After today it is likely four teams will be on 12 points at the bottom of the table. Has bottom of the league ever been this close before?

Not that I can remember.

'Likely'

Unlikely

Try again

Imagine if it actually mattered who finished bottom. We would be set up for an awesome last few games, just a year after we would have had the most spectacular finish to the top end of the season.

And including 2 of the same teams

In theory you would think that 9th or 10th would be the target for the extra home game in the 8s unless they are so cocky to think that that advantage won't matter cos it's 'only' championship teams.

If none of The Championship clubs gain promotion this time, there may be yet another change to the current format, unless it was designed to keep all of The Championship clubs in the lower league.
You have to say that Leigh deserve their shot at the big time and their motivation will have increased but, if anything, the bottom 4 in SL look stronger (by comparison than the 4 SL clubs that contested the middle 8's last season.

if no teams change league after the middle 8s then the rfl will have to give up on this stupid system and revert back to one up one down for the 2017 season

well said

Idea to replace middle 8 if decided its s failure.

Bottom of SL goes down, top of championship up.
Next bottom in SL plays second in championship....... two legged tie

3rd and 4th bottom and 3rd and fourth in championship simply lose revenue from any future games......... unless

To avoid any yoy-yo effect, any promoted championship side has a 1 year exemption unless they finish bottom (bottom automatically goes down). They will be replaced in the play-off by the lowest ranked team not exempted.

Might sound complicated initially but which new system doesnt. Mean the penalty for being REALLY crap is relegation, whereas the penalty for being "only just good enought to stay in SL again" might be a playoiff for survival.

After 2 seasons? Give over.

So how's it going to work with toronto?


The only thing the system has made me smile about is Hetherington pushed for this and now it's smacked hin in the face

Only thing that will beat that will be leeds relegated but it won't happen as all championship clubs are still too far behind superleague clubs

While I'm not the biggest fan of the super 8's, whether a team gains promotion or not it needs to be given a lot longer before a decision is made to change yet again. The franchise system was scrapped too early, before we could really tell how effective it was going to be.

Having said that, if we were to go to a new system, I would like to see promotion/relegation every other year, with a decent parachute payment to the relegated team, and the parachute payment awarded to the championship winners in a year there is no promotion.

Hetherington wanted licensing. He did not want this. This is a halfway house system.

But even though I'm not in agreement with it, any system should be given far longer than 2 seasons. If the Championship teams can't win a one off game to get promoted then they need to improve. The new funding enables them to compete with the bottom end of SL now.


As for Toronto well, if they get to the Championship and then get promoted, firstly it'll prove that the system can allow movement between the leagues and then they'll either be exempt like Catalans were or will be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

So in reality if the championship sides get exempt for one season it's possible a team that finished 6th would have to play a relegation play off not likely it could happen but possible it was a good idea until you put in an exemption

12 teams...... bottom team (say ex SL team) relagated
11th ... championoship under exemption
10th ..... championship under exemption
9th ..... SL team playing in the "play off game"

Only teams under the bottom 4 would face possible relegation. Like I said this is just a "for those who claim the salary disparity"

Maybe the comment losing revenue threw it. Losing review simply because they havent got a top 8 game (or eauivalent) and dont face a relegation battle.

The only plus point for the new system is that it maintains interest for fans of the bottom 4/5 clubs, rather than maybe having nothing to play for after half a season.
It's a little unfair to say that the Championship Clubs should improve in oreder to compete in the MPG.
If we had a 1 up 1 down system (and should they gain promotion with the current system) their team would change significantly in the close season in readiness for SL.
In an ideal world, the gap between the different leagues would be smaller and maybe this would allow for straight forward promotion and relegation.
However, with the sport trying to expand, the most sensible option would be some sort of franchise system, which could allow for new clubs to enter the competition plus allowing the clubs to improve their junior development (something that appears to be slipping already).

I quite like the Scottish football system. Bottom and top change places and then 2-5 in championship have play-offs, play-off winner plays 11th in premiership and winner goes up/stays up. So definitely 1 promotion and maintains the interest a bit longer with possibility of a second.

I agree though now the top Championship clubs get much higher funding so should be able to compete.

Ideally I'd love the sport to be strong enough to sustain regular P&R but sadly it's nowhere near. That's why I'd also go for a version of licensing. Though not the rubbish attempt at it we had from 2009-2014.

I'd have 10 year licences. With clubs monitored annually and with a full assessment at years 3 & 6. Encourage clubs to put longer term plans into place. I'd assess all aspects of a club with the biggest aspect being junior production and marketing/engagement/whatever you want to call it. Targets would be given to all clubs for all aspects.

At the end of the 10 year licence, the worst 3 clubs would be compared to prospective Championship clubs, who would also have been given targets to achieve and will also be assessed on those targets.

A SL club would have to be very poor in a lot of areas to be kicked out though could be put on notice for the next licence period.
A Championship club, if deemed good enough, could be added to the competition.

Id have a sliding scale of TV money payments, and extend the marquee allowance to 3 (and change the cap limit on it so it helps poorer clubs too) but if you want more than 1 marquee player you have to pay a tax of the equivalent of 50% of those players wages to the RFL for a central marketing and development fund.

I'd also scrap regular season tickets and have an RL one.

I'd keep the system as it is but scrap the MPG. A championship club is very unlikely ever to win it and, for the winning SL team it's just a celebration of absolute mediocrity. The middle eight should play play each other as now and the lowest placed SL team is relegated, the highest placed champ team is promoted irrespective of relative positions. Every game would definitely matter in that system.

After 10 years under licencing no Championship club would be anywhere near in a position to displace a SL club

Wouldn't it just

Leigh were after 6. With similar funding to now and a second cup competition and RL season tickets to help boost the Championship event games.

Also, they don't even have to displace an SL club. Just prove they're worthy of inclusion. Then they'd have 10 years to justify their place. 10 years is nothing in the life of a club and is the kind of time frame we need clubs to be building plans for and with 10 years of guaranteed funding and the right incentives we can at least attempt to maximise our clubs potential rather constantly shifting funding/priorities/incentives.