Mate i'm with you, until the money starts to come in a league restructure won't be any benefit, the same clubs will compete for trophies the same clubs will yo yo between leagues and the same clubs will get a battering.

No major company wants to touch RL in this country and until that changes we only really have sky and i can't see them wanting to fund every semi pro club in existence.

Call me a cynic but, this is probably a plan to get all the clubs to agree the principal of 2 leagues x 12, based on additional funding and then at some point, Big Nige will tell us that funding wasn't available, so we have to go with a 12 team SL

Good idea? bad idea? who knows? what I want to know is who put this in the public domain. I understand that the proposals were put to a meeting of SL clubs (IN CONFIDENCE) to look at various ways to improve the game at all levels. Instead some one has run to the press shooting their big mouths off & we are left with only a vauge idea of what was actualy disscussed & what they (SL clubs) actualy think about it. No wonder the RFL are always copping flack every time they try to open discussions to advance the game some idiot shoots their mouth off & creates a lot of unwanted fuss before anthing has been decided. If these ideas were disscused in private & rejected as daft then no harm done, but now every detractor of the game can have a field day with it. It is no way to run a sport.

Exactly. It's easy to talk down an idea. Not many are coming up with solutions though. There's a reason why not everyone gets to be in the decision making process.

Personally think the idea has plenty of merit, the crucial factor which no one knows is how tv money would be distributed. For it to work the bigger stronger clubs would have to take less.

Not sure if a simple solution might be better e.g. with 2 leagues of 10, one up one down and top five play offs on the old Aussie system (by far the best system for a progressive reward on where you finish in the table). For this to work again the crucial factor is more even distribution of monies, with salary caps in the 2nd tier at least half of the top tier.

What is undoubtedly needed is a bridge between lower super league and the rest of the game. Not just in terms of promotion/relegation but also finance and salary cap. It may well be that these leaked ideas are a useful starting point for addressing that.

Because there isnt 'a solution' is probably the reason why no-one is coming up with one.

This particular idea is silly, and doesnt actually address any of our real issues. Some smaller clubs may think it good for them, some of the people we have seen moaning about the lack of P+R etc may think this is what they want. In reality it will just further entrench the positions of the big clubs as big clubs and small clubs and small clubs. It will widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

We dont need 'a solution' we need to address each problem we have and stop looking for that one thing which will solve everything,.

Right now the game is Leeds in 2006, nobody looking to get down and do the grunt work, nobody looking to keep bending the line and keep the ball going forward, just a lot of people looking for a hollywood play everytime.

In recent months we have had various SL chairman stating that they cant afford to fund clubs at current levels, and that they would have to make cuts.

This proposed structure therefore looks to me like a move back to part time professionalism for a number of the current SL clubs.

What is my rationale for this.
The bottom four clubs will lose vast amounts of revenue by no longer getting visits from the big boys like Leeds, Warrington, Saints and Wigan. This will heavily reduce not only gate income, but also sponsorship and corporate income. They will therefore be forced to reduce their outgoings significantly. The logical conclusion for this is that they will go part time professional and have only a couple of "star" full time pros. Failure to plan for this will result in insolvency.
These "Zombie" SL clubs will however nominally retain their SL status, and at the same time be confident of having a significant funding advantage over the championship clubs. Thereby guaranteeing they still get to feast at the SL funding banquet, while paying reduced rates for the privilege, in the form of a vastly reduced wage bill.
The chairmen of these Zombie SL clubs will regale themselves in their "emperors new clothes" of SL status.

From the fans point of view, we are likely to therefore see an increasing divide between the haves eg the full time top 8 SL sides, the "benefit scroungers" of the bottom 4 SL sides, and the "third world" clubs within the championship.

The SUPER8 are likely to pull away very quickly from the rest, the better quality players at the "zombie" SL clubs will gravitate to the SL clubs were they believe their full time employment will be more secure, and were they will have the potential of interesting NRL scouts.
I suspect the benefit scroungers will become the home of "failed" young players from the SUPER8 sides, looking to relaunch their SL careers, alongside some experienced part timers.
The Third world championship clubs will stay the same. Their small band of fans will continue to request that the RFL tail wags the dog, while suffering from sustained delusions of grandeur.

The only thing that concerns me is that you don't really gain much by winning SL2 or SL3. There needs to be more of an aim IMO. Here's a suggestion (that I doubt will go down well but here goes!)...

The play-offs for the 3 tiers are:

SL Championship play-offs - Top 5 SL1 + Top of SL2 in a 6-team play-off.

SL top-tier promotion - 1st-3rd in SL2 + play-off winner.
SL top-tier promotion play-offs - 4th-8th in SL2 + 1st-3rd in SL3 in a 8-team play-off.

Means that everyone has something to play for throughout the season in all tiers, fecking up in the first 11 games doesn't end your season, and not only is there a promotion dream for the second tier, but a SLGF dream!

Isn't addressing each problem "a solution"?

I don't know why you've perceived me to have the opinion that there is some magical solution that will fix everything. I'm of the opinion that it's pointless dismissing something or whinging about something constantly if you don't offer an alternative solution. It's not progressive, it's hindering.

It would be a solution to an individual problem, not a solution to all the problems the game faces.


This is being presented as a 'solution'. Im saying it isnt a solution to any of the problems the game faces. The reason there hasnt been an alternative offered is, as i said, because there isnt one. This is a solution to an invented problem. There isnt any point in offering an alternative because the alternative will still be a solution to an invented problem.

If what they are trying to achieve by this is to concentrate more money and power to the big teams at the top. Then it is a very good solution. If this is a slow-burning plan with the end aim being in about 10 years we will have 8-10 really, really strong clubs and a semi-pro feeder pyramid underneath, its probably a pretty decent plan.

if its a plan to address the problems we as a game face of not enough money throughout the game, not a big enough or good enough player pool, the struggle to expand, not a high enough visibility for the game, not enough sponsor or corporate interest, not enough people going through the turnstyles, i.e the actual problems the game faces, then it isnt any kind of solution at all. It doesnt address those issues at all.

btw, i think your idea above is much closer to something workable. If slightly different I would go 2 leagues of 10, SLA and SLB

SL A top 10 clubs, play each other twice, once home, once away = 18 games
SL B second 10 clubs, play each other twice, once home, once away = 18 games

SL A teams play SL B teams once, 4 home games, 4 away games 1 on the road game, 1 Magic Weekend = 10 games.

top 4 from SL A go into a top 6 play-offs with top 2 from SL B. Bottom 4 from SL A relegated, top 4 from SL B promoted.

Still wouldnt address any of the problems the game faces though. Would just move 6 clubs who arent capable of being SL clubs in to SL to join the two or three others already there.

Personally, I want to see an ultra-competitive Superleague, where every game is a 0-0 draw, and every teams shares the SL title. That would be ace.

Seriously, what is this obsession amongst some fans whereby every single team has to be in with a shout of winning the grand final for the league to be any good?

Exactly. Its the reason the salary cap hasn't worked - it was setup with a misunderstanding about what it would acheive. Some form of squad and salary control is perfectly fine, but has to be setup with very clear intentions and realism, and be tailored to the shape and needs of a sport at a particular time. Its no good saying "it works for [insert sport here]" - we need to design for what we need. When we're desperately trying to raise the profile of RL and a club that can afford a high profile player is barred from signing them, something 'aint right. If we already had a massive profile we might be in a different position. But we're not.

Trying to 'equalize competition' is largely futile. Control squad sizes, that's fine, but then hands off. Any one season, or indeed any five or so year period is bound to see dominance by a small number of clubs. What's needed for smaller clubs is a structure that provides hope at least, that one day, with growth and backers, etc there's a pathway to the top table.

No one has suggested there is one solution to all the games problems. I don't see what your point is?


That's your opinion that it isn't a solution to any problems. That doesn't mean the problems are invented.
And of course there's an alternative. The alternative is to keep things the same. But the majority of people that are complaining about the way things are now are also complaining about the alternatives. That's why I say they offer "no solutions". What do they actually want?!


Why does it concentrate more money at the top anymore than now? Isn't the idea that with two less teams the extra money is spread out to the other clubs more?

And how can you say for sure it wouldn't address any of those problems?
Wouldn't more people come through the turnstyles to watch the big clubs competing against each other? Or for promotion places? Or to avoid relegation, etc?

Sadly the game does not have enough money in it for two ten team full time competitions so we can not have P&R as teams coming up will be too weak and teams going down will be combated on and off the field.

Finding a way to fund 14 ft clubs in SL and enough money in lower divisions to be sustainable as part time development clubs is the priority for the RFL.