I think a lot of people are against it as they see the relegation/removal to a second tier as the death of a club, because that is what it pretty much means at the moment - the idea behind a restructure is to make it a better competition and ensure even stepping stones from bottom to top - new teams are essential and they must start at the bottom and build up, that is easier when there isn't a massive gap between each tier

people speak out against repeat fixtures but the figures are clear, game 3 between 2 quality sides draws more than game 1 or 2 between a good side and a poor side - the lowest crowds of the year are cup ties between sides that will only play each other once but where there is a massive gap in quality, the highest crowds are the finals between sides that may have played each other many many times - it is the quality of the product in the stadium that draws in fans, not the rarity of the fixture - the rational is higher quality fixtures improve gates and it will improve the players for a crack at the Aussies

I see .

My opinion is,our fan bases would be completely decimated and then your just a stepping stone for new clubs

I know from talking to some of the professional players who are in favour of a smaller Super League that they believe it would have a significant impact in improving the domestic game and therefore reducing the gap in quality between Super League and the NRL. With less professional places for players in the Super League competition would be increased for places and the top players playing against top players week in, week out.

Furthermore players dropping down would strengthen the Championship and it would filter down right to the amateur levels, improving the quality of the sport at all levels.

I understand where some are coming from with regards to the financial aspect of playing less games however a stronger international game is key to growing the sport and therefore increasing it's financial muscle. This would outweigh any lost incoming through playing slightly less Super League fixtures.

These players, are they the ones who would still be in SL after this ' reduction '? , or are they the ones who would become part time and have to do a real job before training every night, then play for winning money only?

You beat me to it.

The original question is 'what is the rationale?' Simply, the rationale is greed on the part of clubs who, by luck or design, find themselves in the current 'elite' - nothing more.

For the good of the sport, we have to play a longer game - instead of jettisoning those clubs who aren't currently up to the standard of the top 4-6, we should be looking at ways to give them the best opportunities to improve; it may well be that SL has become a rich mans plaything, given that the clubs who are successful tend to be those who are propped up by a wealthy benefactor, but it has to be recognised that that position is precarious - the future of the sport depends on widening participation, strengthening community involvement and providing player pathways, none of which would be achieved by this daft, short-sighted idea.

Like the Hull walkover of the Reds the day you wrote this clap trap

Give the game time for the young English players to come through.

Division 2 would be full time also.

And where would the money come from for 2 FT divisions?

That would require the remaining SL 1 clubs to still only have the same TV money as present, and SKY be willing to give the other 4 teams share to SL 2

Some would suggest that is unlikely

I think you are mistaking Hull for one of the better teams



The RFL get the money for selling the rights to the top tier, then they pass it on to the clubs and other projects, how they divide it should be up to them and they should do that for the good of the game as a whole.

Yes but with only a 10 team top tier SKY might not consider it being worth as much

And ultimatly it is the clubs that have the final say in the breakdown of the money