I do wonder if IMG are just serving up what's been tried before and noone liked it back then I suspect this system after couple of years will cause the same sort of feelings..

The TV deal isn't a good start for IMG either,like it or not they were charged with spreading the gospel and sorting the sport and it's TV deal out what's happened so far is much less money for more product unless and again I suspect this will happen the pay per view bunny is pulled out of the bag to offset the losses like I say not a great start.

I've no issue with social media but it simply shouldn't be the be all and end all far to easy to manipulate numbers as no one checks if there's a real person behind the name,yes use social media and try to use it well but be wary of it too.

Yes it is exactly what has been served up before - back in '96 when Superleague was launhced (although that was even more rigorous at the time) but we know how that went and sadly i suspect this latest attempt will go the same way. It is a worthy try but too many of the clubs are willing to dwell in mediocity and make no serious effort to change - as long as they get sufficient crowds they have no interest in the bigger picture or the overall health of the game, short-termism rules.

How much has changed since 1996 - too little - apart from Bradford who bomed and busted it is the same clubs at the top as always - and often there is one other club who sort of hovers around for a while and then fades (Warrington, Huddersfiled for example and now Catalan).

I am pleased to see Hull KR and Leigh doing well (although I do worry that Leigh have put all into one tilt at things and will struggle going forwards - hopefully not).But we do need more clubs putting in a serious challenge.

I am surprised that youth development was not included to some degree - many clubs will lag on this unless forced, despite some restirictions and money issue for many clubs it is not difficult to see that the clubs that have put this at the forefront of their philosophy are the three SL winners, if the game is to grow and develop this has to be important, More so that social media for instance,Internet clicks are not going to produce the next generation of top players.

Wasn't there a bit of talk about expanding to 14 clubs sooner than later just a couple of weeks ago? That would calm some nerves in the lower graded clubs, but I can't help thinking that the lack of relegation didn't work last time & I see no reason to think it'll be an unqualified success this time. Also, isn't there then a temptation for some of those clubs who [ido[/i make the initial grade to use it as an excuse to either do nothing to improve or just the bare minimum to preserve their status? Those with shallow wallets will be in trouble from the off & we could even see another Bradford scenario.
I didn't like it at the time (especially as we lost that first game in Perpignan) but allowing the French a grace period to get their act in gear has actually worked. Why not simply have a grace period from relegation (2 or 3 years at most) to allow promoted teams to settle in but still have promotion from below - yes you could then have the 3rd from bottom going down, but at least it's maintaining the integrity of the league system, and you have a meritocracy instead of a closed shop.

That's a risk isn't it. I don't think this system is perfect. The hope is that as the grading is biased towards performance and Finance, any club coming up should be in a strong enough position to compete and stay up. The gap in standards between SL and Championship will always make that tough but that is already true. A promoted side will now at least already have a good grading score before being promoted, which will likely improve after a year in SL

Teams that are relegated now don't need to throw every penny they have at a playing squad to come back up. Being financially viable and keeping the crowds coming are now important factors and hopefully clubs in the Championship will be more focused on those things that keep them sustainable than they would be under straight P&R