and promotion less likely to be a poisoned chalice? What to do with administration-newcos?). Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy enough with well thought-through P and R. But we have to deal with the world as it and re-election in some ways offers a simpler path. Not 'fairer' or offering as much sporting interest as P&R - but better than what we've had so far in the summer era.

Quote: Mr Churchill "Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read. We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstep English League Football used re-election until 1986. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-electio ... all_League) It was used until more recently than that in Scotland, iirc. How do minor counties get first class status in cricket? Tbf, it has only happened four times - Worcestershire (1899), Northamptonshire (1905), Glamorgan (1921), Durham (1992), so they perhaps don't need a system. And RL itself has never had much of a pyramid itself - one big league, for most of its history and then make it up as you go along in the summer era. There's a lot to be said for P&R, but there are complications and difficulties with it (As examples - what happens if Catalans get relegated? How to narrow the financial and sporting chasm between divisions to make relegation less potentionally catastrophic and promotion less likely to be a poisoned chalice? What to do with administration-newcos?). Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy enough with well thought-through P and R. But we have to deal with the world as it and re-election in some ways offers a simpler path. Not 'fairer' or offering as much sporting interest as P&R - but better than what we've had so far in the summer era.

There are positives to this structure, and the good news is that they will be immediately apparent.

The bad news is so will the obvious issues which will be so broad as to cause them to be addressed very quickly. The attendances in the bottom 8 will be appalling. Nobody will care about being the 17th best side in the league, pretty much that entire league will be a dead rubber and if as suggested there is relegation from that league. That will be an entire competition solely designed to find out who is the worst, it doesn’t even have the legitimacy of a plate competition. It’s a competition where you just simply try not to be the worst. A battle of the s.

The middle 8 risks being an absolute walk over, where very quickly there is nothing to play for and we have a procession of walk overs by better funded, better prepared, better players.

The top 8 also risks very quickly having no point, with so few games there is very little opportunity to turn things around, and there is also a possibility that we could see teams in that top 8 who quite literally have no mathematical chance of progressing from it and a very good possibility that there will be teams who start that competition with no realistic chance of progressing.

The biggest problem in gaining legitimacy for it is that there is a clear and obvious comparison. If for instance Hull KR (who finished 8th last year) finish 8th, the 7 games they have to play have already been played that year. Their three home games have a clear and direct comparison to live up to. It is likely that these games will be ‘extra’ and not included in season tickets (would you risk paying SL prices for a third of your season to be in the championship?) they were 9 points from 4th, 1 loss (and a 4th place win) and they are 11 pts and 4 places from 4th with 12 pts to play for. How many HKR fans are going to pay full price, for a ticket to see a repeat of a game they have seen, only this time with nothing to play for? If, like you would expect it is very few, you are left with a clear comparison showing a big drop in crowds.

There is no 'bad news'. You have simply set out your opinions - which are without foundation or consideration of the likely reality.

Take your comments about the final 7 matches that the third 8 will play. Consider what those clubs play for now in the last 7 league matches under the current structure. Nothing. Their fans are disillusioned. Gates are very low.

What will differ in the new structure for those particular clubs? Plenty. Just a few:

- Clubs will be fighting to avoid ending in the bottom 2 as it will mean relegation out of SL2 into the third tier
- The finshing positions in the 8 will determine how much SKY money the clubs will get for the following season. (i.e. I expect the distribution of SKY money in the following season to be graded - so that the higher a club finishes between places 1 to 24, the more SKY money they will get the next season). So directors will be able to offer appropriate player bonuses for the higher they finish
- Finishing in the top four will qualify you for the play-offs. OK nothing really at stake apart from pride & player bonuses. So, a bit like the old Premiership play-offs. But fans will be keen for their club to get to the play-off final even at that level - to enjoy a day out at a double header along with the middle 8 play-off final.

There are supporters of clubs outside the top 5 in the game who might win the Super League you know.

2.88232421875:5