No thats the main issue they do not have a vote. They have had a consultation on the new format but no SL club have a vote. Again it was not SL clubs that voted for the Stobart deal it was the SL board which in effect is the RFL board.

SL clubs do need clubs in the lower leagues just as they need SL teams. But SL needs to change and the clubs need to take controls as Wood has failed. I do not think that SL teams running SL board will kill RL. But Nigel Wood still in charge of RFL will kill RL.

There are 16 teams in the NRL and yet the RFL want to come up with a competition with 24 teams in it run on a shoestring by comparison. You don't think that is a valid comparison or point?

I also mentioned that other sports in the UK manage to secure marketing deals for what isn't the premier competition which means suggestions the RL championship isn't marketable are IMO defeatist. The fact the RFL can't even market SL is a reflection on them, not the sport and that is what IL and now the Players Union are saying.

I'd be interested to know if you think RL in this country could survive as a semi-pro sport. It would mean more teams teams could have a chance of success and gravitate to whatever the top division was called with players wages being a virtual non-issue as they would be at current championship levels (that assumes the games revenue didn't collapse if it reverted back to being a semi-pro game).

Or do you think there is a need for the sport to offer a full time professional elite league which would provide a competition and a career amateur and semi-pro RL players could aspire to?

Think I answered that Dave, I have no issue with elite and that's what could make the Super in RL. Do you class Salford as elite or Cas etc
I also don't like the cap as it stands, and as long as investment is in shares and not loans I think a simple no losses would encourage the entrepreneurial spirit missing at present imo to be at the top table you should have a min cap at £1.8m
The duty is on the clubs to raise their income and profile not just the RFL, who must themselves be answerable to results

Salford look like they are about to buy their way to that level. I don't think Cas are, nor Wakey for that matter. That is the problem. While you could argue you might replace them with Featherstone or Halifax and they might make a better job of it, which you ought to get with a properly run licensing system, that isn't what is on the table.

Instead the likes of Batley are going to be in "SL2" along with possibly Cas and Wakey. How is SL2 going to prosper anymore than the championship? Do you think Batley playing Wakey would attract as large crowd as a top of the table championship game did this year such as Fax v Sheffield which got 1,553? Why would Batley get any more than the 499 they got when Workington showed up this season for the same fixture in SL2? Just because they were in a competition called SL2?



Who does this minimum cap apply to? All 24 teams in SL1 and SL2? Is it realistic to expect Batley or Workington for example to generate enough income to pay to that level?

SL 1 is a 12 team comp under the proposals(I will state again it should be 10/10) so that's where the 1.8m should apply
I would have a £500 charity bet with you that if Batley played wakey in 2015 then it would be higher than their biggest gate this season
In a 10/10 structure SL 2 should have a 1m min spend also, a 10/10 also allows 650k for SL 2 without moving SL 1 funding or increasing the pot from TV
IMO the options are 1) stais quo - game dies under SL. 2) 10/10 - ticks all/most boxes. 3) 12/12 then 8/8/8 - compromise better than 1 not as good as 2

Dave O, btw we are probably having a better debate than those tasked with running our great sport at either side of the table

You might be right but I'd bet it would lower than any crowd Wakey got in SL this season and once the novelty had worn off in a season or two SL2 would be on a par crowd-wise with the Championship.

I think the problem isn't games against the two demoted SL sides anyway. It's how will existing championship fixtures be any different under the new format.

Currently the championship is a 26 round competition. The proposal is for a 23 round competition before the 8x8x8 split.

I don't see why the fixture between Batley and Workington in a 23 round competition is going to get any more on the gate than 499 in a 26 round one. Because it is now called "SL2"?

That seem to be the extent of Wood's thinking. Change the structure and the name and all of sudden 5000 will turn up for this fixture. Yeah right!

If London were one of the two SL sides sent down to SL2 which is quite possible I dread to think what some fixtures would draw crowd-wise.



Given option 3 which is the one on the table simply seeks to solve the games problems by replacing a 26 round competition with a 23 round one before the 8x8x8 split I can't see what good it is going to do.

You may be right! The one thing I agree with from those such as Swire criticising the stance taken by the SL sides is why haven't all these discussions been had before? There may be reasons we don't know about for this but it does look a pretty amateurish way to sort it all out.

On Super league clubs running Super league, what about letting those clubs in SL who have proved they can't even run themselves take over control of the helm.

Or should they be excluded and all the decisions including those that affect them be taken by more responsible clubs.

Yes, what about Leeds and GH taking the reins I'm sure you Warriors would trust either of the above.

Just something I've been pondering a bit since the GF.

Seeing the big Wigan turnout, it got me thinking that if there are say 30,000 fans who are interested in Wigan enough to support them at finals then for the club to have a turnover of less than £5m (excluding Sky cash) simply isn't good enough.

The club's supporter base and brand should be capable of supporting a much bigger business. I don't want to get into the IL debate (he's done a lot of good things for the club) but Wigan could do better financially.

Even smaller clubs should be ambitious - a club with a 15,000 fan base rather than a 30,000 fan base can still raise its income very significantly if it markets itself properly and develops revenue channels. A club with 15,000 fans that could get £300 in revenue on average per fan per year would have turnover of £4.5m before corporate sponsorship, Sky money etc.

It isn't just the RFL management and structures and the overall marketing of the game that need an overhaul. The clubs need to up their game too.

Having said that, as long as the SC is in place (which IL is favour of) at such a low level there isn't that much incentive to do any better.

I agree with this, but this may only be his opinion whilst the total revenue of the game is so low. Obviously there are clubs that will never be able to sped the full amount.

However if we do see this "cold war" having a positive effect on clubs earnings, perhaps we will see a change of opinion from IL?

I would hazard a guess that they have been heard before, yet the RFL has probably paid lip service to the club chairmen and are just winging it in the hope the new structure will be rubber stamped without question or serious scrutiny.

IMO I do sense a very high level of arrogance from the RFL and i do think the SL club chairmen have simply had enough of the BS coming out of Red Hall and this was displayed in the statement they released about them being too busy overseeing clubs going bump etc.