I don't think the expansion darn sarf has been a failure at all. It's just not been successful at the top end.
There are are many amateur clubs playing that were not before. Building slowly is imho a good thing.

And in terms of Broncos, I remember Terry O'Connor saying he thought Broncos could survive at a level down as the same fans would probably support them.
Although I don'ta gree much with him he makes a good point. If they ahve a small number of die hard fans, why woudn't they watch when they play Featherstone. It's not like Wigan and Leeds are dragging more in at the Stoop (or where ever they play.

I'd let the drop a level and fund the junior development rather than prop them up in Super league.

When have London been guaranteed a position and which heartland team have been kicked out for them? London have a wealthy benefactor. They didn’t get him by being an amateur side.

If something has never happened before, it is only sensible to assume it isn’t likely to happen, A turtle hasn’t ever built a piano, so we assume it quite unlikely that a turtle will build a piano. No club has ever gone from amateur to semi-pro to pro, it is only sensible that we assume it is pretty unlikely that they will do so.

There are inherent advantages to being a heartland club, advantages Wakefield get, like the fact that they can pick up players from other heartland sides, how many players Leeds developed are playing for Wakefield right now? How many over the past ten years? It is easier for Wakefield to do that than it is for London or any expansion side. Which are Wakefield’s best attended games? Is it the teams on their doorstep or the ones miles away? Wakefield as a club also over a hundred years old, a new club by definition isn’t. If we don’t help expansion clubs, and give them advantages to redress the balance we will condemn them to always being lesser clubs. We will entrench the current status quo and the game will strangle its own growth.

I agree to a point. My position would be that London fans are more Rugby League fans than London Bronco’s fans. They are people who love to watch our game and whose outlet for that is currently the Bronco’s and yes, that would mean largely they would watch the Bronco’s in whatever division they play because realistically that is their only option. However I don’t think the game would grow in London off the back of those 1.5k or so diehard fans. It would make growth nigh on impossible. I have always said the SL should have a London representative, I have no problem if it isn’t the current London representation.

You maybe right on a fully professional basis but should still survive if it went back to semi-pro and amature level,the game seemed to do ok before super duper league and the input of sky tv.Personally if the top tear of rugby league was at an amature level I would still watch Wakefield play with a team full of local lads,so let's look after what we've got.

Like you, I too would watch Wakefield in whichever competition that they were involved in but, there is a bigger picture here, a much bigger picture.

Whether we like it or not, in order to be able to pay its participants a reasonable income, top level professional sport needs a substantial level of funding, usually TV money, PLUS significant income from other areas ie. local sponsorship, merchandise etc
Unless the game can attract the TV income, we are back to an amateur or semi pro sport and whilst this is still a good watch, it's a totally different beast to the sport that we presently have.
If we wish to sustain the sport at its current level or, preferably improve things, then we have to attract income from the TV companies and if we dilute the sport ie retreating into the heartlands (without the French club(s) and London)
will Sky, or whoever else, really want to pay the same amount of sponsorship for a small northern based game that is only played in Yorkshire and Lancashire (plus Cumbria) or, should we make the sport a more attractive option and then ensure that we can ask for a greater level of funding which in time will allow the game to expand and prosper.

Smokey if this were true the human race would still be single cells slithering around in the mud. I'm no turtle and i'm sure I could build a pianp given time, support, advice, the right tools etc. Surely Hemel Stags a a good example of what can happen - first game as an amateur club in 1981 which they lost 38 - 0 and then slow but sure progress, one step at a time, to where they are now. I don't know what their objectives are but I would imagine that they have no intention of just being a Ch1 for the rest of time. Parachuting teams in to SL just doesn't seem to work but patient and painstaking commitment and hard work a la Stags and Skolars (and hopefully Oxford) may do. The downside is that it takes a long time - 32 years to get to Ch1- but it can be done with the right support.

I never suggested the game should not have support outside the established areas - but that should not be guaranteed at the top level. All teams should work their way up and prove themselves to be worthy of a place. I'm not against expanding but it should be done by building outwards from where the game is already strong - expanding through South Yorkshire and into the Midlands or up to the North East etc. Build out from the strongest base - don't just stick teams in an area where they have no other clubs around them, and no interest.
Which games are generally the best supported games? - Derby matches or matches against a team with which you have no real rivalry?
Expansion should be about giving the new teams the best chance of surviving and then building - that will never be done by just plonking a team in Cornwall or East Anglia or London.

Sometimes you forget how blinkered we can be. RL in only the M62 corridor is a non starter, or the perfect solution to decimate the game.
A business has to develop and RL is a business. We have Hemel, Oxford and Gloucester this time from amateur to semi pro and hopefully Coventry next time. This is great progress and at the right entry level.

Fulham/Crusaders/ Broncos/Harlequins/ Broncos made a fatal error. They moved to Twickenham and into the Stoop across the road. The Stoop has been a disaster for the game. How much more g and t can you get. It has zero chance of progression with the contempt they will still hold against us. London has to be in a more practical location, but where is it?

32 years is a very very long time for us to be waiting. Besides, I would ask in what way are Hemel a better club than the Broncos? Better youth development? Better visibility? Better attendances? Better on the field? Hemel have taken a third of a century to become a C1 club for so far half a season, that isn’t an argument in favour of the slow and steady progress. Whilst you may say that parachuting a club in to SL doesn’t work, the facts are there is an SL club in London, one which has experienced more success in the SL era than most heartland clubs have, one which is finished 2nd in SL and has appeared in a challenge cup final. There isn’t one in Hemel or Oxford. If our aim is to have a wider geographical spread in the top fight history shows that parachuting clubs in has given us 4 expansion clubs in the top flight in 15 years, building from the grass-roots up has given us 0 in 117 years .

And what I am saying is that asking an expansion club to do that is asking them to work against so many inherent disadvantages that it is telling them not to bother. Our game, in every single way, is set up for the benefit of the heartlands. In some ways that is deliberate, in some ways unavoidable and in some ways an unintended consequence.
We don’t have that choice. The RFL don’t fund London, David Hughes does. David Hughes wants to fund a team in London, he doesn’t want to fund one in Sheffield or Newcastle, or Nottingham. If we find a David Hughes, or Bernard Gausch in Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham then great, if we don’t then we cant set up a team in Sheffield, or Newcastle, or Nottingham and get them to SL level. There isnt a deliberate choice to ignore these areas, there just isnt the opportunity right now for them.

Before we decide the make up of Super League and the lower divisions, we need to be clear on what we want from the game:

A strong international programme (including full tours) ?
Expansion of the game in the UK (and beyond) ?
Promotion and relegation to the top flight ?

Then set a plan and work to clear objectives.

In RL recent history we have had 14 clubs, cut to 12 and then back to 14, we've had promotion and relegation (including Castleford going down from 2nd bottom to protect Catalan)
There were promises of promotion for "qualifying" clubs, not granted, plus 4 clubs in administration and all of this within a small time frame.

There needs to be clear direction from the RFL, supported by the professional clubs with the prime objective being, to take the sport forward.

Finally, regarding clubs going into administration, for the sake of the game, this should probably mean automatic relegation.

There is a regular demand for promotion and relegation to the top flight. However, currently there are only 2 or 3 clubs who could possibly succeed in the top flight (Featherstone, Sheffield and Halifax) and of these, only Halifax could generate supporter numbers to sustain their club in SL (although it's worth remembering that their crowds were shocking last time they had the opportunity).

Also, we have 2 clubs currently who attract championship size crowds and 2 clubs operating out of outdated stadia.

Is it time for the game to insist that certain criteria are met, ie stadium criteria, minimum supporter numbers etc and then pull up the drawbridge or, should we go the other way and bring back annual promotion and relegation and is 14 clubs the right number for SL or should we expand or reduce the top division ?

As bizarre as it is, I quite like the two 12's and the three 8's, subject to the obvious difficulties being ironed out. It enables the top eight clubs to have their high intensity matches whilst opening the door to the also rans. Trinity are hardly likely to win the GF but they're more than capable of winning the secondary competition should they miss the cut in the first 11 rounds. I would've thought London would fall into the same category.

Although you may be right, it's like championship rugby re-branded and winning the 2nd tier comp is like a chocolate medal wrapped in foil.

Did you not enjoy winning the Division one flower pot and promotion to SL?

I actually like the idea of 2x12/3x8, but with the proviso that the funding of all 24 clubs involved would have to be brought closer together somehow. What it gives back is hope. Newport County have just got back into the soccer league and although no-one in their right mind would suggest that they'll ever win the premiership, the opportunity is there if they are good enough on field, which gives the supporters hope, however slim the chances.

What would be the minimum funding needed to run a full-time squad of say 25 players. Not one capable of beating Wigan, just to have full-time players with the associated auxiliary costs? Is RL big enough to support at minimum 24 full-time teams?

I think it has fewer flaws than the current system. Franchising can only work if you have more bidders meeting the minimum standard than you have places available. Can you imagine KFC awarding franchises to places that have no access road or no toilets or parking facilities? It can't be used to slowly improve towards minimum standards whilst struggling to prop up a failing business.

Hang on - where are these 4 expansion clubs in the top flight??? When I last looked there was one in SL and that club seems to be dying on its ar5e. Wrencat's right - we need to know where RL is going, a development plan - and if geographical expansion is a part of that there should be facility for both parachuting and development from the grassroots. But both have to be supported, nurtured, encouraged.
I agree that 32 years is too long but;
a) - there has to be a transparent pathway to the elite level for all clubs that aspire to it and
b) - if the plan for fledgling clubs had been in place in the 80s with appropriate support, resources, expectations etc, clubs like Hemel could, just possibly, be there or thereabouts now.
How is Hemel better than London? Well the truth is that neither is better than the other but Hemel is growing organically, London seems to going nowhere fast. Both need supporting.