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.

That’s OK if you have home & away fixtures (ie you play each team in the league the same number of times) the problem is there are 12 teams & that is only 22 games. As the game stands now we are struggling to survive on 29/30 games as it is now & as has been shown the fans we have are avoiding the end of season & cup games in droves. I think the advantage of a play off system is that you can have as many teams in the competition as you want spread as wide as you want & still find a way to play a reasonable number of games to pay the wages & costs. A perfect example is the NFL, Euro league to name two. Where our game I think is wrong is 8 team play off in a 12 team league &we still play our top players to much.

14 teams or more would help if it was 14 that would be 28 and 29 with magic and then c cup games has well brings it to at the least 30

Only if each team played themselves H&A.

If we had enough strong clubs, I'd like to see two conferences of 10. Home and away fixtures within the conference (18 games), home or away against the other conference (10 games). The conference championships would then be more distinct, if still secondary, prizes. Then the top 2 or 3 in each conference enter the play-offs.

But back in the real world...

I agree 14 teams would be better but the moment you add the magic games you take away the even number of games then you need a play off ( unless one team gives up a home game to accommodate it ) It also ignores the fact that most fans are moaning about paying for cup games & not attending as it is. All this talk to me is moving deckchairs on the Titanic instead of attracting people who are prepared to pay decent prices to come through the gate. I wish I had the answer to that but I am sad to say as I & a lot of fans are getting on in years we are not being replaced by younger fans.

Why should they? This is Rugby league not football, our traditional way of crowning champions is via playoffs