My comparison to the cricket championship is based solely on performance. They split the game in to 2 divisions and the cream naturally rose to the top with the best players playing in the top division meaning that each and every game was a real test for the players. The vast majority of the England side is made up of players from that top division and it's worked wonders turning our test side from a total rabble to the best in the world(well it was). I'm not saying it's likely to make our international rugby league side the best because thats unrealistic but I think a top division made up of ten teams would really improve the competition and make full use of all these good young players we've got coming through at the minute.

As a financial comparison the county cricket clubs may get more hand outs from their governing body but then I guess they need them. I've been watching a few county matches at Old Trafford and Liverpool and there's been a few hundred on. The money a lot of the county sides take through the gates must be minimal in comparison to some leage clubs.

How, by drastically reducing their opportunities to play at the top level, not only by lowering the number of teams but also because clubs would be forced to implement short-term plans and ignore youth development in order to stave off relegation, as they were before?

There is no issue in RL with the best players not playing in the top division, so I'm not sure how what you have posted is relevant in any way.

The aim should be to increase income into the game to allow the RFL grant to equal the salary cap, not cut the size of our top competition. Having more clubs slip back to PT status playing in front of smaller crowds and spending less on Jnr development is not progress!

So the idea is to increase to 20 FT teams from 14 and split into two leagues? Sounds a good idea until you consider;
Since moving to 14 FT teams 4 years ago, 4 have gone "bust", 1 is currently facing a WUP, another has admitted it's really struggling, and another has been offloading players to cut the wage bill as the business isn't sustainable. Then you've got at least two more which can't survive without an owners input, and another 3 who aren't spending the current SC just to balance the books. Leaving (at best) 6 teams capable of supporting their own activities.

Do we really think that introducing an extra 6 teams to take a share of current income will resolve the issue?
Will they generate enough extra income as a renamed Championship with 4 "relegated" SL sides to make up the current deficiency and enough to cover the extra 6 FT teams?
Sky won't renegotiate their deal for SL until 2015 so that's out the question. Will they pay for a renamed Championship when they didn't want it this year?
The gap between SL & SL2 would still be too big to consider P&R. Until we can efficiently support 20 FT teams where the SC difference is no more than say for example 20% different, this shouldn't even be considered.
Many complain the player pool isn't big enough for 14 teams which is obvious due to the difference between the bottom and top sides consistently so where's the extra 150 players (25 for each 6 teams) coming from?

On the plus side -
A fixture list can be made up to 27 games with 13 home games each no problem. We've done it before when we had 12 teams so its no issue doing it again.
This would probably see an increase in crowds on the whole but still not enough enough to support the extra clubs.
P&R keeps both ends of the table in SL anyway meaningful right up to the end of the year. Bottom of SL2 would still have nothing to play for unless a big weighting is put on the on-field performances of a club when licences are renewed.
Making an extra 150 players FT will increase the playing pool and the quality of them individually no doubt but in reality will this be of any real quality compared to the current elite? Probably not.

It seems a very ambitious move which could potentially ruin the game financially. I don't believe we should be trying this early to go for this, and wait until the top level can support itself successfully before we look at expansion plans which this is.
Current clubs should be working towards what Warrington have achieved and make sure their venue is used all year round therefore making the club sustainable. Easier said than done, especially for those that don't own their own stadium.

The only way this seems possible is if the WC over here really takes off in the media and national spotlight that it attracts major sponsors and players to the table to readily invest in the sport. Can I see it happening? An increase in popularity and income yes, but to support these proposed changes? No way.

There was no issue with England's cricketers not playing in the top division before they changed, they were playing in the only professional league in the country. The problem they had, like us, is that they didn't have enough good players to service a competitive enough league with 18 teams in it that would help nurture players ready for the increased intensity of test matches. We don't have enough good players to run with a top division of 14 teams IMO and it's leading to some games that are blow outs. If we had a top tier of ten teams then all the best players would naturally end up in that division and the games would be of a real intensity each and every week. The 2nd tier obviously wouldn't be as good a quality as the top tier would be but it'd be better then the current championship and all the teams would have a goal to achieve promotion.

If we made these changes then we'd have to go back to a top 5 play off system in the top tier and there would 7 or 8 teams capable of getting in to that top 5 but the bottom end of those clubs would be struggling against relegation. That would bring back that importance to the weekly rounds that is missing at the moment and lead to an increase in crowds as well.

I would only back this idea if Super League 2 was to be a full time league. Otherwise it's just a glorified Championship.

Would it not be possible to split the next TV deal in such a way that the teams in SL2 get 50% of what the teams in SL1 get?
e.g. (very simplistic example!)
If the current deal is £90m over five years, that's £18m per year.
Spread over 14 clubs (I know there's other places the money goes but I'm keeping it simple for now) that's about £1.28m per club.
If you split it on a 2:1 ratio between the two 10-team leagues, it'd be £1.2m in SL1 and £0.6m in SL2. Not far off what's there at present in the top tier so may need a slight increase in a TV deal (but if Sky get their extra game again for SL2 then you can justify it). Something like £6.5m over the five years (£1.3m per year).

Could SL2 clubs run a full time operation with £0.6m in funding? Maybe partially.

With your telepathic insight into how it would be implemented and the consequences thereof, I don't know why we need anyone to run the game. Its really well organised, with a terrific future. All we need is for you to remain at the ready to step in and declare "end of debate" any time an idiot has the first inkling of an alternative idea.

I think it would have to be a half way house ie the core of the team would be full time the rest as is now.

Good questions and the ones that need answering. The answer to the first one would be how you see the glass half empty or half full. I think Cas, London, all playing in a league where they can win some games and build their fan base is a good thing. People do not want to watch a team that loses every week.



This is the big one for me and where the idea falls on its backside. If 14 full time teams is not viable then how is 20. You would have to say that SL2 would have to have a reduced cap but that could get cancelled out by reduced funding. This just doesn't add up. Maybe two leagues of 8 would make more sense.



No sport has automatic promotion and relegation between ft and pt professional. You will need a licence.



Things like that would only determine if you are in Super League. You would imagine the split will be based on the league standings the previous season, which will add a lot to that years regular season.



Sky, they pay the money. Sky being willing to show a SL2 game a week would probably be the most important thing to such a structure working.

Someone convinced me a while back that a two tier Super League is a good idea. Two leagues of eight teams with each team playing each other twice and a single game against the teams in the other league. 7x2+8=22 games.

Bring in a team from the championship (Fev, Fax, Sheffield?) and an expansion club probably Toulouse.

SL1 to have a salary cap of £1.8m and SL2 having a cap of £1m. Promotion and Relegation, 1 up, 1 down.

i think the ~150 extra full time pros would be able to be made up as long as clubs like warrington who have plenty of fringe players who are probably ready for sl1 never mind sl2 agreed to some new form of dual registration agreements with the sl2 clubs

not ideal but it would be an intermediate step towards the dream that in the not too distant future having 20 professional clubs all producing their own pro players with a few imports mixed in

I note how all of the fans of the top Championship clubs seem delighted at the thought of cutting the lower Championship/Championship 1 clubs adrift now they've got a sniff at the pie - a charge they often level at 'Super Dooper League' fans.

Surely the big problem is always going to be money. SL clubs presently want to cut other teams adrift to get more of the pie themselves (forget this we need to be more competitive rubbish it's all about more money). So why will those who want more vote for this and why would those who will be dropped down and get effectively relegated vote for this??

So you admit you hadn't thought at all about what you were posting, and don't have anything further to contribute. Thanks for that.

So the best players from the bottom 4 clubs would be redistributed across SL1, right? How many players do you imagine that would be and how much of a difference in competitiveness do you think they would make? Would it have prevented Huddersfield getting smashed 54-6 by Wire? Would it have stopped the Bulls having 70 put past them by Hull? What about Leeds' 8-50 loss against us? Could these blowouts [ibetween the top sides of SL[/i be prevented by the redistribution of a handful of players from the bottom 4 clubs? And how good will SL2 actually be once all the best players have been stripped from its top 4 clubs?