Really? Under 1 up, 1 down at least a Championship team was guaranteed promotion. Under this system 4 teams with a salary cap of £1.8m and allowed 5+ overseas players will be playing against 4 teams with a cap of £300k and 1 overseas player. How many of the "Championship 4" will beat the "SL 4"? Never mind actually finish ahead of them on the table after 14 games.

It's possibly the worst combination of both licensing and P&R. No certainty for clubs and little to no chance of promotion for Championship clubs.

And Leeds are already dropping, albeit from a hefty starting point.

I'm not defending the idea line for line, because its definitely too complex, but likewise, we don't know anything (at least I don't) about what proposals accompany this concerning caps, distribution of Sky money, etc, etc. so I don't think we can write it off on the basis of assuming no change to the money set up.

All the franchise criteria will have been a waste of time then.

It's just bat crazy.

Hats off for making an already sed at sport, into a full-blown laughed at in your face sport.

Indeed we can't. But assuming the SL cap at least remains the same, then the Championship cap would have to be increased 3 or 4 times to make the teams competitive. Which, if the money is available for Championship clubs to spend that amount then great. But if the clubs are close enough to be competitive then why not just have straight P&R?

And it isn't now? The criteria system now is the biggest sham going. It isn't being adhered to by half of the SL clubs.

Ok, slight admission, that post was partially motivated for a little fun.

But seriously, it does break down into the difference between a club and a squad, which to be honest was the whole reason we brought in licensing/franchising at all.

P&R is all about the squad, sod all about the viability of a club. Worse still, is that P&R - [iespecially[/i between tiers at different levels of professionalism, with different caps etc - actually promotes bringing up [iworse[/i squads than the ones sent down. Add in that the one sent down is necessarily decimated (largely by the club coming up, eliminating any sort of incentive for a squad to want to go up), meaning it completely ruins the squad and club of the team that goes down; and is completely insensitive to whether the club coming up can handle being in the league above - makes it awful.

At least with the above proposals the [isquad [/igetting promoted is doing so by virtue of merit over the [isquad[/i going down. However neither takes into account the health of the [iclub[/i, which is why I don't think P&R is a good thing in any form for Rugby League as it is, and franchising via a clear, transparent structure is. But if we get to the stage in which we can support 16, 20, 24 clubs or whatever on a similar playing field, then I don't think there's a problem with this system at all: it should give more competitive matches, and stronger incentives throughout each league than, say, the football hierarchy.

What happens to the teams left out of the 24 team shop or have i missed that point?

I would imagine some expansion clubs being thrown in here but at whos expense?

Will the bridge between championship clubs and SL clubs be reduced without an increase in funds? I don't see how

It all seems a little thrown together but at least the RFL can see that franchising isnt working and they are looking at options to make the sport more competitive and bringing back the interest in the game.

Should the clubs who are left out of the 24 what is the hope for them? some championship clubs are holding onto the prospect of promotion albeit franchising at the moment but if this idea comes into fruition then they would be pushed even further down the line.I would imagine alot of fans throwing in the towel at that point.

I think you'd have to have the same caps and quotas across the board - it'd have to be integrated. The Sky money split would be the interesting argument, I'd guess.

Searching for plus points - dividing the season into 2 makes more games more meaningful and more should also be competitive. Though the bottom 8 comp offers no prize other than the race for 17th. The intermediate comp as an extended promotion-relegation play-off I'd not be all that optimistic about - but it could work.

It is difficult to see past the complexity of it. If you we're doing it top down, I'm sure you'd go for something simpler, if more brutal - but they need the clubs to back it. Death by consensus would be my fear.

The question is should we be looking for a structure that is good for Rugby League or a structure that is good for Super League, most objectors only care about Super League and most of their objections deal with the scheme solely from a Super League stand point, it´s taken until page six for someone to ask the very important question "what about the clubs outside the 24?" and that for me matters, there has to be some pathway whereby any well run ambitious club outside the 24 can achieve a merited place in the new structure.

For me the idea has merit.

People aksy which supporter of a Super League club will want to watch their team play Championship level teams in the second half of the season, well right now not many want to watch Castleford, Salford or London and the season isn´t yet at the halfway stage.

The concern I have is that a team realising that it´s place is assured in the first 11 games be it at the top or the bottom could then take their foot of the gas, and even manipulate their opponents in the second stage, something has to be done to motivate teams through all 11 games.

But if I was a Cas fan possibly faced with the abyss of the Championship down with the deadmen, which include my team Halifax, I´d be jumping at this where you might lose a little status but the drawbridge stays down.

But it does all hinge on finances.

Someone above said the teams in the bottom 8 will have nothing to play for, do you mean like the championship now?

Assuming there is a decent financial model in place, it rewards clubs on merit, renders games competitive, a season of failure doesn´t leave you cut adrift for ever, there is the possibility of mobility between leagues.

I like it.

Some have said that teams can play each other too often, and that is a draw back, but at the moment it´s possible for teams to play each other five times and that will be the maximum in the new system, assuming the play offs are top 4 with straight semi finals.

Good post. As for this question, when this system has been used elsewhere (shock horror, we wouldn't be the first to use this system), the points carry over into the top 8 (so that all of the first 11 matches for them will count towards playoff positions), so there's no more incentive to take their foot off the gas than there is in any other league - indeed less as presumably ultimate playoff places will be more constrained this way.

So the teams in the middle group will just be playing to finish in the top 4? What will the teams in the bottom group be playing for? How many dead rubbers can you create?

It's an interesting proposal, I'll give them that! A copy of the suggested SPL one that was discussed on here a few weeks ago.

Positives - more competitive games for each tier.
Good chance of big changes each year.

Negatives - Not much for some of the clubs to play for (ie the third tier are playing for the sake of being the 5th best club in their league and the second tier playing for being the 9th best).