Neither the RFL nor KMPG by giving Bradford the green light, in any way shape or form guaranteed they would work.

The leeds united thing was 100% luck.....swear to whatever god you worship!

As for the "made up figures"....break even for a SL club is around about 5 million......3.5 or so needed from the club itself. The Ian L figure at Quins in 2008 was about a tenner a ticket with another tenner residual, so there's 2.6 with another 0.9 needed from other commercial activity (sponsors/corporates).
My figures aren't 100% Accurate, but they are a lot closer than those peddled by the RFL and Bradford regarding the iconic bulls over the last couple of years.

As for trolling....I disagree with you I am a troll. I disagree with you and mention Union I am a union troll. What happens when I agree with you and we are both wrong about Bradford and Union?
Tell you what, if the price of knowing Union is bigger and that the RFL have given Bradford more help than is warranted is being called a troll, WHERE MY FUCKING BRIDGE!

But you do make up figures AND facts and try and pass them off as true. You've been caught out doing it many times.

You revel in the Bulls trouble, adding nothing to the debate but instead dance around going "I told you so" like a child.

You're a troll, pure and simple and while you were amusing for awhile you're now just becoming boring.

Incentives tend to be industry wide, or open at least.

Bailouts and taking a stake, direct or indirect, do distort the system. They're controversial and messy - especially when the company goes under anyway. If we have clubs that are too big to fail that raises some troubling issues.

Smokey makes an I interesting point that we should behave more as a collective and less as competitors. There is a good case for that. The RFL could have got the Bulls assets and lease for less than they paid for just the lease. The problem being that it would have been more difficult for them to walk away from the debts than it was for an independent owner.
If we did go for a collective approach, we'd need greater collective ownership and direction. Otherwise Leeds and Wigan will fear ending up like Germany in the euro crisis, which'd create all sorts of complications and resentments, as they'd understandably want greater control. Could we really run the sport from the centre, as one big club? It is still a competition, so there'd be a deal of natural tension between club 'committees' still - you'd need [isome[/i local control.

There would, there always will be. But we can limit that friction. If the league was run as a whole, then Bradfords success contributes to the success of every other club. It becomes in Leeds best interests for Bradford to be successful because they would contribute more to the pot as it were. Similarly clubs who don’t get in, don’t not get in because their face doesn’t fit, or because of bias, or because Nigel Wood hates them. They don’t get in because they cannot convince those in there they will help create a bigger pie, rather than just taking a slice of whats there.

Similarly London. Which is an even better example. Why should London get any special treatment, why is London good for all of us? Well under the new proposed structure for a lot of clubs London isn’t good. They have to go on the ‘new road’, travel to somewhere further than next parish, and they are competition. If we look at the game as a whole however, the potential benefits of a successful London are exponential. If we get London right, it would be a huge fillip to the game. If a large part of your turnover however comes from a central pie. A working London becomes very very very good for you.

Most sports are moving this way. For some reason our game seems intent on following Europeean football in to a devil take the hindmost approach, which it is wedded to through tradition, which is slowly hollowing out that game, which just isn’t going to work for us. At some stage, we need to realise our product is the game.

This has been happening somewhat in Australia, Newscorp along with the NRL purchased the franchises for a few clubs, eventually the ownership of the clubs reverts to a local entity, but with the NRL keep a share of the club.

Not sure where they are up to with it, last I heard they were letting go of the clubs and letting them stand on their own.

Simple, rational, as fair and as transparent as is possible. I like it. An election/re-election system. Which has the advantage over central control of not locking out benefactors.
It'd be political, but it'd be nakedly, openly political. There'd be bitterness from time to time, but the accusation would have to be one of irrationality, not dishonesty.
The first vote would be challenging to organise in a way widely seen as fair - but not impossible. Then you protect and give a vote to clubs that stay afloat financially and avoid bottom spot, each year.

Along with straightforward P&R, which requires greater efforts to narrow the gap, it is one of the two sensible ways we could finally reach a lasting settlement in the summer era, IMO.

P&R is more dramatic, 'sporting/fairer' and traditional (and thus familiar and easy to understand).

Re-election - it can become a self-perpetuating cartel, but as far as relegation is concerned, if you've gone bust or finished bottom, you can't have huge complaints if your peers boot you out.
Fans of Fax, Leigh, Fev, Leigh etc. can speak for themselves, but at least they'd know what they had to do - and the rate at which SL clubs go bust currently, there'd be ample opportunities to make a pitch, on top of the fact that somebody comes bottom every year. Also, other clubs would have the option of being patient with a new entrant if they thought that best.

Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read.

We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstep: PROMOTION AND RELEGATION SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE FIELD, NOT BY COMMITTEES IN SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS. With the potential for promotion and relegation through a pyramid structure from top to bottom.



For example, Leeds shouldn't want a nicey nicey love-in with Bradford. Leeds should want to smash Bradford on the field every time, and want others to do that to their nearest neighbours so that they get relegated and Leeds can aim to expand their catchment area and get their crowds up. Leeds really would do the game a dis-service if it really did want a cosy cartel where it can coast along with crowds under 20,000. Leeds really should be doing everything they can to get their crowds up towards double that with their potential within the game.

If Bristol Sonics get into the third tier, then get promotion, why should their potenatial promotion to Super League in say 10 years' time be subject to the whim of Chairmen of other SL cubs? You can just see it "O no. We don't want to have to travel all that way. Keep 'em out, keep Widnes in"

The new 2x12; 3x8 structure giving the POTENTIAL for promotion and relegation (not AUTOMATIC P&R) will be the ideal structure for RL in this country for the next 50 years at least.

Going back to the one big league with all 30 odd clubs in it (that we had for a lifetime before 1973) would be preferable to the nonsense set out in the two posts quoted above.

Yeah, we get you like it. You told us before. You told us you like it, and for that you believe it will work, that because you like you are sure it will address concerns you aren’t even sure of and even though you don’t know how it will address those concerns you are confident it will do. It was funny.

The thing is, why would it want to become a self-perpetuating cartel? It is actively damaging to each individual club and the league as a whole for them to keep clubs who can grow the pie out.

It would also allow us to look at how we can benefit from economies of scale in terms of sponsors, kit manufacturers, websites etc, it would allow clubs to market together, it would allow us to look again at youth development.

it wont happen though, too many in the game are happy to go along with this stupid system and in 5 years they can ask why we have no better facilities, why attendances have fallen at the bottom end of SL, why the same clubs are winning things still, why our youth development is failing, why clubs are putting out squads with 10-15 overseas players again, why the teams at the bottom are still struggling, why nobody gives a about a competition to be the 17th best team in the league, why nobody really cares about a play-off to become the 9th best team in the league, why the gap between the top 5/6 and everyone else has become so HUGE as to be unbridgeable, why the game hasn’t moved forward one iota. The game will then see the ringfencing of a top 10 and those who think this is the panacea for the games problems because it benefits their club will be wondering how they have ended up further away from SL. I will laugh at them a little immaturely, and then maybe we can actually get a system in place that addresses the games problems rather than the complete abdication of responsibility and reliance on hope we have seen.

Good news for me is that my team for the next 5 years at least will be competing in finals with the other big clubs whilst everyone else simply tries to survive.

Quote ="Mr Churchill"Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read. We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstep: PROMOTION AND RELEGATION SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE FIELD, NOT BY COMMITTEES IN SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS. With the potential for promotion and relegation through a pyramid structure from top to bottom. '" English League Football used re-election until 1986. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-electio ... all_League) It was used until more recently than that in Scotland, iirc. How do minor counties get first class status in cricket? Tbf, it has only happened four times - Worcestershire (1899), Northamptonshire (1905), Glamorgan (1921), Durham (1992), so they perhaps don't need a system. And RL itself has never had much of a pyramid itself - one big league, for most of its history and then make it up as you go along in the summer era. There's a lot to be said for P&R, but there are complications and difficulties with it (As examples - what happens if Catalans get relegated? How to narrow the financial and sporting chasm between divisions to make relegation less potentionally catastrophic and promotion less likely to be a poisoned chalice? What to do with administration-newcos?). Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy enough with well thought-through P and R. But we have to deal with the world as it and re-election in some ways offers a simpler path. Not 'fairer' or offering as much sporting interest as P&R - but better than what we've had so far in the summer era.

Quote ="Mr Churchill"Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read. We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstep: PROMOTION AND RELEGATION SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE FIELD, NOT BY COMMITTEES IN SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS. With the potential for promotion and relegation through a pyramid structure from top to bottom. '" English League Football used re-election until 1986. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-electio ... all_League) It was used until more recently than that in Scotland, iirc. How do minor counties get first class status in cricket? Tbf, it has only happened four times - Worcestershire (1899), Northamptonshire (1905), Glamorgan (1921), Durham (1992), so they perhaps don't need a system. And RL itself has never had much of a pyramid itself - one big league, for most of its history and then make it up as you go along in the summer era. There's a lot to be said for P&R, but there are complications and difficulties with it (As examples - what happens if Catalans get relegated? How to narrow the financial and sporting chasm between divisions to make relegation less potentionally catastrophic and promotion less likely to be a poisoned chalice? What to do with administration-newcos?). Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy enough with well thought-through P and R. But we have to deal with the world as it and re-election in some ways offers a simpler path. Not 'fairer' or offering as much sporting interest as P&R - but better than what we've had so far in the summer era.

Quote ="Mild Rover"English League Football used re-election until 1986. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-electio ... all_League) It was used until more recently than that in Scotland, iirc. How do minor counties get first class status in cricket? Tbf, it has only happened four times - Worcestershire (1899), Northamptonshire (1905), Glamorgan (1921), Durham (1992), so they perhaps don't need a system. And RL itself has never had much of a pyramid itself - one big league, for most of its history and then make it up as you go along in the summer era. There's a lot to be said for P&R, but there are complications and difficulties with it (As examples - what happens if Catalans get relegated? How to narrow the financial and sporting chasm between divisions to make relegation less potentionally catastrophic and promotion less likely to be a poisoned chalice? What to do with administration-newcos?). Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy enough with well thought-through P and R. But we have to deal with the world as it and re-election in some ways offers a simpler path. Not 'fairer' or offering as much sporting interest as P&R - but better than what we've had so far in the summer era.'" The new 2x12; 3x8 structure through the professional game will address most issues and will be the driver for success if left in place for the long term. It will be better than anything else we have had before in the Summer era. Potential new clubs will begin to see a stable route to the top as the system settles down. A more equitable allocation of SKY money across clubs down the pyramid will help address the current 'chasm' issue. Some of the other features of the high level structure I woud see as also contributing to the success of RL in this country would be clear high level rules known to all in advance: - Go into Administration = 6 points deduction - Go bust = relegation to the bottom division - No salary cap - A limit on the number of players a club could have registered at any one time - At least 13 of the 17 players named for any match to be qualified to play for an EU country (or, preferably, EU born; if we could get away with that legally) I'd agree with you that some form of election from the top end of the community game to the third tier of the professional game would be appropriate. (As SmokeyTA says, even the most successful of community clubs may not wish to take the step of moving on into the professional game). (I think in soccer the concept of election/re-election only applied between the bottom of the fourth tier and the top of the 'non-league' game). If Catalans (or any other team) gets relegated from SL1, they play in SL2 the next season (with the potential to be promoted back to SL1).

Quote ="Mild Rover"English League Football used re-election until 1986. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-electio ... all_League) It was used until more recently than that in Scotland, iirc. How do minor counties get first class status in cricket? Tbf, it has only happened four times - Worcestershire (1899), Northamptonshire (1905), Glamorgan (1921), Durham (1992), so they perhaps don't need a system. And RL itself has never had much of a pyramid itself - one big league, for most of its history and then make it up as you go along in the summer era. There's a lot to be said for P&R, but there are complications and difficulties with it (As examples - what happens if Catalans get relegated? How to narrow the financial and sporting chasm between divisions to make relegation less potentionally catastrophic and promotion less likely to be a poisoned chalice? What to do with administration-newcos?). Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy enough with well thought-through P and R. But we have to deal with the world as it and re-election in some ways offers a simpler path. Not 'fairer' or offering as much sporting interest as P&R - but better than what we've had so far in the summer era.'" The new 2x12; 3x8 structure through the professional game will address most issues and will be the driver for success if left in place for the long term. It will be better than anything else we have had before in the Summer era. Potential new clubs will begin to see a stable route to the top as the system settles down. A more equitable allocation of SKY money across clubs down the pyramid will help address the current 'chasm' issue. Some of the other features of the high level structure I woud see as also contributing to the success of RL in this country would be clear high level rules known to all in advance: - Go into Administration = 6 points deduction - Go bust = relegation to the bottom division - No salary cap - A limit on the number of players a club could have registered at any one time - At least 13 of the 17 players named for any match to be qualified to play for an EU country (or, preferably, EU born; if we could get away with that legally) I'd agree with you that some form of election from the top end of the community game to the third tier of the professional game would be appropriate. (As SmokeyTA says, even the most successful of community clubs may not wish to take the step of moving on into the professional game). (I think in soccer the concept of election/re-election only applied between the bottom of the fourth tier and the top of the 'non-league' game). If Catalans (or any other team) gets relegated from SL1, they play in SL2 the next season (with the potential to be promoted back to SL1).

I agree with what you say about the league structure (my feelings are it won't be left it place long enough for the positives to come through, just like licensing)

But - administration and bust are two very similar stations on the same train line, for one to get such a relatively minor punishment and the other to get such a major seems a bit wrong - it will imo, lead to a "everything's okay now, promise" situation and more prolonged financial events like Bradford.

That's not to say financial difficulties should go as unpunished as they are, but they should be appropriately similar.

I won't turn this into a salary cap debate, but it's here to stay, and so it should be.

And saying 13 of the 17 need to be eu register will lead to, as so many on this board clambered to point out, second rate Aussies whose great aunts sisters dog once ate with a Spanish guy and thus qualifies. The fed trained rule works well in my opinion - though there should be more leniency (so long as it's spelt out and everyone knows the rules) for genuinely eu based players.

Personally, I would like to see the division below the 3 league being proposed be the top amateur/ community leagues of several countries (England France Wales Ireland etc) all on equal footing (similar to the football non leagues splitting north and south) and the winners of each coming to compete for an invitation to championship 3 (or whatever it will become)

There are positives to this structure, and the good news is that they will be immediately apparent.

The bad news is so will the obvious issues which will be so broad as to cause them to be addressed very quickly. The attendances in the bottom 8 will be appalling. Nobody will care about being the 17th best side in the league, pretty much that entire league will be a dead rubber and if as suggested there is relegation from that league. That will be an entire competition solely designed to find out who is the worst, it doesn’t even have the legitimacy of a plate competition. It’s a competition where you just simply try not to be the worst. A battle of the s.

The middle 8 risks being an absolute walk over, where very quickly there is nothing to play for and we have a procession of walk overs by better funded, better prepared, better players.

The top 8 also risks very quickly having no point, with so few games there is very little opportunity to turn things around, and there is also a possibility that we could see teams in that top 8 who quite literally have no mathematical chance of progressing from it and a very good possibility that there will be teams who start that competition with no realistic chance of progressing.

The biggest problem in gaining legitimacy for it is that there is a clear and obvious comparison. If for instance Hull KR (who finished 8th last year) finish 8th, the 7 games they have to play have already been played that year. Their three home games have a clear and direct comparison to live up to. It is likely that these games will be ‘extra’ and not included in season tickets (would you risk paying SL prices for a third of your season to be in the championship?) they were 9 points from 4th, 1 loss (and a 4th place win) and they are 11 pts and 4 places from 4th with 12 pts to play for. How many HKR fans are going to pay full price, for a ticket to see a repeat of a game they have seen, only this time with nothing to play for? If, like you would expect it is very few, you are left with a clear comparison showing a big drop in crowds.

There is no 'bad news'. You have simply set out your opinions - which are without foundation or consideration of the likely reality.

Take your comments about the final 7 matches that the third 8 will play. Consider what those clubs play for now in the last 7 league matches under the current structure. Nothing. Their fans are disillusioned. Gates are very low.

What will differ in the new structure for those particular clubs? Plenty. Just a few:

- Clubs will be fighting to avoid ending in the bottom 2 as it will mean relegation out of SL2 into the third tier
- The finshing positions in the 8 will determine how much SKY money the clubs will get for the following season. (i.e. I expect the distribution of SKY money in the following season to be graded - so that the higher a club finishes between places 1 to 24, the more SKY money they will get the next season). So directors will be able to offer appropriate player bonuses for the higher they finish
- Finishing in the top four will qualify you for the play-offs. OK nothing really at stake apart from pride & player bonuses. So, a bit like the old Premiership play-offs. But fans will be keen for their club to get to the play-off final even at that level - to enjoy a day out at a double header along with the middle 8 play-off final.

There are supporters of clubs outside the top 5 in the game who might win the Super League you know.

Fairly sure I've seen more of them than you

But, once again, you claim that the Bulls being given a licence then having financial difficulties is a problem of the licensing system. The two are, to a degree significant enough for even you to understand, not the same thing.

I don't know how often you have seen them. And you have no idea how much I have seen them. However you have the need to make such an assertion. Oh dear.

Do read what I write rather than jump to your limited conclusion. An alledged detailed financial check that flags up no problems in July 2012 and May 2013 yet sees the club in a dire position within 2/3 months is dreadful. People who have never seen the licensing documents can work that out, you alas cannot.

hilarious from you
so playing meaningless games against less salubrious opponents who themselves are less well attended outside the season tickets is going to help is it?

a couple will, the rest will be safe very quickly. 8 places is a pretty big gap.
that will pack them in for sure, how exciting will it be to watch the battle for 6th for a slight increase in TV money.

it's pretty much the thriller in Manila

So now we get a plate final which has to be a double header to find out the question on everyone's lips, just who is THE 6TH AND 17TH BEST TEAMS IN SL.

I hope they don't employ you to sell it because that sounds like the worst idea I have ever heard if you got 15k people to watch that I would be astounded
i don't think any supporters will win SL, top 5 or not

The equitable division of Sky money is crucial as, in the real world, we are returning to some form of P&R. It is going to be difficult to get it right though and even more difficult to get it agreed.
Clear, simple rules are also vital, I agree - as much as what they are, that they should simple is just as important. Our current regulations are so complicated and riddled with discretion and interpretation that it undermines trust. We've tried to solve our problems with ever more subtle and clever legislation piled higher and higher. My one big downer on the 2x12, 3x8 structure, is that for all that it is quite elegant, it's yet another convoluted solution.
While re-election was only used at the bottom of the football League, direct comparisons are difficult. There are crowds in League 2 that compare with some in SL - especially if you take aggregate attendance over their greater number of fixtures. To see our RL championship as directly equivalent to the football championship (the second tiers), is a big stretch.

Just giving a heads up as to what is likely to be announced later this month with regard to the new structure from 2015 season onwards once agreed by the clubs next week.

If anyone is so against it, they'd better make an appointment at RFL HQ quick, and let Ralph Rimmer know why they're wrong and what your alternative is.

Oh yeah, I know its going ahead. As I said, It means my club will spend the next 5 years at least competing for trophies with the big boys, everyone else will be pretty much irrelevant playing in competitions even they think are irrelevant. Sadly the league will then be cut to ten and your club will be even further away from SL, playing in a lower league competition which will have been absolutely destroyed. Its not the big SL clubs like my club who are going to be damaged by this if anything we really will be strengthened, we will be on a different level, it’s the lower league clubs and the lower SL clubs. Don’t be naïve and think this is an expansion of SL, it isn’t. It’s a huge contraction. Its sharing 2 SL clubs TV money with the entire rest of the league and guaranteeing them they will never be top clubs ever again. This is a ringfencing of a top 6.

That would be catastrophic.

SL2013
1 Huddersfield Giants
2 Warrington Wolves
3 Leeds Rhinos
4 Wigan Warriors
5 St Helens
6 Hull FC

SL2012
1 Wigan Warriors
2 Warrington Wolves
3 St Helens
4 Catalan Dragons
5 Leeds Rhinos
6 Hull FC

SL2011
1 Warrington Wolves
2 Wigan Warriors
3 St Helens
4 Huddersfield Giants
5 Leeds Rhinos
6 Catalan Dragons

SL2010
1 Wigan Warriors
2 St Helens
3 Warrington Wolves
4 Leeds Rhinos
5 Huddersfield Giants
6 Hull FC

Indeed, it would be terrible. With any luck Hull FC and Les Catalans will both be able take that next step and we can have our top 7, Bradford can get themselves sorted and we can have our top 8 and accelerate the move to a better structure.

That would be awesome.

What a surprise to many who have posted on here. All the RFL money pumped into the Bulls + all the license financial checks + the financial check in may 2013 + checking two lots of potential owners in 15 months and we end with...administration.

How fortunate for the RFL that this did not happen a couple of weeks ago when the bulls helped give a 7-6 vote to the rfl plan.

Be interesting to see if any RFL board members will resign.

Naturally the bulls should have a 6 pt deduction. Why should Carter cut players to stay solvent while bulls pop into administration and keep everyone! Why should Hughes put his hand in his pocket and see the exodus of players to stay in business while the bulls 'work with creditors' at keep their squad.

Will Nigel Wood ever man up???