The only thing I can compare the split to really is Apetura and Clausura, in South America. But there the season splits and you have two champions. I think if the winnings are fairly distributed, and the salary cap makes the competition fair, 12-12/8-8-8 is a goer.

Do you know, after all the ideas have been put forward I still haven't heard one which is any better than the Lancs and Yorks league split, with play-offs, which we had up to the early seventies; every team [all 32, shown in one league table] in the 'top' division, every team with a chance of the championship The new suggestions are no better, just needlessly more complicated.

Get rid of the Lancs/Yorks and have East/West - job done.

Can someone answer, in the 8-8-8 system

How the top 4 championship clubs on sub 1million salary cap compete with the bottom 4 SL clubs on 1.5 million?

How bottom 4 SL clubs will be more financially sustainable playing championship clubs likely to reduce crowds for that part of the season?

How SL clubs will sell season tickets for a comp that may include a third of the season thrashing pt championship clubs?

I've been wondering who else would ask that question, Pike....

I've posed the same question, all be it in slightly different words, myself and still haven't got a sensible answer... and truth is, I don't think there is an answer. When we get more full-time clubs we might be able to go with these schemes but that time certainly isn't now nor is it going to be very soon, to be fair.

As a Wakefield fan, it is likely that my team will be involved.

Where have you seen the salary cap limits for the 3x8 system?

2 of the 'championship' clubs will likely be from next season's SL.
Wakefield don't spend the Salary cap anyway, so the difference could be less.
I doubt games against Featherstone and Halifax will have worse crowds than Salford or London (or Catalans)
If you're in the middle 8 play-offs, you could well be winning more games than you did in top 12.
In the current set-up the last 5 or 6 games are fairly unattractive
We would have something to play for at the end of the season once the top 8 bid failed (again)
An increase in home games (14/15 versus 13) would help with season ticket value for money.
As few as 2 games could be against teams who were not in SL 2014. 2/31 is not a third of the season. Even at the limit (4 teams not from the 12, and then don't make the middle play-offs) that's 4/29, which is still no-where near a third.
I'm not convinced playing Featherstone, Castleford, Sheffield and Halifax will be the thrashings you imagine when they have a carrot of guaranteed 'promotion' and more cash.

This system is the best fit for RL at the moment.
Closed shop has made the inter-league difference much wider.
Straight 1 up/down has been tried and failed, as just because you are the best of low budget league, doesn't mean you can compete with the top league.
The proposed system means that the best 12 teams will play in the top league each season.

I don't expect big changes in the top 12 or 8 season on season, but the system allows change. Ambition, hope and dreams are the mainstay of sport.

If say Toulouse enter the lower 12 in 2015 it is possible, although highly unlikely, that they could win the SL grand final in 2016.
Top 4 lower 12, top 4 middle 8 (2015) followed by top 8 upper 12, top 4 upper 8 and win the play-offs (2016).

The important factor is that the RFL have the bottle to equalise financial pay-outs to the 24 teams as far as possible. The top clubs' incomes will still be higher due to other income. The salary cap should be equal for all teams as it no longer serves to limit clubs' overspending, only limiting top clubs' recruitment which is needed until the sport as a whole increases its income.

The proposed system could encourage more external investment by having a clear route to the top and removing the whim politics of RFL 'franchising'.

Sounds great in theory but I very much doubt it is going to help the bottom SL clubs at all.

There is no way the salary caps are going to be close never mind the same unless the bottom clubs end up losing so much money in this system they have to slash their spending in which case you might as well have an 8 team SL to start with. Good luck signing any decent talent if you are likely to end up in the bottom 4.

I give it 3 years tops before it is changed again if they go with this stupid plan.

Fev may believe that Mr Nahaboo has got all these ‘investors’ ready to throw hundreds of thousands at players. He may even do so. Fax may believe that they can get enough sponsorship and fans through the door to compete with the lower SL sides in a 7 game series. Even Leigh and Sheffield might believe they can scrape together a squad which doesn’t get embarrassed by the bigger boys, and the two relegated sides next year might believe they can keep it together enough to see them back amongst the top dogs in a years time.

Best case scenario for this idea all that happens.

Best case scenario see’s 6 clubs who could, at least feasibly put up a half decent show at the bottom of SL.

Still, Batley can’t compete with those at the bottom of SL, Dewsbury can’t put together a competitive full-time squad. Is anyone expecting Donny, Whitehaven, Keighley, Swinton to be able to?

So how interesting and competitive is the 1st part of that season going to be? Where more than half the games the likes of Fev play are an absolute walkover? And this is the BEST case scenario. Where half the season is a cake walk.

How are the likes of Dewsbury supposed to survive when they are getting smashed by full-time squads every other week?

Problem in the UK is that we have only 14 full time clubs, and without the funding to create more the knuckle draggers who came up with this one aren't really helping anyone. You can't just promote clubs above their logical position and expect them to swim - it's not like soccer, where there are four divisions of full time professionals plying their trade.

We have just the one division, and the comparison isn't like the Premier division and the Championship in soccer [though that's more than wide enough] it's more like the lower end Premier division teams having matches against the semi-pro conference sides, utterly ludicrous.

Great post!

Explains why the new structure will be fantastic for the game in this country from year one - never mind when it beds in over 5, 10, 20 years and we see the resulting growth in the game as a whole.

On a point of detail. Not sure if it's been decided yet but I'd like to see the 3 points for a win and one point for a 'bonus point' loss (a loss by no more than 12 points) apply in all divsions; the 12's and the 8/8/8 split.

I've yet to be convinced by bonus points. Does it really make any difference to league placings? Would it be open to manipulation? It could be sold to me though.

The RFL seem to have stated that the points for the top 8 will not be reset, so maybe there is a case for 3 points for a win in this section.
The difference between 4th and 8th after 22 rounds could be such that it would be almost impossible for them to make the play-offs, undermining the major aim of the system.
I'd prefer the points to be reset so that the last 7 fixtures would be more intense, but then you'd have top teams sandbagging towards the end of the top 12 games, as they do now. 3 points for a win in the 2nd part could be a sensible compromise.

It made for a FANTASTIC game tonight, Featherstone v Sheffield.

People are posting a lot of "if", "what if" "maybe" and "possibly" type assessments here in regard to 8-8-8.

The Fact is the worst team in SL has this year accounted for the top 2 Championship teams with ease........I suspect that the bottom 4 of the SL 12 will always prevail over the top 4 of the SL2 12....once a bottom tier club loses it's first game, then essentially any chance of promotion is over.

There are onluy two likely scenarios for the 8-8-8.
A) CC clubs are even during first half of season but SL clubs thrash CC club in the second half of the season
B) Top CC clubs thrash lower clubs in first half of season but are more competitive in second half of season against SL clubs.

The chances of 16 clubs (4 weakest SL clubs and 12 CC clubs) all being even close to equal is so remote it is off the bookies scale.


coco supposing your club misses out on playing Leeds, Cas and Hull at home in the SL season do you really think playing fev, fax and sheffield in the second half of the season is going to make up for those losses? Your club is one that has slowly gone about its business well of building its fanbase and attendances, despite not being top on the field. Clubs like yours have the most to lose out of them all I would think?

How many people watched it?

Why would 16 clubs need to be equal? The top 4 of the second tier would be better than the other 8, the bottom 4 of the upper tier would be worse than the other 8. These are the clubs that would play each other again. The key is how much of an overlap there is.
Based on the current league table the 8 would be Bradford, Wakefield, Widnes, Castleford, Salford, London, Featherstone and Sheffield. Is the disparity of playing standards wider than the current top 14? Will those standards be closer when Featherstone and Sheffield have a significant increase in funding? On current form could you guarantee which 4 would return to the top 12 after playing each other once?

If Wakefield were in the top 12 why would we miss out on playing Leeds, Cas and Hull at home? The first part (not half) of the season would be a full 22 game league playing everyone home and away (plus MM).

The losers in this are likely to be the 2 teams relegated at the end of next season. They will play all their games against lower/less well supported teams, but at least, if they can keep most of their squad together, they have a chance of making the higher tier the following year.

I'm not against franchising or straight P&R per se, but the proposed system is the best fit for our current situation to help the growth and development of a greater number of clubs, both established and new, to a higher standard.

Franchising could also have done this, in theory, but it was completely messed up in its implementation by the RFL. Perhaps they were dealt a weak hand as there were only a handful of clubs who could meet the minimum standards required to break even in such a system. It would have worked if there were at least 14 clubs with 10k crowds capable of spending the full cap. Franchise standards need to be fixed, not aspirational. KFC & McDonalds wouldn't stand for it.






Of course they are all ifs & maybes as it doesn't exist yet, so how can we know for sure how it will work. Those top 2 championship clubs will receive significantly increased funding to strengthen their squad in the new system. I suspect investors and fans will be more likely to turn up if they know they have a real chance of promotion. I think it is unlikely that the top 12 will change in the first season, but the clubs outside can build and try again the next year. It's about improving standards over a number of seasons, not just one. The bottom tier club would, realistically, only have to win 4 out of 7 games, which would be a tough call, but why would losing their first one be so catastrophic?