Top flight players in England, Australia, NZ, and those based the Celtic nations all play fewer games than English RL players. In 2001, the RFU and Premier Rugby struck a [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/1454059.stmLong Form Agreement[/url that stipulates the workload of test players:



The LFA was further explained on BBC Sport Online in the article [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/1455513.stmBlueprint for England rugby success[/url.
In 2008, [url=http://www.rugbynetwork.net/main/s245/st122929.htmthe RFU and PR extended the agreement[/url, and the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/english/7910306.stmgame limit was kept[/url

Some players may play more if they:
a) were not initially in the EPS at the beginning of a season
b) play less than 40 minutes of a match (under Premier Rugby's definition, apparently playing <40 does not count as playing a game)

Even so, English RU and French RU test players played fewer games on average for their season 2007-2008 then English RL or Super League based French RL test players in seasons 2007 or 2008. 2 rounds of the GP are held during the Autumn Internationals, and 2 hed during the 6N.

Not sure about your play-off format. I'd stick to a format similar to the current top 8 (just without the club call as it wouldn't be possible in two conferences, there isn't a highest ranked team)...

Week 1:
1) 1st East vs 2nd West
2) 1st West vs 2nd East
3) 3rd East vs 4th West
4) 3rd West vs 4th East
Week 2:
5) Loser of 1 vs Winner of 3
6) Loser of 2 vs Winner of 4
Week 3:
7) Winner of 1 vs Winner of 6


Winner of 2 vs Winner of 5
Week 4:
9) Winner of 7 vs Winner of 8

A fair, uncontroversial play-off system where the two best ranked teams should meet in the final if they win all their games, and the only possible chance of a repeat game would happen in the final itself (unlike currently where both semis could be repeat games).

My two conferences would be:
Eastern - Bradford, Castleford, Harlequins, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Wakefield
Western - Catalans, Crusaders, Salford, St Helens, Toulouse, Warrington, Widnes, Wigan

Home & away against your conference (14 games) and alternate home and away against other conference (8 games) leaves you with 22 games.
Try and get three TV games a week and sell them in these packages: 1 Eastern Conference game, 1 Western Conference game, 1 Cross-Conference game.
Move the Magic Weekend to the Challenge Cup.

Now, just need to find a way to make up revenue for 5 lost games (which we're looking at 60-70,000 people across each round)...

I do believe that IF we were going to adopt this sort of league structure (which I am very sceptical of), this would probably be the best playoff structure, so I agree with you on this point - that is the fairest.



Unfortunately this split is slightly unfair, as the Western league would be at a massive disadvantage here in strength, as as well as including two new additions to the current 14 in Toulouse and Widnes, you also have the two most recent additions, meaning overall this side is nowhere near as established. Also it may be unfair to have the furthest distances to travel on this side. Also how would the promotion/relegation/franchise system work with these in the future?



A similar set of games to state of origin perhaps? East vs West? Although that is not likely to be anywhere near as good for club revenues, which indeed makes it a dilema.

Tbh overall I would not really support this idea.

All these new league formats are fine , except they all need more money to fund them , money we dont have , money we are unlikely to have in the near future 10/15 years

Some are suggesting this money would become available if we started beating the Aussies , we wont it wont , having clubs in Wales and France wont produce it either

The only thing that will produce it is a doubling of the current level of attendances at all levels which will finally produce a competition that nobody knows who is going to win season from season

I believe something like this would come in about 2020 with a bigger European influence.
If not a stronger second division would be nice

Agreed.

How will you achieve this ?

Ive said enough today.
Consolidation with the next tv deal, more money to filter through to the Chp clubs, possibly profits from 4N comps providing the Chp can prove a youth development plan.
Id also offer incentives for youth development at that level.

there needs to be more money entering the championship so it can go pro.its the only way we can produce the depth in quality to challenge the aussies long term.having read alot of posts on the subject of expansion i've come to the conclusion that you've all brainwashed each other into believeing 1 or 2 decent french or welsh teams is going to help england beat the aussies on a regular basis what a load of if your not going to invest heavily in a french and welsh league its never ever going to work

I said that on your board Starbug and thats the killer as to why, currently there isn't the space for all the best Chp clubs to be in SL.
I didn't necessarily mean produce SL quality juniors.
I just meant you should be rewarded for playing Leigh born lads and you should be able to receive additional funding for every junior you produce. If additional money found its way into the Chp then at ages 14/15/16 you would be able to compete a bit better for local talent.

You have spent 3 days telling us how leigh is a dump , the club is a mess , and how good Warrington are , you are now suggesting that a few extra quid will entice the next Shaun Edwards to leigh instead of W1g4n/Wire or Saints

Dont talk utter bollox

Producing junior players at Championship level is a total waste of time and money

Ask Widnes

i'd offer incentives to warrington for youth development

that way the production line can continue to pay for its self or if the powers that be finally realise that expansionism is a load of crap and realise a level playing field is best for everyone in the long term interests of the game.

I'll finish your post for you

Ask Widnes about Richie Myler , either way they would not have been able to hold onto him even if they had been promised a SL spot in 2012

Where's he playing now ?

Like Leigh with Mickey Higham and Stuart Donlan

There is nothing wrong with a 2nd tier producing quality players for the top tier. with no P&R in fact that is all for them to be there for.

Thats a great call that actually.
There should be a rule in place that once signed up if any player moves before age 21 (no longer a young player) you receive a payment, matched by the rfl for producing that player, it should be double if you're a Chp 1 club. Im not sure how such a rule would go in practice but im sure the RFL could come up with something.

And Starbug, they still have an academy worthy of SL. Yes they've lost out on some players but my point was at the end of the day they're the front runners for SL and you're not. There's the benchmark.
It's that same bitterness that gets leigh fans the bad rep, every team loses players

The Western Conference would be weaker initially, that is correct. They'd have the last license additions (Crusaders and Salford) as well as the next license additions (Widnes and Toulouse). I think the benefits of grouping on geography outweigh the negatives of an initial competitiveness though (in terms of local interest and crowds, etc). Plus, it's not as if the other teams won't be playing these less established sides anyway. They'll play all of them at least once.

All in all, I'd say it's more of an advantage for the teams in the Western Conference, as the top teams should have more games they'd consider themselves able to win (and thus making a play-off spot) and the lower teams would have winnable games. There may be a divide at first, but there was a divide in SL for how many years...?


For the travelling, teams in the Western Conference would have to go to France away twice, and half of them would have to go to London once (so 3 long trips, remembering that Wrexham is right on the NW's doorstep). Eastern clubs would have to go to London once and France (either Perpignan or Toulouse) once. So it's only 4 clubs that will be at a disadvantage of having to travel one extra game at a long distance. No matter how you set the conferences out, there will always be one extra trip for someone as there are 3 outpost clubs, so it's better to have the two French ones together.


The same as usual. If there is/are new club/s entering, you replace them with the weakest clubs. If you need to rearrange the conferences, then do that.
If you added two more clubs to make 18, you could split to three conferences of six, sticking to playing your own twice and everyone else once would still make the same number of games (22).

If you brought back relegation, you could either drop one team from the bottom of each conference, or you could have a relegation play-off between the bottom team of each conference and have them replaced by the winner of the Championship GF. In fact, that doesn't sound that bad an idea, as relegation wouldn't be decided until the last game of the year then.


I thought about the Eastern vs Western origin thing as well, but don't think it would be too much of a puller (not until the conferences are established anyway).

You could always have a 5-week break in May and expand the Challenge Cup to group stages. 8 groups of 5. 1 WCSL, 1 ECSL, 1 CC, 1CC1 and 1 other. At the same time have an international series, so the SL clubs are slightly weakened to make it more competitive (sort of like The Observer was saying earlier with RU).



I guess it's a work in progress. But the game does need to find a way to reduce the amount of games players are playing without losing cash.

There already is , problem is it is dependant on the type of contract the player is on , and because Championship clubs cannot offer enough money to those players they can in effect move for nothing , usually the Championship gets a visit from a SL academy side for a pre season match as recompense

The RFL dont want SL clubs to have to pay for players from Championship sides

Yes Widnes have managed to continue with all junior levels , but will that be the reason they get into SL in 2012 ? , no what will get them in is their stadium , Fan base , history in SL and their Financial backer , producing 1 SL quality player over 3/4 seasons is not financially viable for a Championship club

The first point is wrong on the RFLs part then. It could be tied in with how much money you put into a player but i'm thinking a set fee.
You could argue those players may not be worth the fee in which case SL clubs wouldnt come snooping.
Players signed at 16 should have automatic 4 year contracts that see them to 20 with the buyout clause.
I do feel the RFL has the money to go round for these players that are poached, they should dig into their pockets a bit more. As highlighted here it definately needs looking at.
Am I right in thinking Leigh, rather than running a setup themselves, look to the big 2 amateur clubs for players? That's a very good idea imo and is basically the same but get them tied into a contract at 16

You are suggesting that Championship clubs offer what is in effect 2nd/3rd class juniors 4 years contracts on similar money to what SL clubs offer them in the hope that they will get a SL club to come in for them ?

So one of these players proves to be a good player by age 19 , what happens then ? , the SL club offer the Championship club a pre season match against their reserves for the player , the Championship club turns that down , the player is well p1553d off and no longer wants to play for the Championship club and the SL club wait intil his contract is up and gets him for nothing

Have you never heard of the Bosman ruling ? , it changed forever the concept of producing players to ' sell on '

The clubs with the money and the players themselves have all the power now , it just isn't worth spending money on producing juniors at Championship level

Yeah, but I'm not sure having a two-tier competition in the West would be the best start, even moreso than SL now, having Catalan/Wigan/St. Helens/Warrington dominate, and also making the layout of fixtures play a large part - a team having to play the other hardest teams in a row would be disadvantaged somewhat compared to a team alternating between the newer teams and the stronger ones, for example.

However, I do agree geography should be a boost to crowd figures, in the same way I am glad about the Crusaders' move to Wrexham.

There is also the fact that some of the big attendance pullers would only be happening once a season in the SL, for example there will only be one Wigan/Leeds match per regular season, which generally pulls big crowds either way it is played, which again could reduce overall attendances. Just a smaller thing to consider.



I do agree having the French together, if they were both in, would be the most obvious way to split the groups. However, unless fixtures were made intentionally to force every team to make a trip to France, there is the possibility some Eastern teams would never go there, if they had their French games at home, 2 English/Welsh at home and the rest away. So this means that there can be much more of a split than you seem to have said. Just pointing this out.



Splitting the competition into two is contraversial enough, three is too far for certain!




A relegation play-off should not happen, as over time this would lead to either manual re-arrangement of clubs, or the two comps get well and truly mixed up with each other.Eg an Eastern team gets relegated then promoted the next season, but this time it is a western team that goes down, where does the original eastern team go?

I am hoping in the future after a while clubs will be more stable, and over a very long period of time we would have two professional and reasonably competitive leagues, the franchise system may be removed, but under this system this could not really happen without causing a lot of trouble.



Indeed, which is a shame. I would personally quite like this sort of thing, it would help decide selection for internationals like in Aus, however I really don't see the support elsewhere.



Personally, I'm not for changing the Challenge Cup, it is our only simple knockout for SL clubs, and I personally wish it to stay that way.

Another competition (7's/9's/just another comp?) would be welcome, and also perhaps have a European cup at this time, with the top 8 teams in Europe fighting it out for spots in the 4 nations at the end of the year? England, France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Lebanon, Italy and Serbia(?). Split them into 2 groups of 4, play 3 matches within the groups, then have 1st of each group play 2nd of the other in the 4th week for qualification to the 4 nations, then have a final the next week anyway. It could be a good runout for England and a good way to measure the success of the other nations year on year.

Just maybe inputting how it could work in this system





Yeah, and I doubt it will happen. Personally - as I have already said - I am more for the idea of restricting the amount of games a player can do in the SL to make teams have to select stratagetically for each match and to force through the younger players.

i dont have time to read the full thread,but havent we heard all this before.i remember him saying we will never beat the aussies coz we play to many games.
well they currently only play 3 league games less then us,but that is balanced out by the top 34 or so aussies selected to play 3 state of origin games which are far more competetive then super league.i know we have challenge cup on top of that,but its knock out and most of the time the early rounds are against lower league opposition and a handfull of players per sl side can be rested.(granted sometimes its sl vs sl but only usually in the later rounds).
seems to me they simply want the same £s for less games.
as for not enough talent to go round 14 teams,if we keep importing we will never have enough talent.give the kids a go

more money to less SL teams?
less money to the lower leagues
sod all to amateur and grass roots projects

two words

GREEDY B*******!

here is a novel idea.
14 teams , 26 matches each team home and away
team that finishes top are champions
no stupid play off system.

however mr peacock overlooks one small thing, IMO we do not win at international level because we are not good enough not because our stars?? are exhausted.