just watched his interview on sky sports news very interesting , one up one down relegation and promotion in place for 2019 season , end of super and middle 8s not quite sure what happens this year , any more thoughts

I think bye the way clubs are signing people no one will be relaged but they don’t want to say it till the seasons finished

One up,one down..can,t really argue..The best team in the Championship should be promoted, or what,s the point?
They are their divisions champions, as are the team that finishes top of Super League, none of this utter rubbish that the team that wins the "Grand Final" are the champions...utter bull.
Would prefer the old style end of season Premiership Trophy competition.
I still think there should be 14 teams in Super League and the Magic Weekend(if it,s kept)should be on a random draw basis or got rid of.

If it is the bottom club that gets relegated and the top club gets promoted, that,s the way it should be...still not clear though is it? Would like to see some more detail. Keep it simple, because all the middle eights is doing is strengthening the top 8 who can plan and sign the better players while the others have to wait till their fate is decided and pick up whats left.
This then favours the teams in the top eight potentially creating a bigger gap and an unbalanced league which could become even more unbalanced with each season.
Great if you are in the top eight but could make Super League predictable and boring with the same teams in finals year after year after year.

It is already predictable.all the teams are where they were predicted to be pre season.
We know that barring any major upsets the Grand finalists will come from the same 4 or 5 teams

Agree with all of that

So SL/Elstone are responsible for growth, while the RFL get governance and providing a foundation.

But if those things overlap, for example around fixtures and the structure of the season, who has ultimate authority? Who decides who decides?

If the RFL haven’t bought in to this, it could get messy. Who is the Sky TV contract with? I assume the RFL, rather than the SL clubs.

Super League clubs hold all the cards.
RFL will have to get realistic.They play second fiddle now in every aspect of Rugby League so will have to get used to it.
Sky may pay the money now but without the Super League Clubs there is no game so they will do nothing,
The interesting thing for me will be the negotiations for TV rights when they come up which i think will be negotiated by Super League and not the RFL

In this scenario, the current RFL effectively becomes an adjunct of SL, or withers away or there’s a split (again). Whatever, there’s still a need for a governing body - if this an attempt to effectively replace the existing one it could work. If there’s a genuine effort to work together seamlessly as co-equal partners... that’s a nice thought.

If there’s an assumption that everybody will fall into line because they’ve no other option, then you underestimate how little some stakeholders have left to lose, imo.

I like the image of Elstone smacking down Sky though, on a number of levels.

I don’t think the RFL have done a great job in recent years. Not remotely. However the optimal number of decision making bodies is one, imo. if there is more than one there needs to be a clear hierarchy or an agreed and precise division of responsibilities. I’m not sure we have that - yet.

Maybe SL clubs tried to implement reforms through the RFL and grew frustrated and gave up. I’m not blaming them; maybe this was the best feasible option. But I don’t think it’s the best imagineable.

SL clubs might hold all the cards, but you can bet that soon enough some will want to play them differently to others.

I am at odds with Rovers here I think that the sport of Rugby League should be governed by an independent RFL not the elite 12 Super League clubs.

The rugby league champions have been decided by a play off for most of its history. I'm guessing by 'old timer' you mean post 1973.

Most of it,s history? The last time "ull fc" were classed as champions I think was 82/83...don,t think they won an end of season competition then...Think they finished top, hence "champions"
Yes, I am post 1973, started watching approx 1960/61, I have seen a lot.
Still think the team that finishes top are the champions, the other competitions are knock out games, good fun, but knock out games.

This is true. Our championship titles in the '20s and all of Hull's excepting '82-'83 were won in a final. We finished top when Hull won it in 1921, but didn't when we won it in 1923 and 1925.

In fairness though, this was at least in part, for part of that time, because fixture lists were much less even than now - teams didn't even necessarily play the same numbers of games, making complaints about the distortion of the Magic weekend feel relatively petty!

The League-Premiership model has a nicer shape to it imo too, recognizing both as worthy achievements. But there's only so much glory to divide up, so with the success of a showpiece GF, the LLS is massively overshadowed. The only way you can make the league more meaningful is by diminishing the GF or equivalent, and there's seemingly not much appetite for that at the top.

With the notable exception of Association Football (in most leagues), is it fair to say that most sports determine their champion through a final?

The number of sports that actually crown champions by finishing top of the league are minimal, football being the exception and even there there is an argument that the premier league is only a vehicle to get into the champions league which in essence is a grand final.

My thoughts exactly,the champions should be decided over a season,not a knockout,we have the challenge cup for that.