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.

In the Hull area (East Yorkshire) soccer, Union are bigger with more players at grass roots, Doing nothing is probably the most popular than anything else wich is the main problem. NZ they are sport/rugby mad for either code & skills that transfer between codes.
Even in Yorkshire as a whole Union has far more grass roots players than League.

Sports bigger than RL in Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Hull and St Helens are: Football, Swimming, Golf, Cricket, Fishing and Rugby Union in terms of people playing the game at grass roots level! www.sportengland.org/research/active...2/idoc.ashx? Rugby League is well down the pecking order in terms of participation level nationally. Obviously percentage will increase in the Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Hull and St Helens but I doubt it is in the top 5. In terms of TV viewing figures even the CCF and Grand final are still behind Football, Test Cricket, Wimbledon, The Open and The Masters any of the big 3 Snooker finals, the grand prix and Rugby Union Internatioanls!!

Sports bigger than RL in Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Hull and St Helens are: Football, Swimming, Golf, Cricket, Fishing and Rugby Union in terms of people playing the game at grass roots level! www.sportengland.org/research/active...2/idoc.ashx? Rugby League is well down the pecking order in terms of participation level nationally. Obviously percentage will increase in the Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Hull and St Helens but I doubt it is in the top 5. In terms of TV viewing figures even the CCF and Grand final are still behind Football, Test Cricket, Wimbledon, The Open and The Masters any of the big 3 Snooker finals, the grand prix and Rugby Union Internatioanls!!

Jarvis you have compared a domestic finals match and a knock out cup final with some of the biggest international events you could find. How do the figures compare with the Domestic RU GF and knockout cup, the domestic cricket final, the domestics speedway/basketball/ice hockey etc finals, the tour of England cycle race, UK rowing finals......

Football, Test Cricket, Wimbledon, The Open and The Masters any of the big 3 Snooker finals, the grand prix and Rugby Union Internatioanls!!

Flippin eck. Anyone can fish for heaven's sake! The only legitimate comparison in that list is rugby union. There is no way that you will ever get the levels of participation in RL than you will in soccer, fishing, cricket, golf or swimming and that is solely because there are far fewer people who want to risk mortal injury. RU and RL are comparable sports because they both require a very similar kind of individual: that is, somebody prepared to risk mortal injury and who likes a collision sport that doesn't involve bashed up cars.

So where do you want to set the benchmark from. No of titles in the SL era ?
Most people would put Warrington in their top 4 at present, but they have only really come to the fore since Tony Smith took charge a few seasons back, crikey, when Lowes finished they were struggling in SL (and before the Wire fans sniff blood, I'm only using this as an example)
Similar for Huddersfield, really poor in SL until Smith took chare over there and then improved further in the last few years.
Therefore tell me how long we should go back and you must also be in favour of any kind of promotion from the lower leagues, as these teams have can only compete in NR cup and their own Grand Final.
It really hacks me off for the current top dogs to have a bit of success and then think they have the right to proclude other teams from having a chance.

Not all that long ago teame like Featherstone competed in the top flight before being "culled" and have been good enough to win the qualifying final, not to mention Halifax and the door has been slammed in their face.

Franchises are ok to a point, but the criteria can change to exclude "unfashionable" teams and this means that the sport itself, which is what we all pay to see, becomes contrived and no true sport.

England are second rate and have been for some time, so maybe we should exclude them from the top flight or at least bung them in the lower leagues, that way JP can jack in international RL and have a rest.

Or play France and Wales in a new Tri Nations.
Second rate team not good enough for the top flight and bring nothing to the comp, what have they won in the last 40 years. More double standards in RL

But most people would be comfortable, and you wouldnt get many Warrington fans would quibble with you adding the proviso that Warrington are a 'big club' at present. Huddersfield are probably in a similar position, as maybe Les Catalans as well. That they are big clubs 'at present' and it needs the consistency of another 10 years for them to simply be a big club.

The facts are that there are too many clubs in SL who havent been big clubs 'at present' for 20/30+ years and arent close, and havent been for a long while, and they arent getting closer. You mention Halifax who have 3 national finals in 40+ years, and featherstone who have only 1 national final in 35 years.

Personally i think most comparisons to pre '96 are a little meaningless, the structure of game changed massively with the move to professionalism, what it took to build a big club 'at present' changed massively with the advent of professionalism, what a club need to be able to compete with the top clubs changed hugely

Im not trying to do down these clubs or their history, they have proud histories but as I said, the current top dogs, have been the top dogs for a long time, and the clubs that have managed to join them (on the field Wire and Hudds off the field Hull FC aswell) have done have done so on back of a big investment.

I think the SL1 and SL2 idea is very feasible but some element of the franchise licenses has to be kept to ensure aspects such as facilities and youth development continue to improve. I'd award 3 year licenses using the current criteria to 22 teams and then allocate the best 10 in to SL1, the remaining 12 going in to SL2. SL1 would have a higher salary cap.

As for the format of the playing season, first off no relegation from SL2 but promotion/relegation between SL1 and SL2. Automatic promotion for 1st place of SL2 and automatic relegation for 10th place of SL1. I'd then have a 5 team playoff system to determine SL1 champions.

To make SL2 even more interesting there could be a playoff system between teams 2-5 with the winners facing the 9th place team of SL1 for a 2nd (albeit difficult) chance of promotion.

Quite



Personally i think most comparisons to post '96 are a little meaningless, the structure of game changed massively with the move to professionalism, what it took to build a successful GB or England side 'in the past' changed massively with the advent of professionalism, what England need to be able to compete internationally changed hugely.

Im not trying to do down GB/England and their history, they have proud histories but as I said, the current top dogs Australia, have been the top dogs for a long time, and New Zealand have managed to join them and have done have done so on back of a big investment in their players in the superior NRL.

You cant stand behind the 'swings and roundabouts' argument and the cyclical nature of sport when talking about a team like GB or England who havent won an international competition of note for over 40 years, It was a different world 40 years ago, never mind a different sport.

If we go back to the inception of SL, there was a clear pathway into the top flight, providing that the qualifying club met the minimum criteria. This was changed to the current franchise system to allow, first of all Catalans,and then more recently the Cusaders to come into the league, without having a rugby based foundation and largely filling their teams with overseas players.
We then turn full 360 degrees and try to put an increased emphasis on homegrown talent and whilst we have the franchise stytem in place it offers differing levels of "protection" to certain teams and whilst the Franchises are "awarded" based on a fair and calculated basis, there are always many disaffected parties when the awards are made.
We need to be brave enough to revert to the original promotion and relegation criteria with minimum standards to play in the top flight and this can include youth development and community aspects.
If this means at some point in the future that one of the "protected " clube or heaven forbid, one of the b"big" clubs dropping out then so be it. They would at least have a pathway back into the top flight if they ae good enough.
Financial controls could remain in place and the most positive aspect is that more of the championship clubs will strive to gain promotion, which may just encourage further player development, providine some restrictions on overseas players is in place.

Small point regardsing Featherstone, in particular. By forcing them to play in the second tier for the last 16 years, they have not had a realistic chance of major silverware although the have certainly had success in the Championship.
Its quite ridiculous to say that they haven't won SL or CC when they are having to ply their trade in a lower league.
Although Post Office Road is not SL standard. Game day and a full house over there was more atmospheric than many 1/2 full SL grounds and a better Rugby League experience.
Rather there than the Galpharm any day.

The problem now is the longer we have franchising, the bigger the gap has/will become and the less likely any Championship club will be able to bridge it

Widnes will be the last to manage it, there is no Current Championship club strong enough to move up , the bridge has effectively been raised , I really do fear for whichever club gets the promised place next time

Going back to Mr Peacocks original idea, it is an ' evening out ' of the sports pyramid, and ultimatley it might have to happen, as usual though, it comes down to money, the SL1 clubs would want to retain all the current SKY money, SKY would not want to pay as much for a smaller competition

It would probably depend on if SKY were willing to pay for what would be a ' glorified ' Championship operating on a full time basis with a salary cap of around 600/700 K a year, supplying one game a week along with 2 super,super league games as present

It will be interesting to see how Salford develop, and Cas and Wakey if/when they get their new stadiums, if they do a Warrington and grow their fan bases to a level allowing them to compete more evenly with the current top clubs, the SL will grow and become sustainable, if they do a Leigh or Doncaster, and things dont improve, then Jamie's idea might be the better option

Your own definition of a big club "Clubs who win and contest finals and championships" precludes most SL clubs from being "big" since there are only two finals every year unless perhaps you have some sort of cunning plan to rotate participation in finals and championships such that every club in SL is a "big club".

Somebody has to finish bottom Bill , something some seem to forget, not that it matters to them

England/GB have contested 3 out of 9 international finals since 1996, they can and do compete which is all i said other clubs didnt.

Though your standard trolling fare does get something right (which is a pleasant return to form from your recent nonense) in that since the advent of professionalism the southern hemisphere sides have moved further away because of the investment and there are more fundamental reasons other than the cyclical nature of sport as to why England/GB havent won anything in far too long.

They wouldnt have a realistic chance anyway, how can they sustainably put out a team at the level of clubs who have average attendances twice what Fev's stadium holds?

Most SL clubs arent big clubs, thats the point I was making. The same clubs have been the big clubs for a long long time and others dont and arent challenging.

Of the 3 out of 9 finals they actually qualified for during the SL-era, all at home I might add (really tough assignment given the 3 team nature of those competitions) did they really contest any of those finals and were they competitive? Scorelines of 4-44, 16-46 and 8-30 suggest they didn't and they weren't.


Ironic statement given the standard trolling fare of your posts. I'm sure you'll be eager to congratulate forward-thinking 'big' clubs like Leeds and their contribution to setting high standards in SL with the signings of two former Wakey rejects for 2012 and beyond.

Yes, they did clearly. I saw them, i was there, it was also on TV and everything.
It simply highlights and confirms my point even more that the signing of Moore and Griffin will likely be enough for Leeds to still be among the challengers.

No they didn't. They were an embarrassment. You'll be claiming they competed in the last two World Cup's next, despite losing 49-6 to New Zealand in 2000 and 52-4 to Australia in 2008.


Welcome to p[ii[/isspoor Super League standards from top to bottom.

I remember that one, got into the Reebok 8 minutes late, already 2 trys down, and game over