Agree with you Dave O.
They could even be a popular as Challenge Cup games between SL and Championship clubs. Also agree that this is an unknown, it shouldn't be though.
SL clubs should know by now what their plans are re a top 1-4 place, 5-8 and 9-12. To vote for this they should know what the revenue consequencies are and have it all worked out.

Me too.

There will be an advert some time this season for all clubs.

"PR position at X R.L. Club"
Degree in bull a primary requirement, you'll need it.

The SL playoffs, that should be the biggest games of the season, are currently poorly attended compared to the league fixtures. So it wouldn't just be because fans didn't want to pay to watch "championship games" why there would be a drop in attendances. RL fans are notoriously bad for not attending games that don't count on their ST, which is why I think the clubs will have to sell the tickets to count for all games before the POs. Otherwise all teams will see a drop in attendances from the ST-valid games, not just the bottom 4 of the top division. It's not like these clubs are generating staggering attendances anyway, and will have one or 2 extra fixtures compared to now.

What happened to your attendances in 2006 ?

They went up, oddly! Every game mattered and could go either way and the atmosphere was the best it's ever been at the JJB/DW.

if you finish 9-12 then it is more likely that the team in 9th and 10th will get 2 more home games against the other super league clubs and those in 11th and 12th get 1 more home game against SL clubs (after all there will still be 6 all SL ties in the middle 8 after the split)

All of this is predicated on the fact(!) that the playoffs will be much shorter. Have Sky agreed to this?

It seems to me that Sky make a big deal about the current play off format. As has been noted above, the 8/8/8 split will have a lot of dead rubber games, then you go straight into a shortened playoff series. Do Sky really want this?

I'm not an advocate of the current playoff systrem by the way, but that's immaterial. Is this the best way to sell the game to Sky? Without Sky's money the game would be dead. The BBC may deliver greater audience figures but have no money, and we don't know if BT are interested, though there is no indication that they are.

How are there more dead rubber games? And there is no drop in number of games despite a shorter PO series. The top 8 division is effectively a mini-league qualifier for the POs. Then there is the actual play offs with a much more sensible number and format than there are currently. The teams that finish 5-8 have 7 games to force their way in to the top 4, these games should be better attended and just as fiercely contested as current PO games are but without allowing teams to put the cue on the rack early, finish lower down the table and make a late push for the GF.

All the teams in the middle 8 will be playing for 5 spots for a chance to be in the following season's top division. The only games that won't have a lot of interest will be the teams in the 3rd tier that aren't fighting relegation or involved in the mickey mouse shield or whatever it is going to be called.

The more league games you have the more points at stake the more likelihood that by games 28/29/30 the top 4 are sorted. It's basic maths. The more points that are at stake the more the league becomes stretched. Why do we need a pre-qualifier for the playoffs - that's what the regular season should be for. And you haven't attempted to answer my query about whether Sky are interested in a reduced playoff series?

You are happy that there will be more intensity in the season all the way to the playoffs. But has anyone considered what the players union think about all this? By the time they get to the GF each team will be knackerred! - NRL players have played 22 league games plus playoffs. SL players will have played 30 league games plus Challenge Cup plus playoffs.

I just don't see how anyone will be interested in the second teir games. Effectively full time pros playing against part timers. I'd put money on it now that Super League will start with the same 12 the following season.

What does bother me is that the bottom clubs in SL have voted to ditch two fixtures against SL opposition for three matches versus Championship clubs.
Have they done their crowd projections and likely revenue consequencies?
If they haven't then they could find themselves in all sorts of money troubles.

It may well be the case that the top 4 are sorted early, but there is a very good chance that at least the 4th spot will be up for grabs towards the latter part of the weekly rounds. For it to be sorted early, it would mean that the top 4 teams will have had to play at or near their best for the majority of the season. Holding back for the playoffs, finishing 5th and getting an easier 1st PO game is no longer an option. Surely this is a bonus?

With regards to the 2nd point, it has already been pointed out that the maximum number of games for the top teams would increase by 1 compared to now, however it has been stated that the top 12 teams will enter the CC a round later than currently, so the players won't have to play anymore games than they do now. They'll just have to play more against the better teams. This has been the criticism of SL for some time now, not enough games played at a high enough intensity and too many blow-out scores. The NRL play 24 games plus POs not 22, and a lot of the top players also play 3 SoO games.

It may well be the case that the 4 teams that drop down in to the middle tier end up being the 4 that go back up the following season. But it gives the Championship clubs an opportunity to prove, on the field at least, that they can compete. They will have a higher salary cap than now so if the clubs cans afford to spend it the gap will not be as wide as it currently is, some may even be able to operate on a mostly FT basis. The interest will be from the fans of Leigh, Sheffield, Featherstone etc. who want to see their team compete at the highest level. It's much better than simple one-up one-down P+R between a FT professional league and a PT semi-pro league anyway.

There are definite issues with this system and it's by no means perfect. We still don't know the full details of a lot of it. However, on the face of it anyway, it's a much better system than we have currently.

Isn't it more like ditching 1 fixture against SL opposition and gaining 4 against Championship clubs? As it stands they play 27 v SL, under the new system it would be 23 v SL -Split- another 3 v SL and 4 v Championship