I see the flat capping Luddites are out in force trying to make our sport elite to a few instead of open to the many, tut tut.

Keep the 2 divisions of 10 message rolling folks, it will be unstoppable soon.

I've already given you a perfectly good explanation as to why this is not viable at the present time. Over half the clubs would not be good enough.

Iv'e just re-read my post and i haven't said anything like that

I took your post as suggesting that Championship clubs should be given money from the Super League TV contract. If you aren't suggesting that, then where do you propose that the extra money for Championship clubs comes from?

Yeah i'm saying it should come from the sky tv contract

That's so, so funny.

Just how many SL clubs can generate enough money to survive by themselves then? 3, maybe 4 at a push?

Why should it when the TV contract has absolutely nothing to do with any Championship clubs, and Sky don't even have the rights to show the Championship any more?

What? They all do, otherwise they would be in administration.

how is adding 6 (ill speculate you mean heartland aswell) clubs to SL and cutting off everyone else below keeping the game 'open to the many'?

I like the hypocrisy that flows from the flat cappers, I like how they seem to think that a very small minority of fairly small clubs in the championships are synonyms for 'grassroots' 'heartlands' 'the many' when in fact they are just a very small minority of fairly small clubs in the championships. Im yet to see any of them suggesting that Keighley or Batley are made to make sacrifices for Gateshead or the Skolars, yet it seems they assume everyone should be in favour of the entirety of SL being made to make sacrifices for Leigh and Halifax.

Quote ="headhunter"Why should it when the TV contract has absolutely nothing to do with any Championship clubs, and Sky don't even have the rights to show the Championship any more?'" If the money just belongs to the sl clubs then you need to tell the rfl because they think its central funds www.superleague.co.uk/article/rf ... cism/24805

Quote ="headhunter"Why should it when the TV contract has absolutely nothing to do with any Championship clubs, and Sky don't even have the rights to show the Championship any more?'" If the money just belongs to the sl clubs then you need to tell the rfl because they think its central funds www.superleague.co.uk/article/rf ... cism/24805

Who said the six should be "heartlands" - they should be the best six, no matter where they are from, why does it upset you the six best sides are currently from Yorkshire and Lancashire? we need to look after what we have and grow, not one or the other

Which is what maurice has said on numerous occasion but for some reason the usual folk continue to ignore this

The two leagues of ten proponents are purely interested in getting their own clubs in and sod the rest. Yes, it's in the interests of Leigh fans to propose Featherstone and Halifax too, but they'd be as delighted as the strawman SL fans they claim to loathe on here if they could get themselves in and then pull up the drawbridge.

Quote ="j.c"If the money just belongs to the sl clubs then you need to tell the rfl because they think its central funds www.superleague.co.uk/article/rf ... cism/24805'" 'Central funding' means money distributed from a central governing body. It does not mean money that everybody is entitled to. Sky pay to televise Super League clubs and, as such, Super League clubs receive a share of the income. Why do you think that Championship clubs should be entitled to any of that money when they have made no contribution to it being earned? If we are donating the money earned by Super League clubs to other sources, I would suggest that the grassroots game would be a far worthier cause than Championship clubs.

Quote ="j.c"If the money just belongs to the sl clubs then you need to tell the rfl because they think its central funds www.superleague.co.uk/article/rf ... cism/24805'" 'Central funding' means money distributed from a central governing body. It does not mean money that everybody is entitled to. Sky pay to televise Super League clubs and, as such, Super League clubs receive a share of the income. Why do you think that Championship clubs should be entitled to any of that money when they have made no contribution to it being earned? If we are donating the money earned by Super League clubs to other sources, I would suggest that the grassroots game would be a far worthier cause than Championship clubs.

It isn't earned by sl clubs it comes from central funds thats what the rfl have said.
Just cos you think its different doesn't make it so

Id rather have 2 leagues of 14.... if you're gonna have a 2 tiered Super League, you may as well do it right, or carry on building the way it is doing.

If standards in Championship keep raising, then there should be no reason to keep P&R out of the equation.... many years off at the moment though.

Quote ="j.c"If the money just belongs to the sl clubs then you need to tell the rfl because they think its central funds www.superleague.co.uk/article/rf ... cism/24805'" You do realise central funds and the sky TV money arent the same thing. Our TV deal isnt worth anywhere near £30m a season.

Quote ="j.c"If the money just belongs to the sl clubs then you need to tell the rfl because they think its central funds www.superleague.co.uk/article/rf ... cism/24805'" You do realise central funds and the sky TV money arent the same thing. Our TV deal isnt worth anywhere near £30m a season.

It doesnt bother me that the 6 best sides outside SL are currently from Yorkshire and Lancashire. Its irrelevant to me where they are from, my point is that if these best 6 sides outside SL werent from Yorkshire and Lancashire the same people wouldnt be clamouring for their inclusion in SL2

The fact is this nonsense is only about benefiting (temporarily) a small amount of heartland clubs. Its not about the strength of the game, its not about making it stronger or growing the game, its about Leigh and Halifax fans wanting a place at the top table without the demand that having their club at the top table is a benefit for those at the top table rather than a drain.

We dont have the player pool to sustain 20 fully pro clubs, making Leigh and halifax and whichever other heartland clubs it has been decided are flatcap enough to be involved fully pro wont mean they sustain themselves, it wont contribute more players to the player pool than they will take out. It will bring down the standard of play at the top level.

Similarly the game doesnt have enough money to sustain 20 fully pro clubs, including Leigh and Halifax wont generate more money than they would need to make that change.

If Leigh and Halifax want to be in SL then they improve to a level where they add to SL, if they cant, they dont get a place, its not SL's responsibility to bring them up to that level, nor is it SL's responsibility to hold itself back until they catch up.

'unlock' so the rfl give sl clubs nearly 30 million from central funds and then sl get approximately 17 million on top of that from sky

The idea of 10 teams is to make both comps more competitive.
And with less teams in SL, more telivised games for the lower tier.

No one can deny the best 10 teams in SL would be more competitive with players playing more regular high intensity games, and fewer games making it more possible for players to peak at international level.
Also, some of the lesser teams, Cas, Wakey, Salford would make the lower tier more competitive.

Two leagues of 10, with the lowest of SL playing the winner of the lower division for a place in Super League would be great but would have to be in a time when both sets of teams meet certain criteria.

At the very least, the top 8 playoff system has to go. I think that is pathetic.

How unrealistic is it for 20 teams to be full time in the next 5 - 10 years??? so 20 clubs that earn enough to pay a full time squad

So you think that the Super League TV money, which Sky pays to televise matches involving Super League clubs, is not earned by Super League clubs? And that the Championship clubs should be entitled to an equal share of this money despite the fact that Sky do not pay to televise their matches, and that the contract has nothing to do with them at all? Do you think money earned from any future Championship TV deals should be equally split between Super League clubs?

Even though your arguments over the last 2yrs have completely fallen down you still refuse to learn from your idiocy

There you go again making things up

Another advantage of slightly less games with smaller divisions is starting later and finishing earlier so that the so called summer sport doesnt start in the snow and the Grand Final isnt p!ss!ing down with rain.

I know everyone is repeating themselves with all these arguments, but it is quite a fun debate.

For the fun of it because if this was to happen it would be years of planning obviously..

If anyone where to choose the teams now for 2x 10 team divisions (higher and lower) what would the teams be based on whatever criteria you see fit.