Just as any team wouldn't against London.

If that is truly the case Bren, the governing body should grow a large pair and move to a full franchising system.
They could always have the threat of an axe falling on any club that fails (enters admin etc) and equally offer the carrot of promotion (inclusion) for any club that can prove its value to the top flight.

The worry for ourselves is that they could make a chang but, they may also reduce numbers, which could leave us dangling.

I'm not sure where this reduction in the number of teams in SL has come from, but it's in danger of becoming received wisdom; as far as I can recall, Jamie Peacock banged on about it towards the back end of last season when his knees started hurting again and since then, a few of the wealthier club owners have backed it up - without question, their support for this ill considered idea is born out of self-interest and nothing more. They assume that Sky will pay the same for a smaller competition and that as a result, their own clubs will receive a greater share of the Sky money.

In reality, it would be a step backwards for RL and would give Sky an easy way to reduce the funding it currently provides for a 14 team SL; fewer games, smaller coverage = less sponsorship.

The reduction in numbers seems to get a mention every time one tunes in to either the radio or TV.
however, fewer teams may not = less sponsorship.
If a "more competetive league" creates more intense matches with smaller winning margins, then even Mr Wood should be able to conjure up a decent deal with Sky.
There desperately needs to be some improvement with London, whose crowds are an embarrassment to the sport (closely followed by Salford - although you would expect them to improve in the medium term) and should London drop down a division, who knows what happens to the sponsorship deal, I guess we would find out then, just how much Sky want a London based team in the tiop flight.

Wakefield
24 - 6
London Broncos
Stobart Super League 3rd Jun 2012 KO 15:30 Ground: Belle Vue Att: 5,876
Below average but more than Cas got...

That's because most modern journalists get their half-baked stories by reading Twitter and internet forums; as I said - a thread that gets a lot of hits becomes the basis for a story and before you know where you are, it's received wisdom.

Personally, I don't think Sky give two hoots about competitiveness and intensity; they give several hoots about viewing figures and subscriptions though, and I fail to see how a reduced SL could be sold to them as anything other than less than what they currently pay for. Anyone who thinks they'll pay more to enable a two tier league to operate on a FT basis is deluding themselves - it won't happen.

Far too much oxygen is given to these stupid ideas in my opinion, mostly in the pursuit of self-interest.

FWIW I totally agree with you but, I really wouldnt be surprised at anything that comes out of the current "review".
Of course Sky are only bothered about Sky and if they couldn't sell advertising for the 2 or 3 minutes before the games and at half time etc, they wouldnt sponsor the game at all.
They have to decide how bothered we are about competing with the Aussies (bearing in mind their $billion deal) and about expansion of the game and i'm not sure that there is a plan for either of these issues.

=#FF0080PM's need reading wrencat

Cheers

Let's look at the evidence to support that
2012 - SL sponsorship "sold" to Stobarts for nothing
2013 - Does the league have any sponsorship yet this season?

IMO Mr Wood spends too much time consulting with Peter's Pies and not enough time talking to other potential sponsors.

If you truly believe Nigel Wood could get a better deal form SKY for a reduced competition (even if it was more competitive) you are

To be fair to Wood, he's managed to worm his way out of the issue that SL has no title sponsor. That's quite a talent.