Tricky Dicky, please take no offence as non intended and your opinion is worth as much as anyone elses.

Although I see lots of sense in the post it just doesnt quite work (add up) for me.

As I said in my only other post on this forum, investment is required in a massive way. You dont create investment by weakening teams and the overall standard of the competition by forcing them to release their best players as they can get paid far more in Australia. Lets be honest no marquee signings will be coming this way anythime soon. A world class NRL Half is 600k+

Two leagues of ten are being proposed here, good, I like that part. Superleague needs to be reduced by at least 2 teams, and 4 would work for me.

1.6M Cap for each??? thats 32M required and quite simply that is never going to happen? Thats an extra 10m required for a weaker game. Yes the Top 10 may just about get there but the second tier, really?

I have a difference in thought here, a short term injection of cash option and a long term option

In a 10 team scenario I would take the Sky Money now not given to those 4 teams and divide it amongst those left and also increase the Cap in the same way giving Superleague 1 clubs a new Cap of approx 2.2M This will bring us closer to the NRL. It is then up to the teams to manage how they raise and indeed spend to this level. We dont want teams going bust but hey who can stop that? The RFL licensing system! Not...

I know that this isnt an ideal solution as the second tier is going to remain weaker but lets be honest, we have a small talent pool and its just getting smaller....

The secobnd option and the one I really believe is the answer for the future surely has to be in encouraging clubs to develop talent. This should be rewarded with Salary Cap dispensations far greater than allowed now and if it was it would negate the need for a lift in salary cap allowance altogether, in theory the clubs who develop more can spend more, that has to be the way to go! People say thats not fair on teams who dont develop players but I say yes it is, its absolutely fair!

I would also encourage that each Superleague 1 club to forge a relationship with a second tier club, a bit like Wigan have done in Wales but too a greater degree and use this as an opportunity to a) improve the quality of the second tier by utilising up and coming talent b)develop more players in a higher intensity situation than the current 20s setup.


I am sure that my theories are ridiculous and unworkable to a lot of people but its what I believe.

Have a great week all and enjoy the game friday, a 20k + crowd on the cards, superb.

Andrew

Just 1 Super League with 10 teams, bring back promotion and relegation. For too long now certain clubs have been holding the sport back, Super League is a vastly un-interesting spectacle for the majority of the time. I am sick of seeing Wigan put 40+ past nothing teams who have shown no signs of improvement both on and off the field in years. Its time for a big harsh shake up IMO. If we can first of all get a competitive strong super league then we can concentrate in expanding the game and making the smaller clubs stronger. This will never happen if it stays the way it is.

1. Wigan
2. Leeds
3. Saints
4. Warrington
5. Catalan
6. Hull FC
7. Huddersfield
8. Salford
9. Hull KR
10. Widnes

Sad thing is I struggled after Hull FC. We only have 6 clubs in Super League who can fully justify their place in terms of Performance, Stadium, Youth Development & Crowds. The sport is in a p.ss poor state really.

I like the idea of 2 leagues of 10 with promotion/relegation or even just apply promotion/relegation to the current system. the licensing system is obviously flawed as is promotion/relegation. it just seems that the championship is pointless if clubs cant strive for promotion every season with licensing being the only option. if fans can donate tens if not hundreds of thousands to Bradford to save them could clubs like fev, fax, leigh etc ask for the same and give the fans a minute share of the club. im obviously no economist and i am only talking in theory and have probably many flaws with my ideas but as a fan of a sport i am allowed to dream

14 Clubs without the Magic weekend being a 3rd game of the local rivals, make it a 9 a side comp with some rules about more players with less than [in[/i games under their belt in the SL and so allow some young tallent in and force a rest on some of the experienced players.

Give us a 4 nations every even year and then a GB & France / Northern Hemisphere V's Australia & NZ / Southern Hemisphere every odd year.

Reduce the number of teams qualifying for the GFs but then change the WCC to a top 4 v's top 4 play off for WCC. Let more players and teams be challenged against the Aussies.

At the very least it would be a very different approach to other sports.

The Magic Weekend is a difficult one for me. It is a unique event and brings all the fans together and it is an excellent weekend. I also think they've now nailed the venue. If it is kept under it's current guise then it will bring more fans every year IMO. My problem with it is, apart from being a money-spinner, what purpose does it serve? It adds an extra fixture to the list which could be unfair to certain teams in terms of finishing top/finishing in the playoff places. Derbies definitely aren't the way to go with it IMO.

If it was changed to a 9s comp or something similar you wouldn't get anywhere near the crowd we did this year. I think it should be kept but much more sensible fixture planning is required. Does it need to be an extra league fixture, maybe it could be used for the quarter finals of the CC, 2 on the Sat, 2 on the Sun?

I’m not saying that the SL is perfect at present, it’s not, the pool of talent and money is spread very thin, but I’ve read many post advocating a reduction of teams, suggesting 12, or some as low as 10 or even 9, where’s the cash for this? Clubs as we know are struggling already in today’s financial climate, but are some people saying that they should carry on with even less cash coming in? I can’t see it happening. Should fans pay the same for a season ticket? And with less home games, should people pay even more through the turnstiles than they do now to make up that shortfall? The players will not play for less. When all’s said and done you could be taking away nearly a third of the season’s games, if not more, who wants that? Not me. IMO leave it at 14 and find another way.