heres an interesting take on a new look slimmed down Super League www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost ... um=twitter but would it bring in the supporters and would there be a cut in revenue for all clubs to fund 20 teams.

heres an interesting take on a new look slimmed down Super League www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost ... um=twitter but would it bring in the supporters and would there be a cut in revenue for all clubs to fund 20 teams.

I completely agree with the sentiment that Superleague cannot go on as it is, with no promotion or relegation its become a moribund competition between the top 5.
The idea mooted of 2 ten team leagues with a way in from the lower divisions too seems a good one to me, a bit like the way county cricket has gone.
On balance I'd be in favour, it would keep the season alive for all the clubs

As stated, I think the overall idea has some merit (although the devil is normally in the detail). However, the question I would ask is whether we'd be quite so keen if Salford happened to be on the other side of the arbitrary line prescribed by this particular writer.

Cumbria ought to have a team included if this structure is implemented - it's a great rugby league area with thriving amateur teams. Difficult to do it, though. All three teams in Championship 1, and Whitehaven and Workington would be slightly less willing to merge than, say, the soccer clubs MCFC and MUFC, Southampton and Portsmouth, or West Ham and Millwall.

Or Salford and Oldham for that matter, casting our minds back about 15 years.

If we assumed that the funding was sorted out and not massively different between the two divisions (certainly it would have to be better than the current gulf between SL and the rest), then I'd be perfectly happpy to see SCR in the lower division and having to compete for promotion - watching games there'd be more to shout and cheer for than there is now!!

I feel a lot of this chatter (which started from some SL bosses) is part of a bigger picture. Lewis has gone and his efforts in unifying Rugby League was disliked in many areas.
I think that this is opening the conversation to a more independent (and independently funded) Super League mirroring what has been happening in Rugby Union and Association Football.

I have no doubt that Hull, St Helens, Wigan and Bradford will happily ditch Salford with others to make SL "leaner" and then pull up the drawbridge. You can see their reasoning as their games, televised on Sky, make up by far the bulk of funding for the professional sport. I don't like it.

The only way you would get a truly competitive Superleague where any team was capable of realistically beating the other 'in every fixture' would be if all teams were financially equal. Furthermore it would need some kind of central governing transparent pay and player selection system to ensure the best talent was graded and spread equally between all the clubs.

The big question is would the so called ‘bigger clubs’ be prepared to forfeit their higher chance of success and history of success for a much more competitive competition and arguably a general increase in interest in RL? Not a chance. The only way it would ever happen is if someone (Bernie Ecclestone type figure) or an organisation like Sky bought the British game as a whole and dictated the rules.

The Yanks seem to have a much better system in American Football where their is a far higher share of success between the teams throughout the game.

Promotion/relegation between a full time SL and a part time lower division is extrodinarily hard to manage. You'd have to be very sensitive to the needs to both the clubs vying for promotion and any clubs that suffer relegation.

Is it up to the likes of us to find a way of spending up to the full salary cap though, rather than blaming it all on the bigger clubs? Surely if everyone was able to spend the full salary cap the league would become more competitive and there would be a better spread of talent however many teams are in it?

Some interesting comments here about the way Rugby League may or may not go. I firmly believe that the introduction of licencing into the top flight, thereby promotion and relegation was a massive mistake.It simply led to a position where the bottom end clubs seasons were effectivley over come this time of the year.Even if they made the top eight it would be highly unlikely they would make the super league final( which in itself is a farce.The true champions should be the team who ends top at the end of the season).
One positive introduction would be to introduce the bonus point system adopted by the championship leagues, at least it means teams fight (in most cases) to the end of each games as quite often the bonus points can be the differance between making a play off and not.

[iLUKE PATTEN states in this mornings Manchester Evening News..

'For what it's worth, reducing the number of teams in Super League could strengthen the competition and create bigger squads for those involved.[/i

I am not is blaming the bigger clubs at all and I certainly didn't intend for anyone to interpret my post that way. I fully respect the history, achievements, and continued success of the big clubs. My post was in response to a question - How do you get a more competitive Superleague?

The fact is the likes of Wigan, Leeds and St Helens have experienced decades of success and have a fanbase and income that reflects that. For clubs like Salford, Wakefield, Castleford the only 'realistic' chance they have of competing on an equal financial footing is with outside money from wealthy benefactors. Let's be honest it isn’t going to happen by putting up a few glossy flyers and having a promotion stall in the Trafford Centre. There has to be a great product to sell first and that means a competitive quality team that are challenging realistically for honors. It’s the chicken and the egg situation, how do you put together this kind of quality team if you don’t have the money to do it? Is youth development the answer? Not really because if you develop top quality youngsters it’s likely the wealthier clubs will prize them away from you with offers of more money, more specialist coaches and a much higher probability of winning trophies.

There also appears to be a myth that by being at full cap clubs would compete equally and I don’t agree with this. The bigger clubs would still have the edge with additional money that they can put into other areas to support and sustain the performance levels of the team.

The most obvious example I can give in professional sport is Manchester City. Would they ever have broke into the top 4 and then be top of the Premier League again without all that extra money?

The thing with county cricket is that the top players are spread about. There is no urge for them to move to 'top clubs' because their priority is the international game. I bet plenty of the clubs in the lower division could win the championship in any given year. So the two, ten team league is an artifice.



The problem with Cumbria is that the major towns are so far away from each other. And I'm not sure if one major club could work a'la Catalans.



Without wealthy benefactors, Wigan, Leeds and Saints would also be screwed. The game lives and breathes off wealthy benefactors.



This is based on the draft system though, which is heavily reliant on a strong collegiate game. We will never have this is the U.K.

In my opinion the smaller clubs need to have people at the club who will 'think outside the box' when it comes to decision making etc to get the ball rolling and start to build a bit of momentum. Too many clubs still go for the quick/easy solution despite being now given 3 years without relegation. A prime example of this is Salford in the last year at The Willows. The wage budget was increased in the hope of ending at The Willows in style (good idea in principle), but sadly it was entrusted to Mcrae and Simms who blew it mainly on crocks and misfits on 2/3 year deals. Had a bit of imagination been used in this situation we could maybe have built a good nucleus of a squad and then added to it on our move to Barton with a 2 or 3 shrewd signings who could see the direction the club was heading from what had happened the year before.

On your other point, everyone spending up to the full cap would make the league more equal when competing for signings, but you would still have clubs making wrong decisions therefore it's unlikely there will ever be a totally equal superleague on the pitch, whatever system is used.