Let's not forget American ice hockey leagues.

On the general question I don't think there is a strategy.

With only 2 main countries involved in RL, England and Australia it falls to them to grow the game outside of their hinterland as there is no one else.

Now you could take the approach of anyone outside of our hinterland is not our concern, however that would be strategically short sighted.

Look at other sports and they are not content to stay in their traditional local markets because they see the bigger long term prize means participation internationally to generate significant income.

Rugby Union expanded beyond its boarders decades ago with bringing more teams into what is now the 6 nations. Originally it was just a UK based competition then brought in France and Italy. It is now looking to expand further without any concern about whether RU has a tradition in those countries.

The super 12 has already proven the case for cross boarder domestic leagues.

Even the most cash rich leagues in the world in the NFL are not complacent taking several games to Wembley.

Look at football in the off-season, there is no off-season, they take domestic games on tour in the far east to grow their market share.

In wider sports entertainment, WWE do shows in the UK, Japan, Saudi etcetc.

We could say screw the financial opportunities in France and Canada and Wales. But will Saints, Wigan, Batley, Featherstone, Hull ever expand our market to drive more finance into the game?

A very good 5Live podcast with Shane Richardson (Gateshead/Souths) and Mark Evans (Melbourne Storm/ Harlequins RUFC - Closely aligned with Harlequins RL). They discuss expansionism within SL and licensing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07f1k8m It also discusses why SL needs to be run by non club chairmen. The discussion is very interesting including why Toronto will not work and it would be better for Toulouse to be promoted, why we should be concentrating on strengthening the M62 corridor clubs and why Bradford should be given a license for SL. They also mention the fact that most NRL teams are also losing money and are supported by their fruit machine business.

A very good 5Live podcast with Shane Richardson (Gateshead/Souths) and Mark Evans (Melbourne Storm/ Harlequins RUFC - Closely aligned with Harlequins RL). They discuss expansionism within SL and licensing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07f1k8m It also discusses why SL needs to be run by non club chairmen. The discussion is very interesting including why Toronto will not work and it would be better for Toulouse to be promoted, why we should be concentrating on strengthening the M62 corridor clubs and why Bradford should be given a license for SL. They also mention the fact that most NRL teams are also losing money and are supported by their fruit machine business.

14-16 Viable clubs....have you been at the sherry? I never said it was the "silver bullet", but SL currently only has maybe a half dozen "viable" teams and the best way to get the other 10 or so up to speed is with a competition that will appeal to sponsors and fans alike.
London Playing Wakefield 3 times a year isn't what sports fans want.....they want to see different grounds, not be visiting the same place over and over again.
The system I posted gave the sides 15 home games with a minimum of 11 of those games against different opposition before the play-offs, as well as visiting 11 different grounds as well.
Let's say Halifax are in the same conference as Saints and Wigan....it is 100% the responsibility of the Club to fill the Shay and not just expect fans to flock to the games. As it stands, very few RL clubs market themselves of the game very well and as such, we chop and change the system to suit the bigger clubs who just want more home games, but a conference system would give the "minnows" a chance to grow.....it might take a decade, but you'd see the dominance of the top clubs be challenged and that's what the game needs.....we aren't soccer and we can't keep a system where relegation often means bankruptcy....London went down and were only still in business the following year because of Hughes.....Bradford went with them and plummeted......Widnes went down look at them now.....if HKR were to go down, I'd fear for their chances too and given it's likely that Toronto will buy their way to SL safety, another team faces the "black hole" in 2020.
Bradford, Widnes, Workington, Oldham, Halifax and Leigh have all been relegated and face financial issues as a result. Salford, Huddersfield and London are the only ones who survived with the help of a financial Backer so you could argue that the only team to successfully bounce back are Castleford.....and let's not forget the club such as Crusaders and PSG who fell or vanished, or the "megers" that saved some clubs.....we've chopped and changed and at every turn it's been for short term gain and without a long term strategy, we'll be doing the same in 20 years time....

I used to hate 'Licensing' & with good reason *because it was corrupt* however the way things are currently I now believe licensing could be the way forward !

FWIW I would admit the following Clubs with notice to be SL ready for 2022 .....

Leigh *my Club*
Bradford
Toulouse
Widnes

In addition I would admit Toronto from 2021 regardless of P&R results

Obviously this would give 17 teams if none are to be relegated or lose a licence place, however the NRL coped with this & for a short period so could SL, that is until a further Canada/U.S.A club is ready !

Leigh, Bradford and Widnes have tried, and failed.

How many games do you want the clubs to play each season ??
Also, with the game "desperate" to expand into N.America, what mechanism would you have for admitting additional clubs and what is your limit for the number of clubs in the top flight.
Remember, the old first division had 16 clubs when it finished and SL used to have 14 clubs, which was deemed too many, hence the cut to 12.
Personally, 14 clubs with a balanced fixture program looks about right and to avoid increasing the number exponentially, there needs to be relegation and promotion from The Championship.
The current format may not be ideal but, at least if your club gets relegated, there is a way back (at least theoretically).
Franchising will create some winners but, it would also preclude some clubs with genuine aspirations to play top flight rugby.

I've said numerous times that we should have moved to 14 clubs when the last change took place and it's mickey poor that those running the sport couldn't sell this idea to Sky, which maybe demonstrates the lack of appeal which is offered by our all new trans-Atlantic game ?

And after all, it's important after a setback to never have another chance. That's a cracking philosophical approach for a misanthrope.

No they haven't.

Well speaking as a Bradford fan we never won anything in SL as I recall. Utter failure year in year out.

Leigh, Bradford, Toulouse, Widnes would all add something to SL.

There is no middle ground in SL due to not being enough clubs in it, you are either in the playoffs or relegation battle and that in itself is no good for the sport.

If you are unfortunate to be in a relegation spot the target should be aiming for safety and not the playoffs. the target should be realistic and achievable.

Plus, the variety of matches now on Sky is awful and must be affecting viewing figures, if I have to watch Leeds or Castleford again im going to cancel my subscription.

There needs to be more variety and in my opinion 16 teams would be ideal.

Maybe not in SL, but Bradford was a class act for years and I for one miss watching the style of rugby the played.

Surely, what we have now with every game being important (either for the relegation battle or for a play off spot) is EXACTLY what the sponsors and Sky would want, allowing them, theoretically at least, to promote every game ?
The middle ground, where there is "nothing" on the game, means that there will be less interest from Sky and the viewers alike.
Which game would you rather watch ?
I'm ok with adding the sides that you mention but, how many games do you want in the regular season and you dont seem to be making any allowance for the influx on N.American clubs.

The thing to remember here is, that it's pro sport and not school sports day and not everyone gets to win.

Fundamentally, we either have franchising and a closed shop top flight or, some form of promotion and relegation, which means that someone will be unhappy every season. Equally, the promoted side will be happy, ying and yang.

I think your misunderstanding, aiming for the middle ground does give you something to play for? It means that there is something between the playoffs and relegation, something worth fighting for.

London could this year get relegated on the highest points total of any team in the SL era, and they have been brilliant, a breathe of fresh air with a team that predominantly came up from the championship and I don't think that is fair, Leigh were relegated in 2017 and didn't even finish bottom, they played decent rugby that year just like London and beat all the top 4 teams.

I believe 14/16 teams gives that small tolerance whereby teams like London/Leigh/Toulouse/York/Bradford can be promoted and set their target as "safety" and not "playoffs" which is probably unrealistic. it gives them time to consolidate.

16 Clubs currently in the NRL & they are looking to expand into Perth. While the NRL is by far more professional than SL you can set a timetable & platform for clubs on the cusp/fringes of SL to be SL ready with a guarantee of acceptance given achieved mandatory requirements.

Something along those lines would provide those clubs with SL ambitions who are 'almost there' to apply the necessary frameworks & make investments to be SL ready within a timetable.

Widnes finished bottom twice & on both occasions Hull K.R & then Leigh were relegated via the MPG. While I would re-admit Widnes *requirements met* their reward for being the worst team in SL was another year in SL !!!

As a point of pedantry, Huddersfield we’re bottom after 23 rounds the year we went down. Widnes were up in 7th.

Widnes were not a SL club when they gained a licence and it was partly through the use of some creative accounting to boost their turnover figures that they did so. Such financial manipulation rarely ends well - see also Greece adopting the euro.

I love it when people try and look clever by using words totally incorrectly/inappropriately.

I will predict that the next club to join will be from Queensland post 2020. Currently 5 Queensland clubs have put forward an intention to apply for any future expansion opportunity.

Shouldn't that be "try TO look clever"?

The way I write is the way I write. It isn't an affectation designed to "try" to look like anything. I believed your recent posts were misanthropic in nature so I said as much. I'm not sure what spelling or usage errors you identified but please do let me know. I am horrified at the notion of you finding my posts to be a Floccinaucinihilipilification. Perhaps I am mortally afflicted with sesquipedalianism.

If we expand to 16 teams the sky money will be diluted and clubs will go bust

Only if you assume a zero-growth model, which is the last thing we should be assuming.

I don't think that we should expand to 16 (or indeed 14 for that matter) because I don't think we have enough talent to maintain the quality of competition, but "clubs will go bust because they aren't increasing revenue from other income streams" is the last reason why we shouldn't do something to improve the sport.

What do we think will happen when the Sky money is lowered next contract time?

Then I'd give Sky Sports Arena a wide berth, tonight.

That's the biggest issue for me, there's not enough talent in today's competition, compared with say 5 years ago, and it's light years away from 10 years ago.
If we get any increase on the previous TV deal it will be a huge relief, as they're (and the customer sat in front of their TV sets) paying for an inferior product.