Great post. 1up1down just decimates the squad going down, and puts the club coming up in a position that they can't necessarily handle. The sport doesn't have the money to prop up things like that.

It's fine for clubs to aspire to hit the top. But if you think it's worthwhile to aim for a fleeting moment at the top at the cost of the club long term, it's madness.

Minimum stadium criteria isn't enough to secure that clubs stay where they won't self destruct, especially when finances are still sh/t for everyone at the moment.

Oh, and as for guaranteeing the club that gets promoted 3 years at the top, that just means we could be propping up a team that can't sustain themselves for three years at a time, whilst decimating 3 SL squads in the meantime. Rather than yoyoing 2-3 teams, we'll end up yoyoing 4+ at a time. That would create a cartel.

Surely it's for the promoted club themselves to decide if they take promotion. They've won that right on the pitch and no-one should be able to take away that right.

If you worked hard and got promoted at work but someone came along say from the board of directors, and looked at you and thought"No the last fellar who looked just like him made a hash of it, so for his own good I won't promote him. He can stay were he is for now and maybe in 3 years time when he's bought a better suit and he looks more like it I'll let him have his promotion".

Honestly, how would you feel?

By the way, whilst I'm on one. The game of Rugby League is remarkably sustainable, most of the clubs have been around for donkeys years. Very few clubs actually go out of business and fold up.

A question for all of you more knowledgable than me; How many clubs that are still around HAVEN'T been relegated in their history?

Just Leeds & Warrington

So all the other clubs have been relegated AND CAME BACK eh? Blimey.

Strange we all didn't go out of business when we were promoted again isn't it?
The problem with Rugby League is the constant tinkering and "innovating" (horrible word).

Here's an idea:
2 Divisions of 14. Bottom club goes down, top club comes up.
Play each other home and away. Add up the points at the end of the season - guess what? They are the champions (not the team that comes 5th) cos they are the best.

As has already been mentioned, it's a lot different when you're talking about one league of professionals and one of semi-pros. When a team goes down all the contracts get torn up and they have to look at drastically reducing what they pay players, both because of the cap difference and the big drop in income.

As a sport I'm currently unconvinced that P+R would be for the good. I'd go with a 10 team franchise with a cap the richest 4 can afford. This marquee player idea sounds good too. That way we get close games with all the best players spread between 10 teams instead of 14, and (hopefully) we wouldn't lose as many to Union and the NRL. In turn these close games with top players might stand a chance of bringing in bigger crowds, better sky deals, sponsorship etc. Then, if we invest that money wisely, we can look at the viability of two professional leagues with P+R between them.

Honestly it's more the case that you find the manager of a branch of a franchise who has run his to the ground, sacking half the staff there, shifting the other half to a new location just as unsustainable as the first. Whereas you've been working hard to do well in the second location, and you're now sacked to make way for the incoming labourers.

Because that's how promotion and relegation really works. The players themselves largely will not change league, because they are in the correct league to begin with.



That pretty much answers the difference between now and the past.

That's why two full time tens is the way

So you are saying that 20 fully professional teams all paying out up to the cap, which is now £1.825m (rather than £1.65 + £175K you had to qualify for) is the way to go so there isn't the disparity between a pro and semi-pro league?

Given its accepted that not all the 14 teams in the current SL pay to the cap limit where are the extra 6 teams going to get the cash from?

Will the Sky money that is currently divided 14 ways be divided 20 ways thus seeing a drop in income for 14 clubs some of whom already struggle compared to the likes of Leeds and Wigan?

The basic question is how will two leagues of 10 teams be funded?