Thats a good point about the second tier been on the tele, would two tiers mean we could have more games on IE thursday nights ect, or do we only get two games because sky dose not want anymore games shown?

New technology means TV rights for the second tier aren't that important.
New TVs have internet functions, and I already watch a lot of lower grade and junior games in decent quality on my TV through the internet - and just last night I watched a very decent broadcast of the recent Canada v USA test.
In two or 3 years you will probably be able to watch every game live in HD on the net if no network picks up the broadcast rights - and no doubt they'll find a way to make viewers pay eventually.

I take what you're saying Roopington, but someone's still going to have to buy the cameras and actually film the games.

Cameras are so cheap and such good quality now that we do good quality recordings of all the games down to the under 16s - just for the coaches to go through with the players.
I can remember when an outside broadcast van and cameras cost over a million dollars. You can do the same quality recording with 20k worth of equipment now.
The local newspaper in Newcastle broadcasts a game a week of the local comp on their website, and those sides have a wages bill of as low as 50k in some cases for the entire team - and I believe they film all the local games and make them available to all the local pubs and clubs, but only the game they broadcast on the net has commentary.

I suspect you'll be disappointed. Geography will play a big role I fear as will facilities , financial stability and league positions over x amount of years.

[iNailed on [/i
Saints
Wigan
Warrington
Leeds
Catalan
London
Hull
Salford
Huddersfield

In trouble might be

HKR
Widnes
Wakefield
Cas
Bradford

Toulouse should not be considered for automatic selection but I'm sure the tool's in the RFL will push for it

cant agree with you no 1 saint, i dont think anyone is nailed on and if they were i cant agree with your list

Then what's the point of p &r a year later?

That sounds extremely unlikely to me. Licensing is dead as well as discredited now - the only options left on the table are straight forward p&r 2007-stylee, or an extended 3x8 split league p&r play-off thingy. Transitioning to that via decision by commitee would be 1. Weird 2. Controversial and 3. In the medium term pointless - what is the point of 'protecting' teams for one year only?

I see the point regards protecting teams but it's been done before. It's not fair but the RFL dont seem to care about that.

A few years ago when it looked like they were destined for the drop Wigan cheated their way out of relegation, the RFL knew what was going on but allowed it and Cas bit the dust.

Other crazy stuff has happened over the years too - the Gateshead/Hull farce , putting teams in the league but making them exempt from relegation etc etc

I do worry over what they will do because it could kill some real Rugby teams. Still plenty to be worked out though I guess.

Fair enough , just out of curiosity just say they did go the way I said who have I got in the wrong list?

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -two-teams This is the key point. 'Today's decision means that two clubs will be relegated at the end of next season and the RFL have confirmed that outpost clubs London Broncos and Catalan Dragons will no longer be exempt.' Maybe those making comments to the contrary will now put a sock in it.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -two-teams This is the key point. 'Today's decision means that two clubs will be relegated at the end of next season and the RFL have confirmed that outpost clubs London Broncos and Catalan Dragons will no longer be exempt.' Maybe those making comments to the contrary will now put a sock in it.

So ... we assume that the bottom two will be 'relegated' next year?