I certainly do not know the details of the dealings between the RFL & Bulls, nor am I particularly keen to learn more. But I am fairly sure the Bulls wouldn't be around as we know them today without the RFL.
Regarding sponsorship, I was under the impression they have a number of sponsors for SL, but no main sponsor. I have no idea of what efforts they have made to find such but would think it has been pretty high on their agenda. Last season's was a brave & innovative decision, if ultimately flawed. No-one can tell if that had an impact on recruitment &/or what has been offered this year.

That is pretty much the league set up that was proposed and rejected for Scottish Football, based on a system tried in both Austria and Switzerland. The Swiss managed three seasons the Austrians two.

In reality the four part time championship clubs will be unlikely to compete with the four, full time super league clubs over 14 games. Which either means much more money is required to make the Championship full time or we will have some part time clubs in the Super League?

It is worth repeating that the one option we are all focussing on (splitting 2 leagues into groups of 8 ) is the most odd of three being presented. We don't have any reason to think this one is any more likely than the other two.

I suspect that this option is just too weird to be a flyer and that we'll end up with a conventionally structured two tier superleague, of a size to be agreed, with regular promotion and relegation.

Sounds likely to me. Question is, are we better off in the second tier or the first? Getting pummelled by the cash rich clubs of Wigan, Leeds, Wire etc each week doesn't sound that appealing right now!

If it isn't too much of a problem financially, I think it would be really fun being in Superleague 2 playing Fax, Feath and others that we don't get to visit anymore. Might SL2 be the league to get your house in order and your structures in place ready to really compete upon getting into SL1?

That said, if its based on the finishing places in 2014, then there's every chance we'd get in the 10 team S1 and face the might of the top teams. Imagine 2014, we are in 10th going into the last game of the season with a huge points difference advantage over Cas in 11th. We go darn the lane and lose 258-0. No one can prove a thing.

It was a stupid idea because it devalued the competition by essentially giving it away for free. Why would anyone pay when they were willing to swap it for a few painted lorries last year? Contra deals are poisonous to any business or brand that values its product.

That pretty much sums up my feelings to be honest.

The idea that any division comprising of full time clubs playing part timers has so many obvious flaws it's too silly to laugh at imo and the notion that this is going to lead to "competitive" matches is frankly risible.

I don't understand what you mean. The clubs are part-time NOW, but wouldn't be if admitted to SL1 or 2.

SL1 clubs would be full time. Don't think they've made it a necessity for all the SL2 clubs to be full time. Sounds like SL2 will be a mix of full and part time.

Well they might not mandate SL2 being full time but its a no brainer surely. No one tells me I have to breath every few seconds but I've come to the decision that it would be daft not to.

I can't see anyone in SL2 being part-time.

Would have thought it would depend on level of funding SL2 gets. If its same as SL1 then I'd agree but everything I've heard suggests funding be much smaller for SL2. Think 180k was figure bing banded about as opposed to 1.2m in SL1

But with that level of funding all we'd have would be the Championship with a new name. An SL2 could only work with moderately less funding than SL1 not a gulf.

What about 20 superleagues each with one team. The winner of each league plays the loser of each league. But because the losers are also the winners it goes to points difference. No one will have scored any points so it will be settled by Golden point which is impossible. Or is it?



There. I've given a 4th option that guarantees a level playing field and I barely had to think about it. Shall we vote on it?

Didn't say I agreed with the funding buts that's what they are proposing. Entire idea is a farce IMO. Should be two leagues of 12 with promotion an relegation with minimum standards and a sensible level of funding and salary cap for both leagues. This entire two leagues splitting into three midseason is a joke.

But Matty my old matey mate. What you propose isn't all that different to the other two options the RFL have put on the table. I agree the splitting into three lark sounds absurd.

Can't help but think they've proposed splitting into three idea and leaked it before the less radical options to get people wound up and then make it easier to get one of less radical proposals adopted.

Ha. Conspiracy theory. The RFL killed Diana.

It fired up the Branson owned Broncos and was the day of our first loss in '97.

I went to that one. The tannoy announcer said that the game was dedicated to "the doe-eyed b1tch" which I thought was nice.

The big problem, as I see it is that the extra clubs still have to find the funding and given the bother we had getting a new owner to run a business which was already set up, I foresee too many obstacles for Championship clubs to just suddenly become fully pro, even with lower salaries.

Truth is just about all of the Championship clubs just don't have the support base/financial back-up to run fully pro teams. In fact, if the Sky money is diluted down to 20 clubs we might even find one or two of the current clubs thinking about going back to part time...so much for [iSuper[/i League.

It was even said that she, "would have wanted the game to go ahead" (as in not cancelled), which I though was pretty daft as she'd most probably never even heard of RL. Mind, I was glad "she would have", as we'd all spent a lot of dosh to go down and would have been pretty pigged off if the game hadn't gone ahead.

Another sensible comment at long last. The issue that option 3 is aimed at is the gulf of difference between SL and the rest. Option 1, relegation and promotion of 1 club does not do that, option 2 of 2 SL leagues with 10 clubs in each and no reference to promotion and relegation does not do that, option 3 is the only option that does.

so the first question is whether we should be bothered about the gulf between the two, in which case option 1 is my favourite, if it is important then option 3 is the only answer.

All 3 options have been published on the RFL website article about it, it is the TnA article that says that the SL clubs favour option 3 without any reference to 1 and 2.

A colleague at work who is a Fev fan & seems more up to speed than most said last week that Fev have announced they would go full time in SL2 & are confident they are financially viable enough to make a go of it.

Fev are a classic mid 8 team: top four of the second rank, and one of the clubs that would most benefit from the experience provided by the 3 x 8 playoffs to develop the competitiveness of their team.

At last the death of the franchise system. It stopped working once the clubs worked out how to fool the RFL scrutinizers in believing their financial situation and perpetuating the franchise.
The spread of the monies throughout the RL family can only be a good thing. It’s not a quick fix but the franchise system wasn’t either.
Championship clubs will welcome the additional gate money from a visiting SL club and could possibly increase the fan base.
The fan base is the only thing that will save RL and the SL from collapse.

In the long term, the inability of RU to sort out the scrum may also sort of save RL..... in some form.