Quote Bovrick="Bovrick"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. '"
The Western Conference would be weaker initially, that is correct. They'd have the last license additions (Crusaders and Salford) as well as the next license additions (Widnes and Toulouse). I think the benefits of grouping on geography outweigh the negatives of an initial competitiveness though (in terms of local interest and crowds, etc). Plus, it's not as if the other teams won't be playing these less established sides anyway. They'll play all of them at least once.
All in all, I'd say it's more of an advantage for the teams in the Western Conference, as the top teams should have more games they'd consider themselves able to win (and thus making a play-off spot) and the lower teams would have winnable games. There may be a divide at first, but there was a divide in SL for how many years...?
Quote Bovrick="Bovrick"Also it may be unfair to have the furthest distances to travel on this side.'"
For the travelling, teams in the Western Conference would have to go to France away twice, and half of them would have to go to London once (so 3 long trips, remembering that Wrexham is right on the NW's doorstep). Eastern clubs would have to go to London once and France (either Perpignan or Toulouse) once. So it's only 4 clubs that will be at a disadvantage of having to travel one extra game at a long distance. No matter how you set the conferences out, there will always be one extra trip for someone as there are 3 outpost clubs, so it's better to have the two French ones together.
Quote Bovrick="Bovrick"Also how would the promotion/relegation/franchise system work with these in the future?'"
The same as usual. If there is/are new club/s entering, you replace them with the weakest clubs. If you need to rearrange the conferences, then do that.
If you added two more clubs to make 18, you could split to three conferences of six, sticking to playing your own twice and everyone else once would still make the same number of games (22).
If you brought back relegation, you could either drop one team from the bottom of each conference, or you could have a relegation play-off between the bottom team of each conference and have them replaced by the winner of the Championship GF. In fact, that doesn't sound that bad an idea, as relegation wouldn't be decided until the last game of the year then.
Quote Bovrick="Bovrick"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.'"
I thought about the Eastern vs Western origin thing as well, but don't think it would be too much of a puller (not until the conferences are established anyway).
You could always have a 5-week break in May and expand the Challenge Cup to group stages. 8 groups of 5. 1 WCSL, 1 ECSL, 1 CC, 1CC1 and 1 other. At the same time have an international series, so the SL clubs are slightly weakened to make it more competitive (sort of like The Observer was saying earlier with RU).
Quote Bovrick="Bovrick"Tbh overall I would not really support this idea.'"
I guess it's a work in progress. But the game does need to find a way to reduce the amount of games players are playing without losing cash.