The crux of the problem is that, that there was supposed to be a pathway for clubs in the CC to gain promotion but, in reality this isn't the case and rather than face the problem head on and deal with it properly, we keep going round in circles.
There does seem to be a plan to cut the numbers in the top flight but, again nobody is saying anything in public.
God knows what people outside the game think of the sport, from the inside it looks very amateurish !

I still like the idea and think this is an improvement as it gives more stability for season ticket sales, player contracts and income for the year, which was one criticism.

The elephant in the room is obviously funding. If it's not equalised, and the 24 teams don't at least have a full-time 25 man squad, then it's a non-starter. The financial cliff edge must be removed. The bigger clubs will still have more money from match-day and other sources.

What are the alternatives? Franchising for me has failed because it could never succeed with only five or six clubs meeting the minimum requirements for sustainability. clubs were going bust trying to match them. P&R has been tried and failed, not good for a small sport in the professional era.

I also don't think it's complicated. In effect, all that would be happening is that the top flight would be reduced by 2 teams, which is probably needed, and the system of play-offs would changed so that all teams are included. A half round robin and then semi & final for the qualifiers.

The flexibility and mobility are what I like most about it. The 2 teams cut from the 14 can earn their place back in the 12 the following year. It gives hope and a clear sporting path to the top division. It could encourage more investors to come forward, knowing they could start at the bottom, but quickly rise to the top it they're good enough.

Another criticism was that some teams could potentially play each other 4 or 5 times in a season, but this would only happen to the well matched sides in the top 4 of each respective 8. Any miss-matches would only play each other twice ( or thrice if they're drawn in the cup).

There are other complications, like player contracts of those who move from top 12 to second tier, the A-team issue and dual reg etc. However, these are not unique to this system and arise anyway. I believe the 2x12/3x8 is the best fit for the growth of our sport at the present time. (assuming the financials are dealt with)

Bit of common sense. The players have rejected the mid season split into 3 divisions. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... ption.html I'd be happy with 2 divisions of 12 with P & R on a one up/one down basis provide that no teams are exempt from relegation and no teams are "fast tracked" into Division 1. If Toulouse want Super League let them progress throgh the divisions. The big problem is finance. In my opinion the only way P & R can work is if the Sky money is spread more fairly between 24 teams rather that 1st Division teams receiving it all and 2nd Division teams receiving nothing but I cannot see that happening.

Bit of common sense. The players have rejected the mid season split into 3 divisions. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... ption.html I'd be happy with 2 divisions of 12 with P & R on a one up/one down basis provide that no teams are exempt from relegation and no teams are "fast tracked" into Division 1. If Toulouse want Super League let them progress throgh the divisions. The big problem is finance. In my opinion the only way P & R can work is if the Sky money is spread more fairly between 24 teams rather that 1st Division teams receiving it all and 2nd Division teams receiving nothing but I cannot see that happening.

Quote Sandal Cat="Sandal Cat"Bit of common sense. The players have rejected the mid season split into 3 divisions. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... ption.html I'd be happy with 2 divisions of 12 with P & R on a one up/one down basis provide that no teams are exempt from relegation and no teams are "fast tracked" into Division 1. If Toulouse want Super League let them progress throgh the divisions. The big problem is finance. In my opinion the only way P & R can work is if the Sky money is spread more fairly between 24 teams rather that 1st Division teams receiving it all and 2nd Division teams receiving nothing but I cannot see that happening.'" Premier Sports broadcasts a couple of championship games but I don't think they'll earn as much as SKY do. I agree that the money should be split fairly but maybe money from the french TV association be able to give money to championship sides if Toulouse stayed there? Equal it out slightly - if you get me.

Quote Sandal Cat="Sandal Cat"Bit of common sense. The players have rejected the mid season split into 3 divisions. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... ption.html I'd be happy with 2 divisions of 12 with P & R on a one up/one down basis provide that no teams are exempt from relegation and no teams are "fast tracked" into Division 1. If Toulouse want Super League let them progress throgh the divisions. The big problem is finance. In my opinion the only way P & R can work is if the Sky money is spread more fairly between 24 teams rather that 1st Division teams receiving it all and 2nd Division teams receiving nothing but I cannot see that happening.'" Premier Sports broadcasts a couple of championship games but I don't think they'll earn as much as SKY do. I agree that the money should be split fairly but maybe money from the french TV association be able to give money to championship sides if Toulouse stayed there? Equal it out slightly - if you get me.

When an organisation carries out a consultation exercise, then tinkers with the result to introduce another option that looks a bit like the one that's already been rejected, it's a pretty clear indication that they're not consulting in any meaningful way at all - rather, they're just going through the motions to get what they always intended to get from the outset.

For me, this is an attempt to reduce the number of clubs at the top table so that the haves can have more and the have nots can have even less; they'll get their 8 club SL and as has been alluded to, the lower tier will be cast adrift, with little or no chance of ever catching up, without a mega-rich owner coming on board.

I wish they'd just be straight with us - tell us what you want, why you want it and how you're going to implement it, then we can decide for ourselves whether to support it, or not.

Thats my way of thinking on this one.

If or when we do get blown out don't expect any support from the lower league clubs, they have seen us feasting at the top table and ignoring them for years.

And they are right.

Here is a novel idea how about they do a vote on one round of super league fixtures and get the opinion of those who put the money into the game and I am sure attendances would jump on that week so either the loyal fans take that on the chin or clubs devise a system where so many games have to be attended or leave it open to season ticket holders only which would discount me and many others who don't buy season tickets due to work and other commitments just a thought, at least this would identify our game as a peoples game good publicity for the game and each individual club collectively. Just a thought.

92% of the players don't want it, it's got a less than great reception from the supporters for the views I have seen.
It's popular with the bigwigs at Red Hall and some of the chairmen at the bigger clubs who only have personal interest at heart.
That sounds like what is known in RL as unanimous...motion carried!!!!

For the last paragraph,

"Discussions between all rugby league clubs, players’ unions and other interested parties will continue until the vote is taken."

Read,
"Discussions between all rugby league clubs, players’ unions and other interested parties will continue until we get the decision we want"

Just like they did with the Wembley statue!

It's tough for any sport outside of Premier League football to find funding for so many professional clubs. I understand the players have voted against the 8's, but I wonder what exactly they do want in the future.

Peacock and Wilkin are quick to moan about burn out, but with a smaller league, will they also accept smaller wages for less work?

To be honest, I think the 8's one has some merits and gives more teams something to play for at different points in the season. With the best will in the world, losing out in the Challenge Cup has ended our season, as if we scrape into the top 8, we hope very little hope of getting close to Old Trafford bar passing it on the way to an away game at Wigan, Saints or Warrington.

Quote t-r-i-n-i-t-y="t-r-i-n-i-t-y"I understand the players have voted against the 8's, but I wonder what exactly they do want in the future.'" John Wilkin's player union have indicated they want a simple 12 team SL. 92% voted in favour. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8783786/

Quote t-r-i-n-i-t-y="t-r-i-n-i-t-y"I understand the players have voted against the 8's, but I wonder what exactly they do want in the future.'" John Wilkin's player union have indicated they want a simple 12 team SL. 92% voted in favour. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8783786/