SL could indeed have their own "SL Cup", but it would be for a different trophy. In terms of international games, world rugby is governed by the Rugby League International Federation, of which the Rugby Football League is a full member. A SL breakaway would have no part to play. Yes, they could raise a team, and even arrange games against Australia etc., but they wouldn't be representing England (or GB).

They can be though not as often but then you’d know that had you ever been to one.

Oh and I’m no grammar Nazi but it’s Wolves not Wolfs you dimwitt

And another oh! Why are you still here?

We broke away from Rugby Union in 1895, please move on.

The Championship would be watched by plenty of RL fans but, lets face it, SL isn't a huge draw and The Championship would be less so. However, The top fixtures in that division will be decent viewing and any games involving 2 sides out of the top 6/7 clubs will be a decent watch.

Exactly. That would be a big hand the RFL would have over SL in trying to lure players to their comp. If the money was with SL then obviously many would still choose to sign with them.

Also if there was a breakaway, what makes everyone so certain SKY would buy rights for that rather than the RFL one. SL only has 4/5 elite clubs (Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire/Hull) the rest are all replaceable. SKY don't give 2 stuffs about KR/Wakey/Salford. Leeds don't seem to be united with SL and could well join an RFL breakaway. If the best players were to sign for the RFL one, SKY would drop SL like a stone.

Anyway the above is all irrelevant as it will never happen. My point is SL isn't as big or as strong as it think it is. The sport will crumble with a breakway. Heads need banging together and the obvious solution of 12/14 team, 1up 1 down, 22 home/away fixtures, 5 team play off, and each league keeps same percentage of funding for next decade and we all work together as a sport to increase the size of the pie. Then we can move onto the actual issues in RL like falling participation numbers.

That's more or less what needs to be agreed except some form of TWO up, 2 down (one automatic, the other via some kind of play-offs).

I last ke the udea if a Super League cup, 3 groups of 3 play each other home and away x 2 start pre season 4 group winners 2 semis and a final around may bank hol. Better than pointless loop fixtures. Clubs get a guaranteed 23 home games then.

What we need is 14 or more teams not loop games let’s get our game back to how it should be great to watch and for does that want to take part

why do you have this ?

Superleague Titles
Warrington Wolfs - 0
Wakefield Trinity - 0
Leigh Centurions - 0
(leigh only ever had 2 seasons in the top flight)

ONLY 4 DIFFERENT CLUBS HAVE WON THE SUPER LEAGUE TROPHY.
SO, THERE ARE CURRENTLY 34 CLUBS WHO HAVE NOT DONE SO.

Anyone else listening to the press conference? Mainly just the Batley chairman airing his views so far...... Allegations that a club has threatened to withdraw dual reg and no longer play friendlies with a club if they don't vote the way they want.

Bloody hell its getting like the eu if you do not do has we say you will lose out lol

22 super league seasons and one side has won over a third of them, (leeds of course) catch up every one

I fear for the future of the game if some middle ground can’t be found. I agree with sentiments from both sides.

The TV viewing and attendance figures for the “super” 8’s demonstrate that the system is not working (personally I quite like it) and we need a change. 14 teams & 1 up/1 down seems the most viable option at present.

The argument fundamentally comes down to funding. I understand the point that the majority of the sports money comes from SL and agree that the RFL’s marketing and management of it is poor, at the same time SL clubs have to share the blame as in most cases their marketing and management has also been poor.

I think the lack of regular internationals and a fixed international calendar is really holding the sport back. Football aside, if you look at sports like RU and Cricket the international game is where the money comes from, it’s what creates the interest and attracts sponsors & TV money. SL talk about growing the sport from the top, imo the top is the international game.

Agree with all of that. However, the difference with cricket and RU, compared to RL, is that there are a far greater number of genuine national and International sides so, they can go for a centrally funded national side and play decent numbers of competitive games.
We have only 3 "tier 1" sides and after that, the games would be just too one sided or, for tier 2 sides, just not at a high enough level.
Therefore we are left with the 4 nations and the occasional tour to try and generate interest at a level above the domestic game.
There are still huge issues with media interest/exposure and when you can see bill boards with Nat West sponsored women's cricket, you know just how far down the pecking order we are.

Ok, here's a simple reason why the structure should change.

We need to entice new people into the sport. People outside RL do not understand the 8s format and don't understand loop fixtures.

Go to 1 up, 1 down 14 clubs. Make it simple for new people to understand. End of.

Not enough talent for 14? Take the slight hit. As more people UNDERSTAND the game, more people will get interested and will eventually start affecting new talent.

FWIW, London getting promoted is much better for the UK game (of which SL is 92% based) than another non UK based team. Nothing against Toronto or Toulouse as they are good teams, but charity starts at home.