I go along with Scouse Pie 2 still with the 14 teams. Scrap the Magic weekend. The exiles games will bring in more money, plus it can never be a fair reflection whichever way it is done, such as Wolves V Widnes . Certain points for Wolves which could make all the difference at the end of the season. No team should have an advantage over any other. Top 5 play off only, the top of the league club to get the advantage as reward for finishing top. There would be a couple of games less to play without getting rid of anyone, our game should grow with our own teams not throwing them out.

So who is to be booted out then?
Why dont we start with the clubs that dont have a ground

Well share the bloody money out more evenly then, then there wouldnt be such a gap,

Yawn.

I would get rid of Salford (no fans, ground is very far from the town centre, been unsuccessful for as long as I've been watching, the academy tend to feed off Wire, Saints and Wigan rejects too) and Wakefield (rubbish ground, unsuccessful for as long as I've been watching apart from one year when they made the play offs, not many fans, went into administration not long ago, Castleford and Leeds both nearby)

Go back to having 12 teams (23 games inc magic weekend) with a 6 team play off structure (same method we used to employ). Reducing the number of games makes each league game more important, I don't like meaningless games. With the extra weeks gained by reducing the amount of games I would extend the World Club Challenge to a 6 or 8 team competition between our best and their best, maybe extend the exiles series to three games too. We need to market close games between quality sides.

Internationally I would bring back the NZ and Aus tours. Maybe go:
2013 World Cup
2014 Ashes tour
2015 Four nations
2016 Kiwi tour
Rinse and repeat every four years, being sure to alternate the location so each hemisphere has either the extended WCC competition or an international event

Which clubs don't have a ground?



This doesn't seem the most useful contribution to the debate.

The issue with tours is who does the 3rd team of Eng, Aus and NZ play when the other tour are playing in a 3 game series? The lack of any further quality opposition within the international game is obviously the reason we have moved towards the tri/4 nations. In theory I agree with a cycle, I just don't see any of AUS, NZ and Eng/GB being willing to have effectively a year off while the other 2 teams play each other. The current 4 nations series' are getting pretty stale imo.

What did the odd team out do in the past when we had tours? Aren't the NRL coaches complaining about too many games anyway? The reason I want to bring back tours is because they seemed to get people's attention more than the four nations do now.

People should stop perpetuating the myth that Leeds last year 'proved' end of year positions are meaningless. Apart from last year hasn't the title been won by the club finishing 1st/2nd? All Leeds proved is that it is POSSIBLE to win from as low as 5th - its not likely, and certainly not something any club should aim to do.

The play-off system has changed so the fact that a club has won it from fifth when previously (I think) only one club had won from third and the rest from 1st or 2nd is evidence that the change has made it easier for lower ranked clubs to win the SL. It doesn't mean the end of year positions are meaningless, but many question whether the advantage of finishing 1st or 2nd is significant enough under the new system.

one simple way of making sure that teams strive to finish as high as possible in these financially hard times is to have bonus payments for league placings that have greater rewards for the higher you finish. Also the higher placed team in any play off match always get home advantage and keep all the gate receipts etc etc...... All clubs need the finances so make the rewards for finishing higher worth it