https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/44455976 So does it help or hinder our chance of getting back to the big time? Without some serious financial clout no chance of being the top one in the championship. IMHO, The middle 8 format was our best chance as you could see a scenario where a couple of SL teams implode and go down (Salford and Widnes this year?) Interesting comments from Hethrington, definite split between the top clubs One thing it will be grossly unfair if the relegated team get a parachute payment, but in this sport, fairness takes a back seat!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/44455976 So does it help or hinder our chance of getting back to the big time? Without some serious financial clout no chance of being the top one in the championship. IMHO, The middle 8 format was our best chance as you could see a scenario where a couple of SL teams implode and go down (Salford and Widnes this year?) Interesting comments from Hethrington, definite split between the top clubs One thing it will be grossly unfair if the relegated team get a parachute payment, but in this sport, fairness takes a back seat!

Improves it IMO as we would only have to be the best in that league, not beat a team in the league above us, who just coast throughout the league then recruit and try in 7/8 games in the Middle 8s.

Also the decent prize money is only given to the top 4 of the championship. The two that miss out from the 6 currently challenging could be seriously weakened in the future. Tornto don't have to be given any and they'd still be the best funded. They are likely to go up so we wouldn't be competing against them. Widnes & Salford are the most likely to be relegated which would cripple both INL and can't see them putting up the funds to dominate the league like Toronto have this year.

We're a couple of years away from mounting a challenege for SL again. Still have a fight to get out of L1, and if we did, it will be about consolidating in the championship next year.

"We're terrified of the prospect that we could lose four Super League clubs this season as a result of the Super 8s," Lenagan said. "That's not a sensible proportion."

Ridiculous. Risk is what makes sport thrilling, and artificially propping up a club by giving it money, and limiting the risk to it at the detriment to other clubs who don't have that windfall (or assurance) is equally as ridiculous. If 4 SL clubs, with all the money they are given, get relegated then that is because they are not good enough to beat the Championship opposition. And dare I say both leagues will be better off for it!

As if the field wasn't unbalanced enough already for Championship clubs. Admittedly the door hasn't slammed shut, but without a lot of independent financial support (a la Toronto) I can't see anyone getting promoted. Whereas the highly funded but underperforming SL clubs can sleep easy knowing that their place is secure.

Could you imagine any other professional sport actually stating "we're going to limit the number of clubs promoted and relegated as we want to retain a status quo in the clubs we already have in the top tier, despite the fact that they may be better than us"?

Since when has anyone ever thought four SL teams could go down any years of the Super 8s? Usually there are at least one or two teams that are way too strong, and two Championship teams who are nowhere near good enough. To be fair I think this year is the biggest chance ever that more than one SL team may go down. But if SL teams go down that means they aren't SL standard. The game needs a reshape for sure but such a weak excuse.

It's a strange statement to make because they wouldn't be losing anything, simply replacing one team with a different one.
You could even argue that some teams in the championship would actually improve SL if they were to take the place of some current clubs in the top flight.

I think we're a few years away from being anywhere near the top of the championship so not really too bothered about all this right now.

That's exactly the point: if they aren't good enough then they should be replaced and not protected. Actually for the good of the game!

Is this actually a done deal?

No, nothing has changed.

"oh poop, we saw what happened to Bradford, then Leigh almost hitting bottom of the Ch, our money is running out and we are petrified it will happen to us.... Drawbridge up boys"

Firstly, let's not kid ourselves that there is anything altruistic about Leneghan and McManus and the gang of 5 who want everything for themselves.

Secondly, one up, one down with no central funding (note his words '...funding until this deal runs out' carefully) means a closed shop, expansion for the privileged only, loss of clubs like Coventry, loss of many historic clubs that are living on the breadline and a much smaller game.

Key for me is the lines

'The Super 8s are hurting Wigan's season tickets' (Remember peasants that no club is bigger than the game...except Wiggin)
'This year there could be 4 teams relegated' (More gammon sensationalism than likelihood but never mind...)

This is not about growing the game it's about petty parochialism and 'I'm all right Jack' mentalities.

Just see the reaction to Hetherington's statement on SM by fans of Wigan, Sts, Wolves etc... Wolves' fans especially ironic given they were a gnats fart from liquidation 20 years ago.

The thing with the 8s is that the game has changed dramatically since they were introduced.

An idea based on what was, in its original concept, a 'shoo-in' for the well financed SL clubs, changed entirely once the Leigh owner fought for the SL salary cap to be made effectively the same for all well-funded lower league clubs. Nor were there any very well funded clubs like Toronto, Toulouse or New York on the horizon when the 8s were envisaged. "They don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring".

RFL Returns fire https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/44468711

RFL Returns fire https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/44468711