Why would a 10 team 36 games each SL not work, with SL2 the same? It is a big ask to play 36 league games a year, but if you scrap the playoffs (or reduce the teams involved) which are poorly attended (bar the final) anyway then it is viable IMHO. Part of the financial problems come about because there are not enough home games. This is very true in the championship.

Let us stop worrying about competing with the aussies. The future of RL in the UK/France does not depend on this.

We need a competitive SL in order for RL to survive, as it stands we do not have this. Balls to this 'we do not have enough talent' stuff, if it is spread around the teams and the squads are filled up with lesser UK/French players but there is a more even spread you get many more closer games and less forgone conclusions, which will increase the support base for many clubs. As it stands can you really see Wakey, Salford, London, KR, Cas, Widnes etc finishing top 5-6? If any of those clubs were hanging around the top 3 of the league they would be looking at closer to 10k crowds (possibly bar London). You only have to look at how clubs who have come up from the championship have increased crowds, so the support base is there if fans can at least see a path to the top.

What is needed is an average of 15k in SL and 5k in SL2, at the moment we are nowhere near this.

I think I am correct in saying there are more people playing the game at lower levels than ever before, the talent will filter through eventually if given the chance rather than a payday aussie coming over to play.

Of course London would go down. Why on earth wouldn't they? If Wakey, Cas et al can be SL standard, who would fall much below that in the current Championship?

I think, as mentioned, if P&R were to come back, the salary cap between the SL & Champ would have to be shortened. It was so apparent before when teams were promoted after most teams had done their wheeling and dealing that they were lef with the scraps and having to assemble a competitive team, but if they fell thgrough the trap door, having to release moreorless the entire squad to meet the 2nd tier salary cap.
But by reducing the gulf, we run into the difficulty of lowering SL sufficiently to diminish the standard of the competition or raising the Champ high enough to run the risk of clubs living beyond their means to try and get to the promised land.

I think two divisions of ten, with a cap based on turnover again.

I am genuinely puzzled by people who think a 14 team FT professional league is too big, but then propose a 20 team FT professional league -even though there aren't 20 full time professional clubs in the country.

Maybe because 2 competitive leagues with a route to the top will increase both the number of fans attending, and the price they pay?

Right ... go full time professional and just hope the money will come. Yep, that's worked in the past ...


(and - a minor point no doubt - but a 20 strong FT league, even split into two divisions with P&R within the league, wouldn't address the supposed injustice of no P&R between the professional and semi-professional comps. It would just add six more clubs to the alleged selfish elite)

If you want to look at it from a soccerball point of view, teams in with a chance or who are competitive get bigger crowds. Why will new fans turn out to watch no hopers like London and Salford? Why will CH fans turn out when there is no chance of SL? I would still want P&R from from the 3rd league, as long as ground is up to it, and there have been at least a few fans turning up.

Why do new fans turn out to watch the likes of Stoke City?

They are too good to go down from the Premier League, and nowhere near good enough to challenge for Champions League places. The best they can hope for is a season of mid-table mediocrity and a decent run in one of the Cups.

Teams who are successful - at whatever level they are at - grow their crowds. A lot of Stoke's fanbase will have been gathered in the season they did so well in the Championship and will have followed them into the top division. If they were to hit a bad run of form and be near the bottom of the table for a few seasons, a chunk of that fanbase would probably disappear. See Bolton or Wigan as an example.

Spectators, particularly new ones, are fickle. If London or Salford were challenging near the top of the table their crowds would be boosted by new fans. It's hard to attract new fans however when you're not delivering a product that they want to keep coming back to see.

Correct, new fans are drawn in by success ( even in a lower tier ) and the potential to progress, these incentives have been removed from RL, and ultimatly the sport will suffer as a result, below the top 4/5 of SL we have a sterile sanitised enviroment, not condusive to growth

Exactly. This is what's happened in Halifax, new fans graduated towards the Bulls because Fax were no longer in the top league. Same applies with Fev and Wakey, new fans went to watch Wakey play the likes of Leeds, Wigan and Saints. That's how Wakey grew their crowd. If Fev had been in SL or if we still had the old system some of those fans would be at P O Road. And it is about replenishing the crowd, replacing those who for whatever reason no longer come to games - they die, they can no longer get to games because of illness or family commitments.

Well thank you very much
But if I'm wrong, then did the big gap, that most people admit exists between SL and the CC, only appear during 3 and a half years of licensing?

Hope this helps.

1. Finance- Its a fair gamble that a more intense SL Premiership consisting of the top 10 teams would generate bigger gates and increased sponsorship/corporate to offset any reduction in Sky revenues, it is also likely this would be far higher profile for the armchair fans and have a positive effect on the next deal.
The SL Championship would be competitive week in week out with the promotion prize to win at the end of the season, again this would impact positively on gates with the GF being the biggest game of the season in its own right.
Sky pay £18m pa until 2016, if we took 10 clubs on £1.1m and 10 on £700k (1.2 + .6 also viable) we finance two full time divisions.
Premiership must spend full cap and Championship £1m, clubs unable to do so shouldn't be in the set up

2. League Structures - Four current SL clubs to move down, Bradford plus 3 imo. Bring in Toulouse and the top 4 championship clubs who meet criteria imo Fax, Fev, Leigh and Sheffield/Batley. We may take a gamble with South Wales or a Cumbrian club - Barrow being the strongest at present.
Twenty seven league games, with a top 6 play off, 3v6 & 4v5 - W1, 1v2 & winners from W1 - W2, Loser from 1v2 plays winner of other game in W2 -W3, GF -W4
Bottom of Premiership relegated, winner of Championship GF promoted with ground caveat.

3. Starting 17 - Max 3 overseas in Premiership and 1 in the Championship

4. Future - 2016 we need to look at viability of 12/12, 10/12 or no change. Sky deal will dictate numbers, assuming no change then the Championship clubs would be reapplying to remain in based upon results, crowds, finances etc. The weakest business case would be replaced by the strongest, and this process to take place every 2 years.

I heard a radio interview a few months ago with Jeremy Wray, Chairman of Swindon Town FC. He was discussing the interview with Paolo Di Canio shortly before he was appointed as team manager. Di Canio asked Wray what were the club's aspirations and Wray answered with suprising candours[/ihitter and would've walked away".

I'm still surprised by some fans and Chairmen's reluctance to accept the current situation they are in, in favour of living on past "glories", whatever they may perceive them to be.

NOt for another 4 years it wont.
You mean like the 10+ years we had of exactly the same which didnt bring huge new income streams.
No, sky pay for SL. They pay £18m for a 14 team SL. They pay the money to the RFL to distribute to SL clubs for playing in SL. If we were to cut the league by 4, Sky would expect the SC to go up. They will not accept paying money to SL for a league they don’t have the rights to and don’t want to screen.

That’s even jumping passed the question of why SL (Europe) is going to give money owed to them, to the lower leagues?


So they same as we had for the firt 10+ years of SL which proved so unsuccessful.

Where are these players of sufficient quality going to come from? especially when you are mortgaging the future on the increase in quality resulting in an increase in TV revenues in 4 years time.
Sky have dictated the numbers, they dont want a second league.

hope that helps.

If for one minute you believe this will move forward without Sky then you are deluded. If Sky feel they will benefit then it will happen, if the top 10 clubs feel they will benefit they will vote for it. SL is less than 20 years old, it will evolve just as our sport evolved in its infancy from 15 to 13 players etc irrespective how much the Luddites like yourself kick scream and throw their toys out.

I don’t believe it will move forward without Sky, that’s why I don’t believe it will move forward.

Sky don’t want to broadcast a second tier. They certainly don’t want to pay for it, and they especially don’t want to pay for it and not broadcast it.

And you aren’t proposing evolution, you are proposing going backwards at a rate of knots but pretending we aren’t by calling it by a new name.