by 2020 i would have a 16 team superleague all based on franchising along the line of the nrl. i would also look at the possibility of introducing bye rounds for some of the teams. all teams play each other home and away, and no magic weekend - instead properly marketed on the road games to be introduced. this way we don't get the same 2 teams playing each other 4 times or more a season. end of season top 8 play off again along the lines of the nrl. like it or not the nrl system works, it produces high quality games and they don't tinker with the structure as much as we do. i know people will say we don't have 16 teams of sufficient quality but really if we can't put together a 16 team top flight given the developments in the game over the last couple of years we might as well not bother.

Agree the bottom play of has got to go its crap and stinks that a team who finish bottom don't go down and a team who finish 2nd bottom do its not fair and nether will be

Plus I like the fact that you can get a team like the cowboys finish 8th and still make the grand final. This whole super 8's concept in theory sounds great but what we have seen is the gap between 4th and 8th is so wide that it's near enough impossible for the team in 8th to reach the semi finals.

A straight up play off system does allow it. Catalan near enough did it! Yes I rememaber that the play off system was full of one sided games before anyone brings that up.

I think we should go to at least a top 6 or just 5 play off system and ditch the super 8's. The aim of the competition should be to expand it and create at least 8 strong teams every season.

And finally yes let's ditch this ridiculous MPG.

I think the Super 8 system has led to teams at the top of the Championship becoming stronger than they were before, meaning that if they were to expand the league to 14 then the quality of the teams wouldn't be as thinly spread as it was last time there was a 14 team league.

The suggestion that the winner of a comp made up of mainly part time teams should automatically replace the bottom team in SL is ridiculous

Super League 1 and Super League 2 is just playing around with words.
Super League 2 = Championship

TV companies are hard enough pressed to show SL, never mind second tier RL.
You could call it whatever the feck you want but, it will not matter.

Far better to expand the comp properly, to either 14 or 16 clubs and if this number cannot be funded, why the hell are we adding more expansion clubs into the mix.

The game is spitting in the wind and trying to expand what essentially is a domestic competition all over the world and whilst it will bring some short term exposure, the medium term is just bonkers and this will be born out at the end of next season in the qualifiers, when success will depend more on how the fixtures fall, than which is the "better" team.

There has to be a serious increase in the TV deal to make it worth while or, quite simply, we should not be getting involved in the North American experiment and even with increased funding, we are gambling with the games future.

There needs to be a clear strategy to deal with the games expansion, with appropriate increases in funding. If not, we are committing harakiri.

The structure is a red herring. The clubs need to generate more money through their fan base.

Just alternating the structure will do nothing to get more bums on seats and more people watching and hoping TV will be the saviour

take your point but TV is the saviour of nearly all sports nowadays - gate money is becoming less and less important, especially at the top end

In reality it's a bit of both, but before we can go to broadcasters and demand more, we need to look at whether we as a sport are offering more.

The clubs simply have to expand their reach and grow their audiences. We need more people engaged with the sport, and we need more of the sort of people that broadcasters and advertisers are willing to pay to reach engaged with the sport.

And this is where I disagree with the anti-expansion sentiment, because I don't see heartland clubs doing that. I don't think they are capable of marketing the sport to those people, simply because I don't think they're good at marketing, because those new audiences aren't there, or because they have saturated their market. I simply don't see certain clubs growing their reach and their crowds beyond what they currently have. Clubs like Huddersfield are still giving away season tickets for £120-odd every year - is under selling the product really what passes for marketing over there?

I see teams like Catalans, like Toronto and like London as a way to address that. Clubs with potentially big markets, with an opportunity to reach the audiences that broadcasters and sponsors will pay to reach and an opportunity to expand our playing talent pool.

I keep reading that the sport needs to "focus on the heartlands", but what does this mean? Does it mean giving clubs more money? If so, from where, and what should this money be for? Does it mean giving more a place in Super League? If so, can those clubs sustain a competitive team - and how do those clubs enhance the sports appeal to new audiences? In short, what is the "end game" of "focusing on the heartlands"?

All these suggestions go to show that the answer really isn't that simple.

If we didn't have so many weak clubs this wouldn't be such an issue.

6,888 fans turned up yesterday to watch arguably there most important game for years.
6,888.

I think it's a fine balance of expansion whilst not throwing away tradition. Expansion needs to be exactly that, expanding the comp not just the geography. What I mean is that introducing eg. Toronto will be good but to do that we shouldn't collapse leigh which is what we seem to do.

TV is critical but to appeal to tv we need to fill stadiums as well. Why would tv be interested in a product fans can't be bothered to attend.

No easy answer