Yes they pay £ 18 m for a 14 team contest, but you have stated before, they are unlikely to pay the same for less, make your mind up?

Okay, I didn't read that properly - that particular detail is cack. An East and a West conference, equally funded I could live with, but 1 and 2 would be better than A and B, for all that it'd likely end up as a re-branded championship. Your A and B makes 2 x 12 to 3 x 8 look simple and intuitive.

Back to the bigger question, there's good arguments to be made for stability and others, equally good, for mobility. But there's an obvious tension between them and we've ducked the question too long - a decision needs to be, for all that it'll be unpopular and put noses out of joint. The drift is killing us.
Narrow the gap to allow P&R, or pull up the ladder for good and all. Flat funding and caps (if any) within divisions.

No im saying that worst case scenario, with no growth whatsoever we could pay for a 10 team SL out of just the TV deal. This is pretty far away from your chicken licken impression.

You originally meant 2 full time ' divisions ' , 1 above the other, then realised you have stated in the past that it wouldnt work, so you changed to conferences hoping nobody would notice

You are the one living in Disneyland if you think the SL will ever be big enough to compete with the NRL or Japanese/French RU financially. Reality is rugby (sic) has financially grown in some countries way beyond others, England rugby (sic) is dwarfed by soccer and will no longer be able to compete with rugby (sic) in those other countries where either code is a main sport.

500k would make every club (except London) sustainable with current salary cap. Do you think Brazilian soccer is as depressed as you because it loses its star players to England, Italy or Spain?
Being smaller than the NRL is no reason to give up and wring our hands. We need a top level that is sustainable, gives career paths to the top players, inspires the kids to play the game and keeps its fans entertained. They should be our kpi's.

Where have I said that?



I believe the sport is heading towards a semi-professional existence again, apart from a mere handful of clubs - 5 or 6 maximum.

It has no other option.

The only reason we couldnt give all equal funding is ££££, plus they are desperate to put jeopardy (read instability) in to the game apparently. Where is the jeopardy from going from one conference to another with the same funding.
Its pretty simple, you have 2 leages, 4 qualify from one, 2 from the other to go to a 6 team play-off to be champions (this stops the issue of one simply being a rebranded championship), top 2 SLB and bottom 2 teams SLA swap places (no confusion there) 3rd and 4th play 8th and 9th in a promotion play-off (still pretty simple). The benefit of promotion is more money, the negative of relegation less money.

the teams with less money play other teams with less money more times meaning the get smashed fewer times, but still (less frequently) Play the bigger sides and vice versa.

I'd hate you to come up with something complicated.

Got any spare aspirins?

I commend you sir on your quick thinking

Its prett much how the WC works (just with added P+R which apparently is integral to something or other)

what do you think changed?

It would suit Leeds, they could ' finish ' 12th and stil be crowned Champions



He's not said where the cash would come from yet, in the past he has steadfastly refused to accept TV would pay for 2 nd tier RL

Yes RL WC, nobody else's, theirs all work ' normal ' , equal groups then knock out

Ours

I think you will find it wasn’t me who refused to accept TV would pay for second tier RL. The whole of television made that decision, fortunately, under that plan, we wouldnt be selling 2nd tier RL.

Also, try doing the maths. We currently have £18m split between 16 shares which is £1.125m. The split as I suggested is would mean £11.25m going to SLA clubs (10x£1.125) and SLB funding would be £5.625m (£1.125m/2 = £565250*10) totalling £16.875. One share to the RFL for administration = £18m

Yes it would

So F the rest of the Championships, they get nothing including all the expansion clubs , and all this ' presuming ' that SKY play ball, something you have refused to accept before

Okay dokay, if you say so

I'd send the plan to big Nige, it might keep him in a job

Presuming Sky pay for SL what the currently pay for SL, yes. If they pay less, clubs get less, if they pay more clubs get more there is nothing any structure can do about that.

I disagree, they probably have a better chance with the 3x8 system than they would with 1 up / 1 down.

With 1 up / 1 down, they have to finish top to get promoted. With the 3x8 system, they have to be in the top half of their league mid season when the they split, then in the top half at the end of the season.

The reason why I called it a childish tantrum, is because there were no idea's with the statements I've seen from IL. Just complaints.

If I wander into a meeting with a long list of complaints or worse still leaked it to an outsider. Then I would expect to be called childish.

If you want reform then you have to put up your own proposals.

I'd quite like to go with an NFL model myself, but that would mean clubs giving up control. But it does allow for almost unlimited expansion and it provides a clear cut route to get in the league.

We can talk about SL as a business, but that business is based on a sport and the wider the reach of that sport the more people will watch it and want to play it. Sealing off the league may in the short to medium term provide business stability within those clubs. But outside of that I feel the game shrinks it's influence.

They're also the sort of people who don't support the international game, who think that £15 for a semi-final is some form of rip-off and who demand 'cheap tickets' to every event possible.

If people feel this way about one of their apparent "passions" in life, is it any wonder that major companies feel that they're better off talking to different audiences elsewhere?

If the sport wants to attract more and better sponsors, it simply has to start appealing to the people who those sponsors want to talk to. That means putting together a better proposition that people are willing to pay a premium for.

Do you really think they have a chance of managing that django?

I'd say that Fax etc have a better chance of finishing top of a Championship against other Championship sides on Championship budgets than finishing in the top half of an eight team comp competing alongside SL sides built with SL budgets.

In the end though it’s a pointless argument as I think that tinkering with the league structure won’t address the main issue which is a lack of money in the game.

Nonsense,
Option 1: SL has a 90million pound 5 year deal. One option would be to reduce league to 12 teams and share that money between them, that would pretty much make all clubs full time sustainable
Option 2: reduce salary cap to 1.2 million pounds. That is enough to make a min wage of 30k pounds, more than enough to remain a FT player as a career option
Option 3: stop doing the same things the same way and increase income into the game at a club and code level
Option 4: bring in financial equalisation like some leagues have ie the rich clubs help pay for the poorer clubs through different grant levels, ticket price subsidy etc.

Plenty of options that will allow a full time top tier of RL in the UK to continue.

100 percent sure you would't be saying the same if it was Mcmanus leading it. Seriously think that Leneghan would kick up a fuss with out thinking about it? the guy is 1 person who doesn't come up with rash decisions.

I do wonder if it grated on some clubs, getting measured, judged and graded by a organisation with certain perceived shortcomings of its own?

We've had the RFL telling the clubs their business for a few years, now it is the other way around. Neither is ideal, tbh.

I'm starting to wonder if it's a ploy to try and get SKY back around the table by the clubs.

As far as I am aware Big Mac is in on this, so the statement stands. If they want new people running the game fine, but at the moment it's just looking a bit like robin hood reversal, the rich wanting more and wanting to take what little is already offered to the rest.

If they come out with some ideas that will benefit the sport great, but it does seem to be a bit of a money grab. 3 games against the same teams each year with no change, just seems like stagnation to me, rather dull.

I understand minimum entry requirements I have no problem with that, but there has to be a greater emphasis on sporting contest. The constant drive about business stability makes us sound less appealing to the sports fan.