You mean Championship 1 ?

So why do teams at the top lose to teams at the bottom, your argument gets more ludicrous by the post. Unless there are teams being thrashed by 50 points every game then there is competition. The winning points margin in SL is about the same as the NRL. What you clearly can't seem to grasp (because and I know it's not PC your a bit thick) is that there will always be top teams and bottom teams. That's how leagues work, or are you suggesting every team must win exactly the same number of games by the same margin to be competitive - now think about it.

Quins were top of the League at the start of the season whilst Wakefield finished top 6 and reached a CCup final a few seasons ago. In 2009 Wakefield finished 5th and Warrington finished 10th - should we have binned Warrington who were clearly letting the side down - you don't have to answer that as I'm afraid it's beyond you and it's unfair to pick on you.

Now stop making a fool of yourself.

I think 12 is a pretty good number really. 14 doesn't keep the second flight strong enough IMO and 8 is just too few, like people have said people are used to watching football with 20+ teams in each league.

So I would go for a 12 team league. I don't want to say I would prefer P&R because we are not going to get it for a good few years anyway. I think the franchise system is helping clubs develop both in and out of super league.

I would go back to the top 5 play-off...
Relegation if you go into administration...

Wigan
Warrington
Leeds
Hull FC
St Helens
Catalans
Hudds
Widnes
Bradford
Hull KR
Quins
Salford

I reckon the second tier needs a criteria as well though but only having 12 teams in super league would make it much more competative. 6 of those teams have been in super league within the last decade and the other 3 have potential to make the step up. Not sure which other teams could be in this league but I think it should be decided based on the potential for super league.

Castleford
Wakey
Crusaders
Barrow
Halifax
Leigh
Sheffield
Toulouse
Featherstone
.....

Wakefield are gone either way. Stay the same as you are cut for Widnes, change to my proposed system and you are cut.

It's too late for Wakefield, people should have thought about stadiums, crowds, youth facilities etc years ago.

You know all this as fact do yo

these arent things they have brought to SL
That isnt an amount to be proud of

That isnt SL but a completely different league.

More than most? more than Leeds, Hull, Saints, Wigan, Cas, Les Catalans, Warrington, Bradford. To be more than most, you would need to be more than 6 of those clubs. Which 6 do you think you have produced more SL players than?
All clubs would say they have an ambitious board, and the money to back them up remains to be seen. The idea Glover is one of the richer men in SL isnt correct.

Really? They have a heritage comparable with Leeds, Wigan, St Helens, Bradford? even Widnes? Even though their sole success in the last 50 years has been a solitary Yorkshire Cup?

And has been for umpteen years and this has never been turned into an advantage.

Im 4 month away from potentially shagging Megan Fox. Im also 4 month away from potentially not.

There is realistically only one club with similar issues. A club which isnt harking back ten years to think of quality players it has produced. A club with better attendances, and a club which didnt go bust at the start of the year.

Standards have improved. It is a fact of life that when standards improve, those who cant keep up are left behind. It is necessary.

Indeed. 8 teams at the top flight? That's not a sport, it's a hobby.

Without a massive hike in the SC how would these 8 clubs support all the elite players who currently play in the entire SL? And what happens to the clubs who lose all these elite players to the Super 8? How would that affect the gap between the top flight and the other tiers?

Not wishing to be pedantic but the City of Salford doesn't have a professional football team

Is Halifax a city ?

It is as big as the area Wakefield fans argue is their 'area'. The term 'city' is essentially meaningless. An area can simply decide it is a 'city' if it wants ala Perth.

But if we are being pedantic, whilst Halifax wouldnt count as it isnt a City. In that context London doesnt have a football team

The term was a city , Halifax isn't a city , I wasn't being pedantic , the previous posters weren't being pedantic , it's just you not reading things before posting that is the problem

I've witnessed your pedantry with regards the geography of Yorkshire citys,towns and villages before , and have no wish whatsoever to get involved in any discussion about it

The previous poster said city , you said Halifax , Halifax isn't a city , end of