Not sure I agree. Personally, I can see a situation where you have two very different types of clubs.

On the one hand, you'll have those clubs that prepare themselves for a top eight play-off - and will plan their squad and their season around getting into and competing in the top eight and the play-offs.

On the other hand, you will have clubs that prepare themselves for a relegation battle and put all of their efforts into building a team that can win seven games at the end of the season. They'll do that because, quite frankly, it is all that they can afford to do.

Yes, you may have a team that can surprise themselves and sneak into the eight, but the problem is that they'll be up against an elite group that is considerably better than them both on and off the field.

The problems in the game were never anything to do with league structures. They were to do with a lack of revenue, poorly run clubs and an overstretched talent pool. This new structure might get close to addressing the latter, but is miles away from addressing the other two.

We shouldn't be promoting clubs purely because they're "about the same" as the club they're replacing. Despite what the championship clubs told you, Super League was never a closed shop. It was just that during the time that we had licencing, only Widnes could demonstrate that their inclusion would improve the Super League.

But if they have come high enough up the eight teams to be promoted (and thus above SL teams) that season they were better than the team they will have replaced. Admittedly they may not be much better but over the season in their respective leagues plus the final 7 games pooled together they were better as they finished higher up.

League tables are about the fairest way to decide who can and cannot improve SL, rather than sales pitches and portfolio presentations to the ruling bodies. I understand that is not the way SL has been in the time i have been following it.

I agree with much of the rest of what you said and it is good to learn more about rugby league / the SL as a whole, which i am slowly doing, the more time passes on these boards. So thanks!

I need help in this new proposed format.

First 23 rounds normal league yes understand
Spilt into 3 leagues of 8 yes understand

Points carried over into mini league EH

Semis are 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 like old premiership format

The league points from last season had 4th place Wigan with 35 points, 5th place saints had 31 points. so therefore teams in position 5 to 8 can not qualify.

Have the play-off formats been confirmed? Missed that.

Does the Scottish Premier League still do a mid-season split? Never seemed that popular there, and never altered the dominance of the Old Firm in the slightest either.

Still not sure about this. Proof of the pudding will, doubtless be in the eating. Presumably with a 4 team play-off, the hope is that the top 8 mini league will provide matches of sufficient intensity. So long as 4-5 teams aren't miles out in front at the split. In which case the current play-off conundrum of having teams in there making up the numbers and resultant low intensity games persists. Only this time there's every chance that 8th place will just spend a full third of the season getting their backsides handed to them every week.

They can if Saints won all there 7 games, and Wigan lost three of theirs. But you have spotted the flaw. The reality is that those 7 games become meaningless for half of the top 8, which takes away the intensity at a period in the season when it matters most, leaving less momentum for the premier game, the GF.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "half of the top 8" but certainly teams in 7th & 8th. Leeds themselves were 5th after 22 rounds in 2010 and moved up to 4th with Hull slipping down to 6th so they can be change.

The problem is any system used is going to have some meaningless games really. But the current system saw those sort of middle teams (Hull, KR, Catalans) happy to be top 8. Now that's not good enough if they want success, they have to aim top 4. If they don't want to be stuck in a situation where they stand no chance as soon as the mini-league period kicks in then they'll just have to play better and not find themselves too far adrift. If they are they should be the ones to blame, no one else.

This system isn't without it's flaws, but neither is any alternative. The success of it will lay really with how matches pan out in that 'middle' division of 4 'relegated' SL teams and 4 'promoted' Championship teams.

I'm not really sure whether this system will be successful, but I also don't think it'll be the "disaster", "death of the sport" that I've already heard from some people about it.

One issue I think will rear its head is the organisation of the additional 7 fixtures. Only until the 22nd Round will organisers know for sure who'll be in what league and who has the extra home game. They then have to quickly organise the fixtures and that won't be straight forward with some clubs sharing with football teams and it's even taken them a couple of days before to fully confirm playoff games on correct dates, so if they struggle planning 4 games how are they going to do with 3 mini-leagues to plan.

The new structure seems to be a tacit admission that we've only got about 8 clubs - perhaps fewer - that can afford to spend up to the cap without incurring unsustainable losses. A gradual falling away of the remainder of SL was probably inevitable whichever structure we went with. As an interim measure aimed at reducing losses I reckon the new structure may be useful. Beyond that I'd hope for a return to something more traditional, particularly if it symbolises a situation where 10 or 12 clubs are financially viable off the field and competitive on it.

If anyone is bothered about what the players think I thought I'd just add this - www.leaguethirteen.co.uk/news/2013/10/13/21 In particular - "We opposed the preferred restructure option in our formal written submission to the RFL dated the 5 September 2013. We repeat our comment that the option favoured by the RFL, which includes the three x 8 league split, is an option which has clear, identifiable barriers to success and is an option whose basis was rejected by the Scottish FA and experimented with by the Swiss FA and ultimately rejected. The proposed changes give us severe concerns with regard to player safety and welfare given that the preferred option contains a requirement for players to play more games; this coming not long after a mantra from on high about players should play fewer games to give the national team a better chance to beat the Aussies. We have asked the RFL to undertake a thorough piece of research on the impact of increased workload on players" Unless minds have been changed recently of Damascene proportions, I think that puts the case against the new system pretty clearly.

If anyone is bothered about what the players think I thought I'd just add this - www.leaguethirteen.co.uk/news/2013/10/13/21 In particular - "We opposed the preferred restructure option in our formal written submission to the RFL dated the 5 September 2013. We repeat our comment that the option favoured by the RFL, which includes the three x 8 league split, is an option which has clear, identifiable barriers to success and is an option whose basis was rejected by the Scottish FA and experimented with by the Swiss FA and ultimately rejected. The proposed changes give us severe concerns with regard to player safety and welfare given that the preferred option contains a requirement for players to play more games; this coming not long after a mantra from on high about players should play fewer games to give the national team a better chance to beat the Aussies. We have asked the RFL to undertake a thorough piece of research on the impact of increased workload on players" Unless minds have been changed recently of Damascene proportions, I think that puts the case against the new system pretty clearly.

Quote ="Aboveusonlypie"If anyone is bothered about what the players think I thought I'd just add this - www.leaguethirteen.co.uk/news/2013/10/13/21 In particular - "We opposed the preferred restructure option in our formal written submission to the RFL dated the 5 September 2013. We repeat our comment that the option favoured by the RFL, which includes the three x 8 league split, is an option which has clear, identifiable barriers to success and is an option whose basis was rejected by the Scottish FA and experimented with by the Swiss FA and ultimately rejected. The proposed changes give us severe concerns with regard to player safety and welfare given that the preferred option contains a requirement for players to play more games; this coming not long after a mantra from on high about players should play fewer games to give the national team a better chance to beat the Aussies. We have asked the RFL to undertake a thorough piece of research on the impact of increased workload on players" Unless minds have been changed recently of Damascene proportions, I think that puts the case against the new system pretty clearly.'" Will they be as opposed to less games when clubs can't offer as much in contracts due to the lost of perhaps 4/5 home game incomes and having to lower the price of Season tickets as they may contain only 10/11 matches? Also less money from Sky as they're less rounds to show. Wonder if they'll all want less games then. It'll be like your average working guy wanting to work 20% less hours and still expecting his boss to pay him the same wage as before.

Quote ="Aboveusonlypie"If anyone is bothered about what the players think I thought I'd just add this - www.leaguethirteen.co.uk/news/2013/10/13/21 In particular - "We opposed the preferred restructure option in our formal written submission to the RFL dated the 5 September 2013. We repeat our comment that the option favoured by the RFL, which includes the three x 8 league split, is an option which has clear, identifiable barriers to success and is an option whose basis was rejected by the Scottish FA and experimented with by the Swiss FA and ultimately rejected. The proposed changes give us severe concerns with regard to player safety and welfare given that the preferred option contains a requirement for players to play more games; this coming not long after a mantra from on high about players should play fewer games to give the national team a better chance to beat the Aussies. We have asked the RFL to undertake a thorough piece of research on the impact of increased workload on players" Unless minds have been changed recently of Damascene proportions, I think that puts the case against the new system pretty clearly.'" Will they be as opposed to less games when clubs can't offer as much in contracts due to the lost of perhaps 4/5 home game incomes and having to lower the price of Season tickets as they may contain only 10/11 matches? Also less money from Sky as they're less rounds to show. Wonder if they'll all want less games then. It'll be like your average working guy wanting to work 20% less hours and still expecting his boss to pay him the same wage as before.

The Scottish FA didn't reject the system... 2 out of 12 SPL teams did reject it which meant it was never put to the Scottish FA because an 11-1 SPL majority decision was required for that.


For 15 seasons? That's quite an experiment.

Depends if by contrast they are getting more due to the extra games.

Of course they are not going to accept less, but then again in relation to what they can earn elsewhere in other sports (union), they are already getting in underpaid for some players.

They're underpaid compared to other sports but that is because RL doesn't have the money other sports has. If we went for a shorter season, say 22 rounds play each team just once at home and once away, then clubs finances will be hit and the same players who wanted a shorter season will go elsewhere (RU, NRL, possibly retirement for a 9-5 job) as the clubs struggle even more than they do now to offer good money.

Reducing games (and income) for the whole league because it MIGHT help England against Australia is wrong. 5 of the WC squad play in the NRL, with Tomkins and Mossop joining that makes 7. In a year or two it could be 10.

Financially hitting clubs just so 14/15 players out of the whole league will be 4 games fresher? Daft idea.

You reduce the games to ensure the player performance is at top level, not just to aid England, if the players are at top fitness we have a better competition, which in turn will generate income through increased attention.

More games weakens that performance level, weakens the product on offer, and in turns devalues it's income potential.

Are you seriously suggesting that players are not capable of performing at a high level 30 times a year? Most of the forwards only play 50-70% of the game time - if they can't something is seriously wrong with their preparation.

There are more games overall, but elite players are only going to be affected marginally, principally because the play off weeks off are gone. Hardly make or break if this is the players union's main complaint.

Previous structure:
27 regular season. Up to 4 play off games. Up to 5 CC games = 36.

New structure:
23 regular season games. 7 8/8/8 games. Up to 2 play off games. CC entry is according to reports one round later so 4 = 36.

Have you ever seen a player performing at a high level for 30 plus times per year? That would be more apt. They can't seem to string more than five or six games at the level to produce a real quality product.

I would rather see less games of a better quality product, than 30 plus games of averageness.

You can spin it all you like, but the fact doesn't go away that the regular season is 30 games, as opposed to 27.

Yes there may be less play off, but regular season is 23 + 7, whether top eight or bottom four. And during that due to the new structure, and the reason those for it are applauding it, the players are expected to perform at a higher level as only the top four gets the chance of a GF.

So we have a 10 team SL home and away - no play offs the season would run from March to July!! the game would never get any exposure the season would be too short. The teams would be all be bust and if you are right you would still have 13 games of very average product.

Maybe they should just make the CC the play off i.e. the top eight teams play three rounds the GF is the CC final - that way the season is a maximum of 26 games - hate the players to be over-worked!!

Increase the number of games for clubs and internationals but limit the amount of domestic games per season that an England player can play.

That has its issues.

Would clubs be financially reimbursed for having chunks of their SC not allowed to play all the time?

If based on who gets put into a season starting England ETS then going on last years Leeds had 8 players in that squad, close rivals like Saints and Hudds only had 2.

What happens if players lose form and don't make the end of season internationals? McGuire and JJB both were in yet neither made the WC squad, so we'd lose 2 players for nothing. Wire had 6 yet only 2 made the WC squad. Would clubs and fans accept losing some of their key players for no reason?

Would Sky have liked the likes of Tomkins, Hall, Roby, Sinfield, Chase etc. possibly unable to play due to limitations put in place to help England in a tournament they weren't even showing. What happens if through a bad injury crisis you are down to the bare bones but your England guys have played too much already?

The Super League already has taken a hit by losing some of its best players to the NRL or RU in the past as well as not getting as talented a player coming over from the NRL nowadays. To lessen the amount of times you'd see the better individuals in the competition for a quite small International scene doesn't make sense.

I know in Cricket and RU players can miss huge chunks of club games because of International duty. But those sports don't just have an International scene realistically made up of only 3 teams who can compete.

Whilst the WC was great, we have to remember our limitations there. We shouldn't try and weaken club rugby for the sake of a few Internationals matches between 3 teams. The current players might not be as fatigued if we cut their work load down but soon the quality of players coming through would be lessened.

If England did win a tournament against Australia, then what? You've attracted the attention to the sport you've hoped for a long time but then you go into a club season where you don't see the best players as much thus not promoting the game as well and unlike the other sports mentioned above we'd have to wait 12 months to see the England team play against the Kiwis and Kangaroos again. And it would be no good saying we'll increase Internationals or try doing something mid-season because it has to be a 2-way street and the NRL and rugby league Down Under is doing fine without that and doesn't need it.

That makes the competition unfair - successful clubs are penalised for having the best players. It will just encourage clubs to have more overseas players. In cricket Yorkshire invest in developing Joe Root/Johnnie Bairstow etc only to find when they are the finished article they can't select them. The international game in Cricket/Rugby Union is a huge money spinner and underpins the sport - that is not the case in RL.

No need to go from one extreme to the other, there is an inbetween.

As I said a few pages ago, for me the answer is the structure they are putting in place, without the extra silly seven games for the top 8 clubs. Just keep it has a play off from there.

I would also have one weekend in the season put aside for a full competition nines tournament, hopefully getting media on board to televise.

Just apply that restriction to all players, say all players can play 25 games plus play offs and that's it, however you want to do that is up to you

Doesn't that just spread any already small talent pool even further?

The easiest way to reduce the number of games played by players is to reduce the number of games. Ideally, we'd be filling the resulting free time with a solid, commercially viable international series, but I accept that we're a long way from that.