this has been hinted on in various threads so i thought it was time for it to be aired properly.
for me 14 teams are too many. the players play too many games and a lot of them lack intensity and are, to be honest,dull.

i propose a 11 team SL. this means 10 home games per team and a couple of weeks off through the season.
there would be a 5 team play off.
the there would be a 10 or 11 team second tier with promotion and relegation to ensure every game mattered.
the likes of castleford,wakefield,salford,widnes joining halifax and fev should ensure a very good second tier and properly prepare teams for the top tier should they go up.

playing wise this can benefit not only the the international game but the domestic game which, quite frankly,dying on its feet this season.

the big problem is funding and its this that would be a major stumbling block.

any thoughts?

Prefer a 12 team league and do away with the challenge cup. And have top 6 play off.

Tinkering with the format of the competition will not help us beat the Aussies. We've been tinkering for years. Better coaching and increasing the player pool will help us beat the Aussies.

The game is on it's backside in many respects. Many clubs are in a dire financial state. Removing fixtures will not help that.

Nor will removing two clubs magically be the fix to a more intense competition. Why would removing London and Widnes, for example, make Salford and Castleford suddenly challenge for a playoff place?

We play the Aussies a couple of times every odd year or so. Right now, in the current climate, of greater concern, is the survival of many of the clubs. Crucial to that is the next naming rights package and the next broadcasting deal coming up. With that in mind educing the size of the league right now would be financial suicide.

Your suggestion bankrupts the game

The RFL has a size-able profit. It's been used recently to save a few of it's member clubs and may be needed to save a few more.

How much do you think the nationally broadcast Challenge Cup contributes to that?

For me promotion & relegation are key to developing the game.

I think a formula needs to be devised so that a club promoted can have a minimum of 2 years in SL, how to work that formula out is a difficult one though, it could in effect mean that the team finishing 3rd from bottom could end up relegated.

Now that would add to the mix.

the helping of the international game is only there because of increased intensity every week.its not designed for that specifically.
i fully agree losing three home games isn't ideal but neither is watching a lot of the rubbish we do now. everyone knows who the top 5 will be before the season starts, its just a case of who finishes where. attendances are falling. something needs to be done

Are they?

I agree something needs to be done but fewer fixtures would be suicide right now.

Things are very, very difficult right now for many clubs. Many are probably focused on existing in 18 months time rather than challenging for trophies.

It's not ideal but it's the harsh reality.

Are attendances actually falling? I haven't really been looking but I seem to have spotted quite a few decent crowd figures knocking around when I've read other clubs' match reports.

Attendances aren't falling, and neither are viewing figures.

All these 36-32 games certainly aren't my idea of great Rugby League, but the figures suggest that others, probably of a younger generation, seem to like it.

There are financial problems in the sport, but how much of that is down to bad management within individual clubs and how much to the overall sustainability of the league's structure debatable.

[url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_467-an-alternative-league-structure.htmlI've been saying as much since February.[/url

There is no way we can sustain clubs on 9 or 10 home games per year.
And just putting the bottom 4 SL teams into the 2nd division doesn't suddenly mean that division can be a full time division. All that would do is financially harm 4 clubs.

I think a 14-team league is fine, in fact I'd be just as happy with a 16-team league if 2 other clubs are deemed good enough.

As G1 says tinkering with the league won't suddenly make the league more competitive. What we need is better coaching and attitudes at amateur level, plus a far better system for u20's to play regularly in. The DR system has helped but appears to be either under-used or not appealing to many clubs.
I would have a 14 team league, the same number of rounds, put the SL teams into the cup earlier but maybe limit the amount of SL rounds and cup games that England players are allowed to play. All that reducing the league does is reduce the income of clubs and reduce the pathways and development opportunities for young players.

In an ideal world i agree Tad but as G says its the ££££ implications make it a no go.
For me id go back to promotion and relegation and have a top 6 p/o have SL clubs enter the CC 1 round later but start the tv coverage the rd before so the lower league teams left get some ££££ with a favourable draw.
I'd ditch the Magic Weekend and make that the Exiles game fixture with the knights taking on France and Ireland v Wales and Scotland taking on a European Qualifier on the same day.
The P/O format would see a straight knock out and the team finishing top 1 game away from the GF.

Some rumours I heard last night are that the RFL are adamant that Super League will remain at 14 teams and P&R will be returning.

^ Any idea when this might start?

Reason I ask is that if and only if Bradford go into C1 at the end of this season gives them a spring board back to SL quite soon.

Nice bit of work there, keeps those fans ( wakey widnes etc ) happy that some thing has seen to be done and then allows the Bulls to return to SL.

I don't know but your scenario does seem very convenient for all involved.

Didn't the league have 16 teams in it the last time we beat the Aussies?

Cor blimey - where do you start with this one.

Ok, first point. 'Fixing' SL does not fix RL as a whole. The two have very different problems. Yes some are interconnected, but many arent.

So ignoring the Championship and internationals I would say that SL needs to be reduced by at least two teams to make it a more competitive league. The problem with that is that you reduce income which could force clubs into administration. Then SL goes from 14 to 12 to 7/8 clubs. This then leads the remaining clubs into adminsitration because the competition becomes pointless, sponsors walk and only die hard fans turn up. This is of course extreme but very plausible.

So forget looking at SL in isolation, that is only one piece of the jigsaw.

For me the answer is to expand the competition. Im not interested in players moaning about the number of games. If they dont like it they can go. Bring back promotion and relegation (two up and two down each year foor me off a base of 16 teams). Nobody is stopped coming up because their ground is naff, how else are these clubs meant to earn the money to improve the ground?

Increase the salary cap max though make it a % of turnover. Get rid of the 20/20 rule. The size of a clubs squad should be dictated by their income not the RFL.

Bring back senior tours. If the kids can go to Oz and do a tour so can the 1st teamers. This will allow more of our players to play the Aussies so increase skills as well as increasing interest in the tours.

We need to sort out this Yorkshire V. Lancashire thing too. Either we do it properly and give it ten years worth of backing or lets not bother. This in-out stuff is pointless.

I've been looking and keeping a log on attendances.

What do you want to know?

Of course, figures alone mean nothing without analysis.

I can tell you that Leeds attendances have been on the decline for a while. 2007 was the highest attendance average watermark.

2007 - Total = 228,259 - Avg = 17,558
2008 - Total = 221,555 - Avg = 17,043
2009 - Total = 205,058 - Avg = 15,774
2010 - Total = 199,619 - Avg = 15,355
2011 - Total = 196,192 - Avg = 15,092
2012 - Total = 165,913 - Avg = 15,083 (2 home games left, Widnes & Salford)

The RFL’s insistence on improved stadia isn’t simply down to a love of fresh steel. There is a clear correlation with a lack of quality facilities and low crowds. Clubs simply cannot function on 3-6k in SL. The SC is an example of this, We have an SC which hasn’t risen for 10 years, which in real terms equates to a huge drop in wages for our players, we lose players to RU, the NRL and the players we compete to bring back the other way aren’t top quality.

The biggest name in world rugby was available this year, a guaranteed crowd pleaser, a stadium filler, not one SL club can get close to even putting a worthwhile bid in, we have let ourselves get that far behind that French RU, the NRL, NZRU, and the Japanese RU are all in a better position to put together a package for SBW than anybody in SL can.

We, as a game, simply cannot afford to carry on holding back the top of the game, so that a minority of clubs in the middle can compete. Next year the NRL SC is going to shoot up, a lot more of our players will go over there, the game cannot sell itself to fans, sponsors or TV companies as a 2nd level competition, where the best players leave and are replaced by players not good enough for elsewhere

I accept we don’t have 13 (les Catalans are different) clubs capable of being SL clubs at the moment, but what we should be doing is working on getting 13 SL level clubs in this country, then we can look at bringing in more, there is no point worrying about why Fax, Leigh, Fev et al aren’t capable of being SL clubs, when some of the clubs we have in SL aren’t capable of being SL clubs a return to P+R would just make it much harder to have an SL full of SL quality clubs.

We should stick with franchising, stick with 14 clubs,
Bring the SC down from £1.7m to £1.2m but give clubs dispensation for 5 ‘marquee’ players whose wages aren’t on the cap.
We re-jig the Sky payments so half of it is given as a sale of TV rights, and half as a payment for producing and releasing home nations international players.
We should move to having a mid season international tournament between the home nations and the French, and play as home nations in the world cup, but play tri-nations and tours as GB.
We should centralise some things clubs are doing independently, things like club website holders, centralised ticketing, why on earth isn’t there an RFL website which sells all clubs merchandise?
Why don’t we have a heritage weekend? Selling heritage shirts, get some of the old boys walking around the pitch?
Wigans ‘big one’ has worked very well, why isn’t every club doing it? Why aren’t the RFL forcing them to? The RFL should designate one club a home game, where they are given £50k to market it, and another £25k as a bonus if they can sell it out.


There are plenty of ways the RFL can look at improving the game, and increase attendance, visibility, and the amount of money coming in to the game, but it will take time, effort and focus to do so. Promotion and Relegation would only mean that every year, we lost the effort put into one club and start all over again with a different one. Shrinking the size of the league would only mean that we lost 2 teams to work with.

Nobody should be relegated from SL, it should be expanded as and when clubs are ready to move up.

I think it's a case of sticking with 14 teams for now, are some of the 14 good enough at the moment? No, but what would be better for them in the long run, staying in SL or dropping down to this new SL2 league idea. People who are fans of this insist this SL2 would be a great, competitive, thriving competition and whilst it would be good for the likes of the Championship clubs who are entered any teams dropping down from SL to accommodate this would suffer immensely perhaps almost fatally. People seem to forget the current economic climate too and that sport for most is a luxury not a necessity and whilst the UK's economy is struggling it is unfortunately for RL clubs a case of just trying to get by and not risk. Do we cut the cord on the teams struggling in SL or keep hanging onto them until they can hopefully get up to the level of others, people constantly complain we've cut the cord of the Championship teams in the past yet want us to do it to more teams.

As for the suggestion of dropping the CC, how would players missing out on the chance to play in front of 70,000-80,000 at Wembley and CC semi's like the one Leeds just won help this idea that we don't play enough intense games to beat the Aussies? I don't know why people think a reduction of teams would in any way help us beat them, did we not have 12 teams for quite a while in SL, was they any difference in results?

We lose to Australia because it's a much bigger sport over there, just like if England played the Aussies at football England would come out on top 9 times out of 10. Why is RL not as big as football over here, well largely to do with not enough kids playing it. Every kid will have played a game of football in his life and it's straight forward as a sport comes to understand and because people on here have watched RL for so long may forget that RL is trickier to grasp, i have friends that i've taken to several games over the years and/or watched on tv and i still find myself having to explain some of the more straight forward stuff. In most people i don't think you can truely appreciate and/or understand a sport until you've played it too and again it's getting people and especially kids to play it, but in this time when many parents want to wrap their kids in cotton wool the thought of them playing what we often refer to as 'toughest sport' won't go down well.

By my reckoning...
SL attendances to date overall are currently up 7.82% overall on last year.
Total SL attendances 2012 = 1,481,111
Last year for corresponding fixtures = 1,373,705
Increase = 107,406 or 7.82%
Note: I've replaced Widnes this year with Crusaders last year.

Of the additional 107,406 fans through the gate, St Helens account for 69,432, Widnes over Crusaders 28,920, Wakefield 17,348, Catalan 13,449, Huddersfield 11,324, Salford 8,706, Warrington 3,369, Wigan 1,372. The rest have seen reductions in fans through the gate... Bradford -21,625, Hull KR -7,809, Hull -7,547, Castleford -4,991, Leeds -2,325, London -2,217.

[uAverage attendances have increased at...[/u
Widnes over Crusaders by 82.24%
St Helens 78.71% or 69,432
Wakefield 23.85%
Salford 15.79%
Huddersfield 15.66%
Catalan 15.11%
Warrington 2.78%
Wigan 0.80%

[uAverage attendances have decreased at...[/u
Bradford -14.07%
Hull KR -8.54%
London -6.53%
Castleford -6.16%
Hull -5.40%
Leeds -1.38%

[uNote[/u: St Helens huge 78.71% increase in attendances is obviously due to the new stadium, plus the fact they were playing home games at Widnes last year. Their attendances this year are 30.17% up on 2010 when they were at Knowsley Road.

Wakefield deserve a special mention here for their increased attendances without the aid of any new stadium. If the RFL and their fellow franchise fairies like Smokey TA had their way, they'd have been punted in favour of that pitiful Crusaders franchise experiment!

Huddersfield's increase this year may be down to all those cheapo £50 season tickets they flogged.

We live in hope!

Conversely you could look at what Wakefield have achieved under franchising as opposed to where they were in P+R , im glad they are no longer playing in front of 4k with a team full of aussie rejects, as they were when the backward flatcappers were clinging to their P+R experiment And yes I would have stuck by Celtic, I think giving up so easily was pretty stupid, but I have long said, even prior to Wakefields admin, that there is room for a club which unites the Wakefield district and can actually challenge, maybe finally someone has grabbed the bull by the horns and moved towards that, (in fact I predicted that if such a thing were to happen then it would be a ‘wakefield’ team and that Cas would conversely struggle)

This is more what I was after. One might argue that the Widnes/Crusaders difference could be disregarded. We could also reasonably take Saints' new stadium as a poor indicator (although shiny new stadia and resultant increases in crowd and presumably revenue could also be seen as a very good indicator of health, but perhaps not for comparing attendances). We could probably remove Salford by the same token.

Even with those attempts to fiddle the books, I make that an extra 342 (or for reasonable accounting purposes a break even).

Obviously this is all a bit crude, but it does seem that "attendances are on the decline" is one of those things that appear stated as facts of life, which are, in fact, made up on the spot without any evidence to support them....

I am heartened by the measure of reasoned and articulate responses to the OP and also please poster recognise the dangers of reducing the number of teams and that it doesn't equal a quick fix.

Someone has mention this but I think we should re-introduce tours. It'll be hard to sell it to the insular Aussies but I think short tours both ways would be tremendous for the game.

Over here, 3 tests, 3 consecutive Saturday afternoons with the BBC having initial rights and Sky secondary rights. A club match the weekend before the test and three midweek club matches. No suspension of SL fixtures BUT players removed from their Super League clubs for GB duty (yes, I use GB deliberately) for the three weeks. Similarly, when we tour over there clubs lose their players for the 5 week duration (inc travel).

The benefits would be that
- More players would be exposed to test rugby
- More players given 1st team opportunities when internationals on duty
- Equalising the comp as better teams lose more players to international duty
- Exposure of our international game on terrestrial TV
- Swell the league coffers with, hopefully, large attendances like those of the 1990s

It's basically the RFU model from the 6 nations and it works.