Quote faxcar="faxcar"In answer to Dave0 and the point by point approach.
I posted again because you introduced a new thought namely that I was failing to see something presuming that you knew my mind and you do not.
How can there be evidence of something that is new before it happens, however there has to be trust in those that carried out the review.
Likewise if the pitfalls are so obvious how did the people carrying out the review miss them, or if they were considered why did they not think they posed a strong enough reason to exclude them and come up with an alternative.
They are nearer to and know more about the problems and possible solutions than you or I so in effect they are saying your concerns are at least not of serious enough.
As to me not having the answers well I have no problem admitting that I don't.
If anyone claims to have them well lets say it's a pretty big claim.
As above I have to trust who is in place to make them and review the available options which at the moment there is the RFL one and the alternative from Wigan through their leader and I know for sure the latter is not satisfactory.'"
Why would you have any faith or trust in the skills of these people given their abject failure at running the game in the recent past? They have presided over (as others have said), things like failure to secure a main sponsor, a total failure to manage the licensing for SL, and have led to a situation where we award less prize money now than in 1991. You think they can be trusted to have worked all this out so its the best way forward for the game? Why!!!?
When these proposals first surfaced and long before IL objected you will finds posts from me on here and on another Wigan forum making pretty much the same observations about the 12x12,8x8x8 system as I have posted on this thread.
Asking the obvious question of how can teams on vastly different incomes be expected to compete in the same competition was the first question I posed back then and you seem to object to it and others even being asked.
Now we know a bit more about the money distribution that question is as valid as ever. As is asking how does a clubs funding change if they slide down the standings and what that means for players contracts.
These questions seem the obvious ones to ask and I can't see how the system is workable. You seem to have blind faith that it is.
Quote faxcarIf I were pressed i would say that 24 clubs is too many.
For the new idea on the lines of the RFL proposal a system that includes the current 14 SL clubs and the top 3 of the Championship and include Tolouse if they get the media backing that has been muted making about 18 clubs in the mix but as with anything anyone can say it won't work and point out this that and the other.'"
Whatever system anyone comes up with will only work if there is enough money to finance it. In my opinion given there clearly isn't enough money to finance 24 clubs equally without drastically reducing the income of the SL sides and turning the entire sport into a semi-professional one, the proposal on the table is not viable.
Quote faxcarIn the meantime we are left with the game hanging in the balance with two proposals that have no full backing at any level.'"
There is only one proposal on the table now (12x12, 8x8x8) and the objecting SL clubs clearly believe while the proposal will strengthen the championship sides it is at their expense. So they are entitled to object to that IMO.
Had the RFL come up with something that strengthened both championship and SL there would not be any problem but all the RFL proposals do is move money around the game at best. Had Wood done his job properly we would not be facing that issue and I think as others have said the competence of Wood is also being directly challenged here.
I have also seem comments suggesting another objection is the SL clubs do not agree with the financial figures contained in the proposal are realistic anyway. I guess we will find out more specifics after the WC.
