Chicken-and-egg though innit?

That's exactly right. It's often said that the premiership is boring, but in fact there are very few clubs who have nothing to play for in the structure. The premier league is actually a very good example of a structure that works well given the gap between the top and bottom sides. ( You can argue of course about whether it should be made more equal with salary caps, etc. but *if* you're forced to accept the idea of big clubs and small clubs, then they've got it working well).

The big thing of course is getting into Europe at one end and relegation at the other. Mid-table is actually quite a small place and it's usually very late into the season before any club gets into a 'nothing-to-play-for' situation.

As I've said before I'd like to see something akin to the Champions League ( but sadly I can't see the Aussies being motivated to take part ) to help with the top end, making the top 4 a great target.

( as an aside, at the very least, let's make the WCC game for the top placed regular season side - that would slightly rebalance the league/playoff importance. Only slightly, mind.)

The idea is to make the 'league' more competitive. More games against more better teams will improve the quality of the players. Too many games against poor teams is a boring spectacle and doesn't prepare you for the intensity needed to play against tougher opposition.


You don't improve quality by making MORE opportunity. That's how you improve quantity. More people fighting for less places improves quality. You HAVE to step up or by left behind.

There needs to be a balance between quantity and quality. The current structure requires too many to be top quality, which leaves us with players competing that just aren't good enough (or good enough yet as they're forced to step up too early). The proposed system (if it is two full time leagues) allows for a streamlining of quality and still a platform for quantity in the full time game.


Because no-one has access to the accounts.
I've offered a simplistic explanation based on the current finances a few pages down.

P.S. to a previous poster. We have no such thing as "a full-time league" or a "part-time league". Clubs just offer the contracts they think they can afford.

A Club operating a system of a core of full-time players with others on half-time or part-time is quite viable and sustainable if that's what they want. In some ways preferable; it can be counter-productive having too many players getting bored with too much time on their hands.

Just another thought, would this proposed SL2 be similar to that of the proposed Super Treize in France?

That would be a huge influx of players training full time compared to now. That would increase quality in the pyramid that would hopefully filter in to other parts.

Quality post,quite a lot of it harsh but true

As you have brought the premier league, and how it gives clubs 'something to play for' a total of 45 clubs have played in the premier league, 12 have never been relegated, 33 have, at some point been relegated from the premier league.

Of the 33 clubs who have been in the PL, and relegated from it, of those 11 went in to administration one or more times within a few years of relegation, 6 had severe financial difficulties, and 1 doesn’t exist anymore.

But hey, at least they ‘had something to play for’.

In hindsight, perhaps the directors of such clubs wished they had spent their substantial 'parachute' payments more wisely.

There is a balance needed, there would always be a balance needed. But what you are proposing is to create a bottleneck, that isn’t needed.

We have only just expanded the league, this drop in quality was always going to happen. It has to happen when we expand the league. The clubs joining cannot have an SL standard production line when they aren’t in SL, and even if they did those youngsters need experience to get up to pace. The question isn’t is there enough players for 14 teams right now, but can there be in the near future. If this country cannot produce 260 SL level players then the problem isn’t the size of the league, it’s the youth development structures and player pathways we have. 260 isnt a lot.

Cutting the size of the leagues is treating a symptom and not the cause,

Perhaps they wish they hadn’t been relegated at all.

I'm not sure why you have quoted my post from the Keighley site on here?

I have not mentioned "full" or "part time" leagues only "full" or "part time" players, no different to how some clubs operate now.

I'm not sure what your point is?

Look, having a closed shop of the same old teams in Super League is killing rugby league in this country from the top down. People get bored and fed up, visting same old away grounds time after time etc. The number of young athletes who want to go into rugby league is decreasing year-on-year; unless they are one of the lucky few who are invited in by a top Super League club, they are disenchanted.

The proposal for a Super League 1 and Super League 2 with automatic one-up, one-down promotion and relegation is a proposal to reinvigorate the game.

It's a good job, with your views, you are not a director of a rugby league club (or, if you are, that's part of our problem).

No. Wrong again. If there had been no automatic promotion and relegation between the leagues, they wouldn't have have had the chance to play in the top division in the first place.

Ok, so where is your evidence for this? Using either the 4 years of franchising we have had, or from the multitude of other sports around the world which don’t have promotion and relegation please provide us with the evidence that led you to this conclusion. Is it? more people are playing than before, im not sure why we would assume that less of them would want a career in the game?
No it isnt, its a proposal to take some money from some clubs in SL and give it to some clubs in the championship.

Sorry about that; won't do it again.

I was simply wishing to agree with you 100%.

It was another poster who referred to "full" or "part time" leagues.

Why do you assume that? Some of the clubs in those figures were never promoted to the PL, they were in it at its creation.

And why do you assume that removing automatic relegation means there could be no structure for promotion?

Since automatic promotion and relegation between the leagues was abolished by the RFL, the average crowds at clubs in the professional (i.e. non communuty) game have gone down.

Quite alright



It's just that when you pose questions under a quoted post from someone, it looks like you are talking to them.

All the clubs relegated from Soccer's top division since it became the 'Premier League' were promoted to it (even if that was before it was called the Premier League).



Because if a team got promoted each year and nobody ever got relegated, the league would get too big.

There needs to be a happy medium between P&R under the old system (which did promote an unsustainable boom and bust scenario that did the game no good whatsoever) and the current franchise system which in my opinion is only working for a select few.

The main point seem to ignore (apogies if you have elsewhere) to relates the number of SL clubs chasing a salary cap that they cannot afford without third party funding beit Sky or rich benefactor, and even with it are suffering serious financial trauma.

There are too many clubs who can barely open the front door let alone balance the books when relying upon income via first and secondary spend.

How can that be good for anyone?

There is little point them having a 3/5/10 year plan under the current format because the way they are heading there is a grave danger some of them won't be around (in their current format) in 3/5/10 years time if they continue as they are.

It would be fantastic if every club could aim for the highest common denominator but as things stand there isn't enough money or interest in the game to fund that. We dont want to drop to the lowest common demoninator either.

What's needed is a happy medium whereby an 'average to good' sized club (lets say Cas for arguments sake, it could easily be Wakey, HKR, Salford etc) does not have to spend beyond it's means (as they currently are) trying to hang on to the coat tails of an elite 5 or 6 clubs but can at the very least provide a sustainable business platform to grow from.

You may say the current set up provides that. The number of clubs continually struggling to makes ends meet says otherwise, and its a struggle not created by a short term blip either, it's a worrying trend that was always there under P&R but shows no sign of restraint during the current system either.

Well yes, we have more clubs, its what you would expect, in fact unless you thought that the two promoted clubs would be averaging more than the average SL attendances it was pretty much a guarantee.

We are however seeing year on year on year increases in average since the increase in size of the league, and obviously large increases in the total number of people going to watch games, which goes against your hypothesis somewhat as more people are watching the more the teams play each other.

What? Are you saying that clubs who werent promoted to the premier league were actually promoted to the premier league even though they werent promoted to the premier league. Interesting.

Not if we only promote the clubs capable of being PL clubs,

It is only working for a select few, realistically only a few (in the scheme of things) are affected by it.
That’s true, but as you say, it is also the case under P+R, and in my opinion the pressure to spend was greater under P+R.

If we use Cas as an example then yes, they are a ‘decent’ sized club who cannot compete currently, financially, with the top SL clubs, and yes, they may need to ‘overspend’ to keep up. BUT, and it is a big one, where is the logic that cutting their income, cutting their attendances, cutting their visibility etc is going to give them that platform? Yes they can cut their costs, but this whole idea the whole two leagues of ten idealogy is based on an assumption that it would be more profitable for Cas to be playing in a 2nd tier, chasing promotion, and fighting against relegation in the top tier, than it is right now for them, when there is a very good chance that, even though Cas are spending less on players, and winning more games against a lesser opposition, that they also lose more fans, more sponsors, more visibility, more corporate attendees etc etc etc, That is why the idea wont work. Cas are better financially, at the moment, as the little fish in a big pond than they would be as a bigger fish in a small pond.

Apart from splitting the league into 2 leagues of 10, is there any more meat on the bones of this idea???

How much money each league would expect?
Would there be cross divisional games?
Would teams in SL2 have a chance of making the GF?


Apart from a brief mention in the warrington Guardian is there anymore to this.

It's all well and good saying that those in SL2 will be more competitive, but what would stop SL1 pulling the shutters down on them once they are out??

But how many is "a lot of very good players"? Once these players--who are currently only good enough to play for the bottom 4 clubs--have been spread out between 10 teams, how much real difference to the week in week out intensity are they actually going to bring? I'm not doubting that there are some good players, but it stands to reason that by and large they aren't as high quality as those playing for 1-10, otherwise they would already be there.

Regarding the gap between top and bottom, if we're lucky the difference between 1 and 10 would more or less be the same as it is now. If we're unlucky, the top clubs would get their pick of the "best of the bottom", and the gap between 1 and 10 would be as pronounced as the gap between 1 and 14 is now.