Agreed. I'd go for 10 teams, if it was 12 I think you'd have to look at the inclusion of another French side (which I'd argue it might be time for anyway).

I think ideally it would be 10, with the current level of competitiveness in the league. But I can't see 4 teams being relegated, particularly as they have already said 4 teams are going to promoted from Champs 1 to the Champs. The whole league needs revamping, I don't think we'll see anything happen until this current licensing period ends though.

I still think a two-tiered SL would probably work, though all of the TV deals would have to set up sensibly so there was enough money to go round. Football league style promotion and relegation won't work between a full time professional elite division and a part time semi pro 2nd tier.

Less matches for the same money? The close season seems endless as it is. The clubs would not want less cash coming in, and a lot of fans would feel a bit short-changed if ticket prices stayed the same, but for me it would be the loss of matches that disappoints. On relegation and promotion, yes I’m in favour. Maybe the club gaining promotion should have a season free from relegation fears giving them time to get a foot-hold in the SL. If they ended up bottom in their first season the side next to bottom would suffer the ignominy.

I find it all infuriating because there are arguments for both sides. A freeze on P&R was brought in to stabilise the league, which in some ways it did (Bradford/Crusaders aside)... but.. NL/Championship/Conference clubs will always struggle to build to a level to move up because you hit a ceiling.

Ambition is stifled, clubs work within the means of their league (there's the stability thing) so even when they do meet the 'criteria' they'll struggle when they move up a grade.

The only thing the RFL could do a few years prior to reintroducing P&R is ensuring lower league clubs have an upper league partner so that playing resources can be shared through dual registration. It's not guaranteed to make newly promoted teams an instant success but it would create less of a gap between leagues. A few lower league clubs use a feeder approach and it does have an impact.

I'd ruddy love relegation and promotion, but it wouldn't be feasible for years.

I see your point.

What budget do the NL1 clubs work off?

that amount of contraction would ultimately kill off the game outside the M62 - who would you drop? London yes, the French (they'd throw their dummies about a lot, but..) probably. The other two? Regardless of Bradford's current woes (and I do believe that if the RFL don't throw them out at the end of the year then the licensing system's reputation has to be called into doubt), keeping them out on any other grounds would kill the game. Who else? One of the Hulls? Simply because there's not room for 2 clubs in a city that size (I don't subscribe to any of this BTW, before I get a load of abuse). Or Widnes, last in, first out?

P&R would be a retrograde step and ruin everything that's been created over the last 6 or 7 years. Stability and forward planning not influenced by the fear of the drop. Or perhaps we introduce a "transfer window" & ban clubs buying in anyone (including loans) after mid season.

I think they're looking at the wrong question, for me it's not whether to reinstate P&R or expand, split or contract the league, it's why the license criteria appear to have been bent and flouted to accommodate someone's "vision" of the future. Some of what's gone on smacks of Blatter's expansionist nonsense, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are brown envelopes involved somewhere in the last few years.

I have said before, in my view P&R is not the biggie, it’s getting people to pay the same or more for less games. Does anyone think that the clubs would be happy with less cash! Players yes would like to play fewer games, but would they be willing to have smaller less lucrative contracts, we can’t keep some of them NOW. Too many think the be all and end all is to beat Oz, and to do this we must do this, or do that, why? Put our game first, they do with their own game, get a better feeder structure in the youths for all SL clubs and for that you need cash, and put Oz on the back burner. P&R, maybe? But cutting the league down and thereby stopping expansion, for me is a bridge too far.

They'd get a bigger share of the TV money, though, and it would probably be the smallest crowds that were lost. I haven't done the maths, admittedly, but deduct expenses (staffing, rental, admin etc) and the gate profits might not be that much compared to a 1/12 share instead of 1/14.

I agree though that P&R is a non-starter.

Just because there's less teams doesn't mean you have to play less games, unorthodox i know but it was done in the past and could be scheduled to make things fairer.

I really don't like the systems where you play some teams twice and others 3 times. I don't think there's a fair way to do it. Fewer teams could free up other weekends for events such as mid season internationals, extended world club challenge etc, but they obviously need the NRL to be on board (v unlikely).

There's no easy solution really, like I said in an earlier post I don't think any drastic changes will be made for at least another 2 seasons when the current license period ends. It's up to the people who are currently reviewing the game in detail to come up with the best format possible for then.

It's all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The game is heading for a semi-pro future anyway. People need to realise that and either start preparing for it and get used to the idea of a competition similar in standard and profile to the French domestic league or address the really big issue facing the game which is the appalling financial management at club level and the totally ineffective regulation of the game by the RFL.

Promotion and relegation is a sideshow. In fact, I suspect it has been raised as an issue by the authorities to distract people from talking more about the Bulls failure and the serious financial problems at Salford. You've been had, I'm afraid.