The 2 tier system is just stupid. Did we not in reality have that for years with normal P&R? Why would it make shy difference to sponsors and SKY money? They would only care about the TOP division so in effect we'd end up with LESS top clubs taking up the games money.

We need to develop and grow our top flight, not decrease it.

The only thing that will really develop and expand our game is more competitive international teams. There are plenty of teams capable of getting to the World Cup Final in Union with several other decent sides just below that level. There are only 3 teams capable of winning anything in International Rugby League.

You have to smile. Give a team success and suddenly they think that they are the dogs whatsits.
The top 10 teams, as suggested on here have not always been at the top, even in the SL era.
Huddersfiel have become a very competetive side, compared to the team that finished bottom 3 seasons on the bounce and Bradford have gone in the opposite direction and this is only 2 teams.
Warrington have only become a real force in the last 3-4 seasons and dont forget that even the Mighty Wigan had a couple of poor seasons and many argue that they should have been relegated in the season where they broke the salary cap.
If the league does have a change in structure, then I hope that it will be planned better than the inception of SL, where certain clubs were jettisoned from the top flight, without warning.
Its ok for the teams that survived the cull, however, the damage done to the others has been severe.
Loss of revenue, loss of supporter numbers, disrespect in large numbers for those who govern our sport and contempt from the lucky ones who remained in the top flight.
As has been mentioned, most clubs have been successful in a particular era and this came about with a promotion and relegation system, which was also in place when England were the best team in the world.
Much of the drive towards a further change in our game is not motivated by sporting reasons, but by greed, with certain people and certain clubs now thinking that they have a right to a larger slice of the RL cake.
One further word of caution, if the league is cut from 14 clubs to 10, someone will still finish top and someone will still finish bottom, therfore in another 10 years you could cut the league to 7 clubs, eventually with this system the game will be dead, never mind though its progress.........

If players are suffering from fatigue with the number of games played why not place a cap on number of appearances per regular Superleague season.
Perhaps no player allowed to play more than 20 games.
Challenge cup and playoffs to be exempted.
Les burnout, more chance to develop young talent, and perhaps a more even competition.

This

It would be great if this were true. But it isnt, bar a couple of years every so often, the big clubs have been the contenders and continue to be so. Conversely bar some isolated success the smaller clubs havent.

I wouldnt disagree with that being a good idea but there should be a limit on the number of fully pro players used, the players who fill that gap should be young players from the clubs academy.

The problem that would cause is there would be a significant drop in quality.

Exactly, the 2 tier system is simply P+R, it wouldnt bring 6 clubs up to super league league it would bring 4 SL clubs down to championship level and 4 championship clubs to championship 1 level

Australia, New Zealand... who is the other?

Four divisions of ten
27 league games a year for every team
Four grand finals from a top 5 playoff system in each division
One up and one down from each division when minimum standards are met
Only one cup competition
Blank weekends for internationals or rep games
Dividing the television money not just heavily amongst the top tier clubs, but amongst the whole top four divisions
It could work

40 teams, you reckon?

The Exiles?

England are capable of winning something, they just havnt recently. We constantly beat NZ in england when we play them in england its just a question of hoping they beat australia in the group and we sneak into the final. Im sure if we play NZ in the final of the WC or 4N we would beat them in england.

How would you define a "big" club.
In trophy terms Wigan are easily the biggest club, but where would you fit a team like the Catalans who have only a short history.

Sky wouldnt be willing to pay for SL2, so SL2 would be the same as the championship only with a different name.

I depends on the deal brokered by the RFL. If sky were to pay 20 million per season and there were 10 teams in each of 2 divisions, then surely, this could be £1,000,000 per club.
It is only the "greed" of certain clubs that would prevent this.
It is up to the governing body to distribute its wealth for "the good of the game".
In reality, as occurs in the round ball game, the bigger clubs will demand an increasing share of the pot, but thats life.

I think there will be pretty much that many teams next year anyway

Not a chance, that's where dream works comes into it 'SKY will splot the money evenly' would they bugger? SKY set the price and what for not the RFL (who just negotiate as best they can).

In RL sponsors only want to associate with the top flight that's one issue are game (like most others) have. SKY would only show the top division the majority if the time so the '2nd division' sides would demand les for their own sponsors etc etc.

The Scottish FA have planned to move their top flight to just 10 side and IMO that could destroy the game up there. You only have 2-4 league challengers or winners anyway then a few sides always around the play offs so what difference is having 8 teams challenging 7th - 14th rather than 6 sides challenging 7th - 12th?

Clubs who win and contest finals and championships.

You cant stand behind the 'swings and roundabouts' argument and the cyclical nature of sport when talking about a club like Wakefield who havent won a national competition for 45 years, It was a different world 45 years ago, never mind a different sport.

It isnt the greed of certain clubs which stops this, it is the fact no broadcaster wants to dilute the top tier of a competition which is already struggling to be at the level it needs to be, and no broadcaster wants to pay £6m per season more for the lower leagues.

Your hypothesis is based on Sky wanting to pay £6m more for a 2nd tier competition they barely wanted to screen for free because it has 4 teams in it which given the choice, they wouldnt screen as part of their SL contract.

Yes it would be nice if Sky would pay more for SL and that would allow us to distribute more money throughout the game but they dont, and besides there are competing priorities such as raising the SL Salary Cap and investing more in the amateur and international games as well as what we give to a minority of clubs in the 2nd tier.

Well we agree on this one, so what is your opinion on the continued coverage of the lower tier regular season games for no recompense? , if you were the owner of a 2 nd tier club, would you still want to be televised?

Yes, TV coverage is massively important, not just in the visibility it gives the league but the image it portrays as well. Whilst not ideal that there is no payment for the broadcast it is better than there being no broadcast. From the point they are now the lower leagues should be looking at what they need to do to move to the next level, which is being paid for their league.

Unfortunatly it doesn't portray a good image , and the coverage is likely to be worse than in previous years, I dont personally believe the ' visibility ' aspect either, lower tier clubs are generally only going to draw support from their local populace, this local populace already know they exist , there are better ways of trying to get people interested in their local clubs, than having them compared on TV to the SL product

it provides a better image than nobody wanting to screen it.