I don't think a 10 team league would work. It means either 9 home games or repeat fixtures.

I'd do something along these lines:
14 teams
6 team playoff
Large payout for finishing first
5 year licensing system with far more transparency
Place in expanded WCC for Challenge Cup winner
When SL teams play a Championships team they can only use 1 overseas player
Some way of rewarding the Championship GF winner, be it financial or maybe a bye to the Challenge Cup Quarter Final next season?
I'd also increase the amount paid to Championship clubs from the SL TV deal, maybe into a central pot to be used for marketing Championship clubs and certain games?

I'm dreading the thought that Peacock might try to pursue a career at the RFL when he retires and end up with some sort of influence. Pretty much everything he suggests is the exact opposite of what should actually be done.

Am I the only person that think that re-nogotiation with sky is in order. Whilst they won't like parting with their cash, they will not want to see one of their premier veiwing programmes deteriorating in quality when all the british stars run off to the NRL and the overseas starts stop coming back?

The only role JP is lining up for is to directly replace Gary Schofield as a rent-a-controversial-quote.

The current RFL executive leadership is so out of its depth it would be funny if not so tragic. With any luck Barwick and club chairpersons with a proper understanding of business will working behind the scenes to get rid of the idiots. Prediction: Wood won't be here this time next year.

Who do you think appointed Nigel Wood to his position?

There seems to be quite alot of opposition to a 10 team league because it would mean "9 home games only" "repeat fixtures" "playing same teams 3 times".

Surely this opens up the opportunity for a bit of mid-season representative action without any SL games and the question of backing up??

Start in March

10 teams = 18 weekly rounds

In addition - The magic weekend as an extra fixture (Derby day or Based on last seasons standings 1v2 etc) making 19 weekly rounds

Challenge Cup = rds 5, 1/4's, Semi's, Final

2 or 3 England (Hopefully GB) vs Exiles representative games played on a standalone weekend with no SL matches

Playoffs (dont know what would be best for a 10 team league) Perhaps top 4?

End of season International series (3 matches?)

Thats 31 weeks of RL between March and October (not including any friendlies played in a 4 month Off season)

We had a two tier SL with p+r it was called SL & Div 1 and it did not work, infact it almost killed off several clubs

Franchising is the best of a bad bunch at the moment and we should stick with it.

P&R only works in football, even in the "richer" code RU p+r doesn't work. One club wins every game in the championship gets promoted and loses every game in the premiership and gets relegated whats the use in that?

I posted this on the Wigan board in response to this...

I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.

Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?

As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?

I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.

The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.

There's no quick fix here unfortunately.

In the main I agree with what you are saying, but the game cannot on one hand be arguing over whether or not we have the player pool to support 14 franchises, and on the other hand be sanguine about losing players like Watkins.

If the game can afford to lose the likes of Tomkins and Watkins, we shouldn’t be talking about cutting the size of the league, we should be making it bigger. If those players are disposable and losing them isn’t such a big issue, then we have enough players to be bringing more teams to the top table.

You forgot Eastmond. I think there are probably more, just not high profile ones.

First up, a club-based democracy on the size of the cap is a terrible way to run the game. Churchill may have said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time", but for issues like the salary cap I'd prefer a dictator ( e.g. Sky ).

I'm convinced we need to be smarter than just focusing on the absolute size of the cap. Free clubs to spend what they like, but protect everyone else with incredibly tight squad limits ( I mean no more than 13 'stars') ... after which you have to dig into your U19s)

There's an even bigger - but more hidden - problem than when we obviously lose a high-profile player. It's the 'loss' of players way before they even pick RL as an interesting sport in which athletic prowess could be translated into a high-earning career. This seems to get forgotten with the focus on Tomkins, etc.

I feel the same, yet keep hearing what a wonderful administrator he would be. Am I missing something?

I'm sick of hearing off him and his coach!

One problem Rhino,

The loss of income from fewer league matches with the added cost of an increased cap will have nails coming at the coffin lid faster than ever before.

The only viable solution is to allow the wealthier clubs to have 1 or 2 players that can be exempt from the cap.

Unless there is a miracle with British sponsorship, then we simply can not compete with the Aussie game.
However, there are a limited number of teams in Britain and Australia combined and the most likely scenario is that the number of top British players down under will increase and this may cause a small drop in standards in Britain.

As mentioned by other posters, Peacock is doing nothing to look after RL players interests in the UK.
By calling for a cut in the number of teams in the top tier of competition he is deliberately limiting the number of opportunities for young lads to make a career from professional RL, which in turn will reduce quality still further.

We need to accept where we are in the grand scheme of things and to a certain extent, realise that its "just a phase" and if there is a player drain to Australia, take the chance to give some younger lads a chance.

You never know, we might even find the next Ellery Hanley of Neil Fox !

Holy camel poo Batman. I agree with Smokey.

Something many of us has suggested in the past

Yes , but what ? , a Challenge cup ' bye ' ? , no

Desperatley needed , possibly an RFL ' marketing team ' moving from club to club focusing on 1 match similar to what wigan do with ' The Big one ' , that is of course if the sports administration actually believe the lower tiers do have a future that can be ' Vibrant ' and worth winning

Licencing has removed the fear factor , but has also created an apathy factor , what is needed is something in between to focus the minds of the SL club owners , having a growing 2 nd tier would no doubt achieve that

Smokey's nailed that



What concerns me is that Jamie Peacock has been used as a mouthpiece in recents seasons to voice / promote ideas that became reality shortly afterwards. I wonder if these proposals are further advanced than we realise?

Stewart Lee.

Well I've been to Oz a couple of times, have several mates who have been there on a gap year or emigrated and whilst the weather's good, I can't really see a massive difference tbh. Factor in the decrease to quality of life when you are on the other side of the world from all your networks and I can't see a mass exodus over there.

I wonder if Peacock would want 10 teams if his team was one of the 4 to be dropped?

I say amen to that. i would sooner see lots of young kids playing in our league and the older more experienced players going to the NRL. Better that than the dark side.
That way we may end up with a really strong English/GB team with a realistic chance of winning a cup or dare i say it an ashes series. How good would that be?

Does anyone know who Peacock posts as on here?