if no teams change league after the middle 8s then the rfl will have to give up on this stupid system and revert back to one up one down for the 2017 season

well said

Idea to replace middle 8 if decided its s failure.

Bottom of SL goes down, top of championship up.
Next bottom in SL plays second in championship....... two legged tie

3rd and 4th bottom and 3rd and fourth in championship simply lose revenue from any future games......... unless

To avoid any yoy-yo effect, any promoted championship side has a 1 year exemption unless they finish bottom (bottom automatically goes down). They will be replaced in the play-off by the lowest ranked team not exempted.

Might sound complicated initially but which new system doesnt. Mean the penalty for being REALLY crap is relegation, whereas the penalty for being "only just good enought to stay in SL again" might be a playoiff for survival.

After 2 seasons? Give over.

So how's it going to work with toronto?


The only thing the system has made me smile about is Hetherington pushed for this and now it's smacked hin in the face

Only thing that will beat that will be leeds relegated but it won't happen as all championship clubs are still too far behind superleague clubs

While I'm not the biggest fan of the super 8's, whether a team gains promotion or not it needs to be given a lot longer before a decision is made to change yet again. The franchise system was scrapped too early, before we could really tell how effective it was going to be.

Having said that, if we were to go to a new system, I would like to see promotion/relegation every other year, with a decent parachute payment to the relegated team, and the parachute payment awarded to the championship winners in a year there is no promotion.

Hetherington wanted licensing. He did not want this. This is a halfway house system.

But even though I'm not in agreement with it, any system should be given far longer than 2 seasons. If the Championship teams can't win a one off game to get promoted then they need to improve. The new funding enables them to compete with the bottom end of SL now.


As for Toronto well, if they get to the Championship and then get promoted, firstly it'll prove that the system can allow movement between the leagues and then they'll either be exempt like Catalans were or will be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

So in reality if the championship sides get exempt for one season it's possible a team that finished 6th would have to play a relegation play off not likely it could happen but possible it was a good idea until you put in an exemption

12 teams...... bottom team (say ex SL team) relagated
11th ... championoship under exemption
10th ..... championship under exemption
9th ..... SL team playing in the "play off game"

Only teams under the bottom 4 would face possible relegation. Like I said this is just a "for those who claim the salary disparity"

Maybe the comment losing revenue threw it. Losing review simply because they havent got a top 8 game (or eauivalent) and dont face a relegation battle.

The only plus point for the new system is that it maintains interest for fans of the bottom 4/5 clubs, rather than maybe having nothing to play for after half a season.
It's a little unfair to say that the Championship Clubs should improve in oreder to compete in the MPG.
If we had a 1 up 1 down system (and should they gain promotion with the current system) their team would change significantly in the close season in readiness for SL.
In an ideal world, the gap between the different leagues would be smaller and maybe this would allow for straight forward promotion and relegation.
However, with the sport trying to expand, the most sensible option would be some sort of franchise system, which could allow for new clubs to enter the competition plus allowing the clubs to improve their junior development (something that appears to be slipping already).

I quite like the Scottish football system. Bottom and top change places and then 2-5 in championship have play-offs, play-off winner plays 11th in premiership and winner goes up/stays up. So definitely 1 promotion and maintains the interest a bit longer with possibility of a second.

I agree though now the top Championship clubs get much higher funding so should be able to compete.

Ideally I'd love the sport to be strong enough to sustain regular P&R but sadly it's nowhere near. That's why I'd also go for a version of licensing. Though not the rubbish attempt at it we had from 2009-2014.

I'd have 10 year licences. With clubs monitored annually and with a full assessment at years 3 & 6. Encourage clubs to put longer term plans into place. I'd assess all aspects of a club with the biggest aspect being junior production and marketing/engagement/whatever you want to call it. Targets would be given to all clubs for all aspects.

At the end of the 10 year licence, the worst 3 clubs would be compared to prospective Championship clubs, who would also have been given targets to achieve and will also be assessed on those targets.

A SL club would have to be very poor in a lot of areas to be kicked out though could be put on notice for the next licence period.
A Championship club, if deemed good enough, could be added to the competition.

Id have a sliding scale of TV money payments, and extend the marquee allowance to 3 (and change the cap limit on it so it helps poorer clubs too) but if you want more than 1 marquee player you have to pay a tax of the equivalent of 50% of those players wages to the RFL for a central marketing and development fund.

I'd also scrap regular season tickets and have an RL one.

I'd keep the system as it is but scrap the MPG. A championship club is very unlikely ever to win it and, for the winning SL team it's just a celebration of absolute mediocrity. The middle eight should play play each other as now and the lowest placed SL team is relegated, the highest placed champ team is promoted irrespective of relative positions. Every game would definitely matter in that system.

After 10 years under licencing no Championship club would be anywhere near in a position to displace a SL club

Wouldn't it just

Leigh were after 6. With similar funding to now and a second cup competition and RL season tickets to help boost the Championship event games.

Also, they don't even have to displace an SL club. Just prove they're worthy of inclusion. Then they'd have 10 years to justify their place. 10 years is nothing in the life of a club and is the kind of time frame we need clubs to be building plans for and with 10 years of guaranteed funding and the right incentives we can at least attempt to maximise our clubs potential rather constantly shifting funding/priorities/incentives.

Similar funding as what ?

Leigh's gates were down to under 1300

We had a second cup

Explain how a RL season ticket would work ?

And your crowds really jumped when you started winning the league and playing good rugby.

Not a cup involving SL teams.

I've explained my thoughts on a possible RL season ticket before. It has its own thread a page or so back.

No they starting jumping when the return of on field promotion was announced , also when we then got an investor who was willing to invest because there was on field promotion , at Leigh we do not believe we would /will ever be given a licence , this includes the investor

So no on field promotion , no investor , no SL

So a second Challenge Cup ? , I'm sure that'll work

No idea , can't find it

Am I the only one who quite likes this system?

It gives Championship clubs who may have been unlucky with injuries through the season or for a final a real genuine chance at not only getting into the mix with it being four potential promotion spots, but also progressing themselves even if they have a strong challenger also looking for promotion.

I think Wakefield's recruitment policy last year will have opened eyes (see Soward) to show you can invest earlier to make a go of the middle 8's with less risk than hoping on a one off game, and then having a few short months of chaos in the old one up-one down system where you had to change virtually your entire squad after most decent players had already been snapped up.

There is the obvious big gap that last year showed, but I think over time, Championship clubs and players getting regular games against SL sides can only be a good thing, and besides, if they can't compete for four spots, then the club isn't strong enough to be in SL anyway.

The biggest problem in RL is the constant chopping and changing and never seeing anything through. Licensing/franchises are all well and fine, but it makes for a closed shop and the opportunity to fail without potential recourse (look how the RFL bottled threats of legal challenges last time), this way at least it forces the bottom 4 SL clubs to realise they have to compete. It will only take someone like London going up having invested in Soward to give Championship sides confidence that it can be done.

Alternatively, you could promote the top Championship club as of right, which would give a much clearer incentive to ALL Championship clubs.

I do agree with you about the sport chopping and changing too much (this is called being innovative at Red Hall

)
Going back to promotion under the new system, surely there was no better chance than last season when Trinity were miles behind the rest of SL but, still too strong for the Championship pretenders ?

One up, one down, or even two would be ideal, but short of a rich owner bankrolling a club, I think we've seen the sport just isn't strong enough to support that either financially or from the talent pool.

Re: Wakefield last year, going into it, absolutely, but I meant the way they brought players in for the middle 8's specifically was a game changer for how clubs will approach it now. It'll still be a challenge though.

It still makes me chuckle when people mention "all of the players that came in".
The biggest 2 signings were Tim Smith & Kevin Locke and I think we'd all rather forget about those 2.

Plus, the transfers came about with the appointment of Brian Smith, who cam in when Trinity had won only 2 games and many of the squad changes happened well before the middle 8's.

The big thing was, James Webster telling the world that we'd effectively written the season off and that Trinity were going to prepare for the middle 8's.

Although everyone knew that Trinity were certainties to finish bottom, from a very early stage in the season, the head coach of a professional sporting club should never come out with this type of comment and it was a real kick in the teeth for all of the supporters.

Having said all that, the fault was not with Wakefield, the fault is with the system, which still allows for the same level of transfer activity. Therefore, the same thing can still happen, euither to struggling SL clubs or Championship clubs that want to roll the dice.

Whatever we think of the current system, we have to just stick with it for a few years now, another panic change would be a joke. I do agree that they should looked at the transfer situation with regard to the new system, and see no reason why that couldn't be tweaked.

I have no idea. It's been ten years since I checked the bottom of the league