Top 6 in SL1 playoff for the title, bottom 4 in SL1 and top 4 in SL2 playoff for 4 remaining SL1 spaces for next season. That would allow teams to quickly move between the leagues and hopefully prevent a gulf in talent between the leagues.

Maybe Smith has a point?

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/warrington/8753275.stm[/url

Two leagues of 10 teams? I reckon it could work. 20 teams capable are listed below:

1. Catalans
2. Toulouse
3. Halifax
4. Bradford
5. Wigan
6. St Helens
7. Warrington
8. Castleford
9. Harlequins
10. Salford
11. Leigh
12. Widnes
13. Leeds
14. Hull
15. Hull KR
16. Barrow
17. Crusaders
18. Huddersfield
19. Wakefield
20. Featherstone

I agree with him and have felt this way for quite a long time. We simply play too many games in this country at the elite level.

I disagree, i think its been far better with 14 teams, having to see the same teams twice at home was ridiculous and dull.

So basically you'd reduce the SL and Championship to 10 teams each?

I agree, clubs should only be promoted when they are good enough for the league IMO. This would make the league below alot stronger and those clubs would have alot more urgency to better themselves, up untill now we just havn't seen that.

Wigan
Leeds
Saints
Wire
Hull FC
Bradford
Hull KR
Catalans
Hudds
Crusaders

The other 4 can go down the the next league which would only include teams who are good enough to apply for super league.

This would create genuine competition in the league below and more games in super league would be far far better.

Castleford
Wakefield
Salford
Harlequins
Leigh
Widnes
Halifax
Featherstone
Sheffield
Toulouse

This creates two leagues stronger than we have now.

The teams from the league below this would then have to better themselves to get into the 2nd league so they could potentially apply for super league.

I didn't like this idea at first, but as a Leigh fan at least there's still some hope and something to play for. If this happened we could also find free weekends for Internationals too.

I think most clubs are seeing an increase in the number of half decent youngsters coming through. They may not be world beaters but we are at a stage were we can develop youngsters physically and train them to a level were they can do a job while the bigger stars shine. I think in 3 years the % of home grown players starting each game will be a lot higher and defences tend to be a little sterner when lads are palying for "their" club.

I don't think now's the time to be talking about that sort of thing.

12 teams = 22 games possibly 23 games with a magic weekend.

Unless they cut it to five teams it won't change much in terms of quality. 6 through to 14 are pretty much the same.

If they cut it by 4 teams, thats 4 teams worth of super league talent to go around. For example I said Wakey, Cas, Salford and Quins should go down to make 10 teams, all the quality players from those teams would get spread around the other teams and would therefore improve the quality.

All the other players would play in the league below and improve the quality there.

So that is Michael Shenton, Richard Owen, Westerman, Rob Purdham and LMS. The rest go go back to the NSW cup/Championship If you believe the rumours 4 of them are going to top 5 clubs next year anyway.

I don't think cutting these teams is fair especially when Hull KR are asking for quota exceptions and the named 4 have actually being trying to develop their own talent. It would be rewarding short sightedness.

We need to reduce the number of games not the number of teams.

Matt,

If we have 10 teams and we play home and away that gives each team 9 home games - gives Sky 6 weeks less coverage?

The numbers simply don't add up - season ticket prices would have to fall by 25% to justify the reduced number of games?

Where is the revenue coming from?

We could have a bye week to spread the season out and give the mid-season international a week of its own.

Last time the number of games got reduced most teams didn't decrease the season ticket prices.

As Much as i like the idea


I dont think it would work. Big Teams like wigan and Leeds and saints, would lose out on TV revenue and they won't allow that

Don't think Barrow fans would be very impressed with that set up. Switch Sheffield for Barrow and I would be quite happy with that structure. But surely 9 home games a year would be nowhere near enough to to fund a full time club? Especially in the '2nd' super league as the away support wouldn't be great from lots of teams.

On the other hand maybe a club like Harlequins could improve crowds as they would be a 'big' club in SL2 rather than at the bottom of SL1.

Can't see it happening though really as I dont think the 2nd tier would be viable as a full time league.

I think that we do play too many games over the season but clubs need all the league games they get to make money pure and simple. I think one way round it is to put the play offs back to 6 teams perhaps even 4 thus making the seaosn shorter and giving everyone a rest before end of season internationals. Perhaps bringing the season foward a week too. Those together could give the players an extra 3/4 weeks rest before 4 nations/world cup/test series etc too.

Also as someone else stated give the mid-season internationals a weekend of its own. With say England vs Wales and France vs Ireland at wigan and tolouse for example resepctively. Get the details and tickets out early and cheap to get the crowds in.

David

I would rather have a 12 team competition actually, which gives a minimum of 11 home games. How the game sets itself up has nothing to do with SKY. They don't call the tune. They are the major broadcast partner and no more. It's ridiculous at the moment where we have the season starting at the end of January and playing through February. Summer rugby was meant to eliminate all of this so the players could play in better conditions. It would, as had been mentioned also leave time for representative games to be played and not have the ridiculous situation of club games taking part at the same time as the international.

I admit any reduction in games would not benefit the "smaller" clubs in the competition as they "big" clubs make more of their money through their corporate sales rather than joe public on the terraces.

Ticket prices are going to rise next season now that the VAT rise has been announced. But game day prices have doubled in the last 10 years. Clubs can't rely on just game day income anymore they have to expand and find new revenue streams to keep them going.

I'll admit, I'm a Club > Country man. But at the end of the day we harm our prospects in the international "Autumn Tournament" by making the players play too many games. Some England players are going into this having played around 35 games in some cases. You could get some blokes in the opposition who have only played 24 all year and it's a big difference. It's very difficult for England players at time in these competitions as they have simply played too many games through the year and they have nothing left in the tank for the internationals.

Quality, not quantity for me and I'd rather see 22 great regular season games than some of the crap that has been turfed up at times this season.

You're talking sense sheffieldliam mate! Dangerous doing that on here!

I was meant to include Barrow. I was doing it from memory.

Players currently at Hull KR are attempting to take advantage of an RFL rule. I expect there are others at other clubs too. These players, with their exemptions, are free to play for whosoever they wish.
The dispensation, in these instances, would be to the players, not the clubs.
HKR will have the same 5-12-8 squad restrictions as most other clubs next year.



From a sport POV I'd go for:
16 teams divided into two pools of 8. Play your own conference (eg 'East' or 'West') H and A, and those in the other H or A (alternating each year). 22 games competing for your Conference League, then a play-off system for the Championship. Two seperate but linked competitions, with the Championship Grand final being the most prestigious, but winning the conference league more than just a lengthy prelude with a hub cap attached.

It'd mean splitting the (possibly smaller due to fewer fixtures) sky money between more teams, and less games to generate gate and match day revenue.

Our chairman wants fewer teams and more games. Our coach wants fewer games. The current balance isn't too bad - you'll never please everyone.

Haha thanks! I know the play offs are money spinners for clubs and the RFL being tickets only but we need to reward the consistence and improve the international scene drastically. Look at cricket. Poor club attendances but get so much coverage at international level. On a side matter the RFL needs to pull their finger out and annouce the strucuture of WC 2013, stadia then get the tickets out soon thus advertising it none stop ala Wigan do with their "the big one" and "st georges day game"

Do you fancy stopping posting now please mate, people will think i've got two accounts to back up my points like Barry McKenzie does!
You're going to get lynched for talking sense!