No harm in giving the league leaders a more prestigious trophy, but the majority of the history of Rugby League has "The Champions" as those who progress through play offs and win.

Always thought a informal agreement to have between the clubs would be to have the Super League grand finalist vs Challenge Cup Finalist in a preseason match (a la Community Shield).

So once again that would be Leeds v Warrington. Could get a sponsor/Trophy (wouldn't a be a massive one), but something else to build on.

Got to do something. I note Saracens first 3 tries today were scored by 3 former pupils of John Fisher. In a better world they'd have just finished playing for us and be currently preparing for internationals. I can't blame them for going though, we've just enjoyed the most national press coverage we've had for years and it was only because someone lost a testicle

Objectives - increase intensity, grow the player pool, expand the game with a clear goal to WIN at International level.

How - Two tens of Full time SL with 1 up/down between them. Minimum salary caps in each division. 26 fixtures plus 'on the road' game/Magic Weekend. Top 4 play off, w1- 1 v2, winner to final, 3 v 4 winner pays loser W2 to get to final

Finance - existing deal leaves SL2 with £620k per club, ideally if we can get another 1.8m per season, 180k per club, this would ensure a £1m min salary spend, SL1 must be £1.8M min, max for both should be 50% income

Overseas - max 3 per club SL1 and 2 in SL2, own grown - current FT clubs 6, new 6 within 4 years
Future - in 4 years goal to bring in 2 new FT clubs, then 2 more in 3 years time

Benefits - more intense SL1/2, expansion via ambition, relegation will not kill you, more FT players to select from, more opportunity to earn a FT living.

It's just strange we weren't hearing any of this last year (When Wigan had finished 2nd) whilst Wigan were still in the play-offs. As for the central debate, there are those who think it should be the table toppers and those who think it should be the grand final winners and regardless of all this pontificating, I've seen no evidence of anyones view point altering. In which case no one is making a "real contribution".

For the record, however, I feel that surporters of the top teams who want the play-offs reduced from 8 aren't being mindfull of the teams below them. In the past these teams were fighting until the end of the season to avoid relegation. The top 8 now gives them something they can aim at and, after Leeds have won the title from 5th, they could even hope to win the grand final (Regardless of how slim that chance may be.)

This debate has been going on the past few seasons regardless on whether Wigan finished top or not.

Oh we are mindful of the lower teams, we don't think they should be in SL... Too much dead wood...

Exactly. Instead of the e sides being made to improve the better sides are being held back tso they don't get upset. We have 4 or 5 sides that can provide mouth watering games whilst the rest roll over and have their bellies tickled.

Would be a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Decreasing the number of clubs, doesnt address why we arent producing enough players.
Why not just take the development of youngsters away from the clubs, do it centrally, benefit from economies of scale. Its probably not viable for Wigan or Leeds to pay £60k for Andrew Johns to come over and work with 4 halfbacks for 6 months, probably would be for a central body to pay him to come over and work with the 25-30 best 16/17/18 and 19 year old halfbacks.
Look at the early rounds of the challenge cup, even the semi-finals, attendances arent good, they would be even worse for a secondary competition with large amounts of the big name players left out. It would likely be a loss making competition.

How are these lower clubs, the ones you dont think are doing enough, supposed to 'catch up' when they are constantly looking over their shoulder? You want to increase the SC but remove the ability for clubs to plan 1/2/3 years in the future, you want them to develop youngsters but want them to run the risk of dropping out of professional competition by doing so.
Clubs should be given a franchise in perpetuity. If a club is failing to meet its obligations, they should be put on probation with set targets to meet by set dates, if they arent met, their franchise is seized by the RFL to do with as is best, sometimes that club will be relegated, sometimes there would be a better owner on the horizon.
The salary cap is a nonsense. Whatever level we set it at it still has the same problems.

It doesnt. It really doesnt. You may want it, but it isnt needed. What we do need is a league full of teams which could all win the competition, where teams cant relax because there are teams who will overtake them, where leeds, Wigan, Sts etc arent virtually guaranteed a play-off place. Leeds winning from 5th is something to be celebrated, it showed the depth we as a league are developing. I know it fits the Wigan narrative that Leeds took it easy, but in reality Wigan, Sts, Wire and Les Catalans were all good value for their league positions, all would have been worthy winners of Super League, we actually had 5 teams who, on their day, could all beat each other, and would have all been worthy champions, Leeds were, that is a good thing. Now we need 8 teams who could do it, then 10, then 12, then 14, then we have a league where everyone is looking to win it, where every game could go either way, where finishing first gets you a home route to the final and that is a great advantage because all teams are so close, home advantage could be crucial.

The league doesnt decide the champions, its not that important that it isnt even, the Magic Weekend is a good event, highly visible and makes money. It is exactly the type of thing we should build on rather than get rid of. As the league already isnt even, it also means we arent restricted by a straight home/away fixture list, and if there are other opportunities to make money by extra games we can do it.

The season would be over far too early for far too many sides.

If say, wigan, get 8k to a play off match, and all pay, and we suppose that they pay on averaged £12.50 a ticket, thats £100k in ticket sales, If they offered tickets for a fiver, and got 16k, that would only bring in £75k. I appreciate there is added complications of what people buy when they are there etc, but its a valid consideration. We need to do what is most profitable, long and short term, the game is pretty accessible, it isnt relatively expensive. Cheap ticket offers are a tool, but they arent the only one available to us as a game.
The game will never, and cant ever, get rid of refereeing inconsistencies. You have to remember when fans claim 'refereeing inconsistancies' they are almost always complaining about a decision that went against them, and go out looking for evidence for only one side of the argument and their criteria for what can be considered an 'inconsistancy' becomes wider and wider until they have convinced themselves their argument is correct. I think for the most part the refereeing in SL is ok, its not quite good enough, but I dont think it is just general inconsistency but more we have rulings and interpretations handed down from Mr Cummins which just ask for fans to complain. The PTB is a mess, the current interpretations of it will always leave it mess, that needs dealing with, thats not the refs fault, its the person telling them how to ref it's fault.

Can certainly agree here.

What will this achieve? That at some point we may find a VR giving advice to the ref he shouldnt have? And then what? We end up complaining that a ref got to the right decision the wrong way? The VR is a trained and approved referee, he should offer advice as and when he sees fit.

I wont defend Chase, but again is this 'inconsistency' or is it just two different incidents being looked at in two different ways. As for the 'on report' we have a fully trained and approved referee in the stands, one who has full access to numerous camera angles and slo-mo instant replay at his fingertips. Why isnt it just dealt with immediately?

I agree and there’s another fallacy that the salary cap must be kept down so as not to make the void between the so called big clubs and the minnows even greater, rubbish some can’t make the full cap now so all its doing is holding the game back. These smaller clubs will never in a million years catch up to the top clubs, and holding the bigger clubs down will not, and has not changed the picture. No one wants clubs to over extend their finances, but if they’ve got it let them spend it. Like I’ve said I don’t think the league statuses will change for a long time but it might shake some out of their apathy and get a move on, or let them bug off and let the ones who can in.

What price was Maurice Lidsays concept of SL at inception that is the Cumbrian clubs getting together as was the Wakefield,Castleford ,Featherstone merger along with Salford ,Leigh ,Oldham ,Rochdale forming a Manchester club Would we now be in a more competitive SL?????? .
I honestly cant see there being a SL in this present format for much longer apart from 5 clubs the rest is struggling financially SKY money is keeping the SL alive without it SL would have been dead and buried on the other with matches being televised in the present economic climate fans are staying away and watching the matches on tv.Should we go back to semi-proffesional teams ?