I understand that but, that helps the relegated Club how?

Having their better players contracts become void so that they can get snapped-up as squad players for those SL teams in danger of the same thing. Leaving the relegated Club in a far worse position, player-wise, as they would struggle to retain any players that they may want to keep.

P&R is the ultimate solution, but is it the right solution at this time? There is too much of a gulf between the best Championship sides and the bottom few teams in the SL. How is making the Competition less competitive better for the game? It's fine if you're a top five Club who is largely unaffected by any changes except it's extra 'free-money' with two less teams. You're reducing the professional player pool again when it is already pretty short atm. What effect would that have? Would SL teams be forced to bolster numbers from Championship sides? That sounds fine in practice but then how do Championship sides retain players to gain promotion? The licensing system has been a farce with regards to entry into the elite Club and what warrants staying in it, but not having P&R has helped Catalans, Hudds, and Widnes become possible contenders. Even Salford have benefited in that if we would have been relegated we wouldn't have attracted Koukash to the table. Us simply being in SL has helped us, hopefully, to be contenders in the next year or two.

I'm not against P&R but things need to be thought through before changing them.

Well I suggested elsewhere that the promoted side are given one year without the threat of relegation, we previously had the situation where the promoted team couldn't start recruitment straight away so were lagging behind. To prevent the notion of yoyo teams (us in previous incarnations of the league) that buffer year would allow for recruitment and the gradual blooding of younger talent.

There has to be something mid season international (or if you like rep rugby like in the NRL), we can't expect a GB team too play say 3 meaningful games per season and compete with players from NZ & Australia when they play at a higher intensity week in week out, play mid season tests on ANZAC day and the cream of the Aussies play SOO.

The GB thing for me is a no brainer, still have the home nations event but make that for fringe players to show their wares on a slightly higher level and give them the goal of a GB test jumper to aim for.

I don't get the incentive thing, professional sportsmen get paid to play a game so for me every game should demand the same level of effort from them. The simple answer is there is an increase in prize money the higher up the table you finish that should then be channeled to the players thus making it more lucrative for them to finish higher up the league.

That’s all well and good but surely that would create a huge disadvantage of attracting better players to lower standing clubs. Players may be reluctant to commit to a club they consider a risk in preference to a higher standing club. This could create further disparity in the game with players accepting less money from a higher standing club simply because it’s a safer long-term option.

This would be an unfair obstacle in the player recruitment process.

To answer your question, however, all responsible directors should include a clause in player contracts giving the club the option to terminate the contract if the club ceases to be in the current division (ie if it is relegated).

They Do ! Current SL contracts no matter how long state that if the club you are contracted to lose SL status then the contract is terminated and you are a free agent. It is one of the conditions a player abides to when he signs.

Yes but there is a big difference between signing a 2 year contract with a club that has a 3 year franchise license compared to one that could out of Superleague 12 months down the line.

Why not have all players employed by the RFL, funded by the licence fee for their basic salaries. Then clubs could bid extra funds for particular players to be contracted to them for a set period and pay win bonuses etc directly to the players
That way, the lower division clubs get something of a guarantee that players will be available, whilst the better off clubs still keep the ability to realise their ambitions by targetting the best players for their squads

Not sure where you are coming from there.......a better example would be a player signing a 3 year contract with a SL club with 2 years left on the clubs SL Franchise.
If the club was to lose its SL status the third year of the contract would be nullified.

Does anyone have the stats of how many promoted teams were relegated the year after during the promotion-relegation era of Super League?

Quote ="The Perry Boy"Does anyone have the stats of how many promoted teams were relegated the year after during the promotion-relegation era of Super League?'" markillsport.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... super.html

Quote ="The Perry Boy"Does anyone have the stats of how many promoted teams were relegated the year after during the promotion-relegation era of Super League?'" markillsport.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... super.html

That's an interesting read, and doesn't squash the fears I have of bringing P&R back too soon.

Butcher..i know my mate MR has me on his assassin list but I have to agree with him here.

The club finishing top of the pile are rightly Champions of that particular sport, those who finish below the cut off for staying in the division should give up their place and allow teams who have competed below them a chance.

Your argument about them being unable to compete in such a short period is valid but they shouldn't be denied that chance.

The way the structure is at the minute the top division is fundamentally a closed shop and doesn't encourage the teams below it to invest or develop themselves. You find that once the gap has opened up showing the potential playoff teams then the teams below eight place have nothing to play for both Salford ( and it isn't a dig) and London testimony to that this season.

Restructuring is a tough nut to crack as you will please some and not others but in this country we must be the only sport who turn it's back on Promotion and Relegation...I do stand to be corrected however.

Contracts should be binding whatever league a team ends up in , this way they can command a transfer fee and money is fed down to the lower leagues, giving more clubs the chance to survive financially

Jeez, you're like a cockstruck teenager when it comes to MR. Let it go man, let it go.


You're using the words 'club' and 'team' interchangeably, and they're not the same thing. You say you want the [iteam[/i that finishes top of the lower division to be given the chance at the higher division. So, do you want the [iclub[/i to be forced to take their place in the higher division with the [iteam[/i that got them there? If not, why not? If so, what do you think their chances would be in that higher division?


Another way of looking at it is to say that if you want the top division to be populated with the best clubs - and, surely, that's what the top division is meant to be about - then having a system where a better club can be replaced by a weaker one on the strength of one good and one bad season on the field seems massively flawed to me.


A closed shop that allowed Widnes in. Not a closed shop, in other words.


Is there another sport that promotes directly from a part-time division into its fully funded full-time top division?

I don't disagree with what you both want in an ideal world. I've said it on a number of occasions in that I can see lots of reasons why something wont work. I just can't provide any alternatives that I can't pick holes in either. I think it boils down to the fact that there is not an easy solution for everybody. I would like to see a really strong RL brand where Licensing is a thing of the past and P&R work. I just think that the gulf between Championship sides and even the worst SL sides are still too big for it to work. P&R will function as intended when there's parity to a certain degree between Championship sides and SL Sides. Don't mistake this as snobbery as I'm more inclining the notion towards parity between Clubs off the field than on it.

Other sports with P&R don't suffer the same off-field problems as RL does. This is because RL really is two-tier. It has a completely Pro top league and a Semi-Pro second league. It's a massive ask to turn a Club from semi to Pro status, especially when we are a sport not gifted with big finance. It works with football because there is four tiers. It's like asking a Blue Square Premiership side to compete in the Premiership. You don't even need to use such an extreme example. How about a Division two side (Fully Pro) playing in the Premiership? Championship sides struggle and they have a workable structure in place. The gulf between the top and the rest is too vast, at the moment, to make it workable. It will be returning to the way it used to be before licensing.

Like I said, I don't have any answers worthy of consideration, just a lot of potential problems. Like I said, I don't disagree with you in principal I just see the potential problems.

Indeed. The problem is not P&R [iper se[/i, but P&R between a part-time and a full-time competition when there is such a huge gulf between the two. Marshy1 - like all other advocates of P&R - tend to focus on the promoted team and ignore the relegated team, where the effects can be horrendous (Oldham, Workington, etc.). Do we really need to go back to that?

The fundamental problem we have is that there is not, at the moment, enough money in the game to fund more than a handful of full-time clubs, yet we need those clubs to be full-time or we run the risk of losing top players to the NRL and RU. It seems that rather than address the problem of lack of funds (SL still hasn't got a sponsor, remember), the RFL has chosen to tinker with the structure so it can be seen to be doing something. There just seems to be a complete lack of vision at the top levels of the game since Richard Lewis left.

Red John, its alright talking about vision, but the simple truth is that the bulk of the British public simply do not want rugby league. Is there a formula that will spread the appeal wider than the M62 corridor? All those years ago Eddie Waring and the BBC did their best but where are we now?

Is there a business plan anywhere that states what RL is actually working towards? If you don't know where you are going, how do you know if you've got there?

Red John...how much do I owe you.?
That is the best Psyco analysis I have seen on any forum, thank you.

But you got my drift.

I always wonder what the BBC would need to pay for the live rights to one game a week? The exposure that it could offer could help the SL bods attract proper title sponsors rather than a name of the side of a Transit.

That's the point I was making, and is the point Ian Lenegan has been making recently. The restructure of the league is of no interest to anyone outside of the M62 corridor, and the sport's top competition in the UK can't attract a sponsor. These should be the focus of the RFL, but instead it's indulging in a bit of navel gazing over P&R, which will, I think, be hugely detrimental to the sport (I strongly suspect we'll lose London next year, which puts us very firmly back in the 'Nuthen sport for Nuthen people' category).

It would be interesting to know where the RFL see the sport in 5, 10 and 20 years time, and what plans they have to get there.

That's a fair answer Butcher and one I do agree with.
It's very sad that RL has allowed itself to end up with a two tier system as you rightly describe.
The reason for this lands firmly at the point when Sky came on board which for most people meant the saving of RL. Personally I think apart from TV exposure it started the downfall.

Lenegan made some good points but ultimately I disagree with his main assertion. The number one priority for the RFL is to secure as much money as possible for TV broadcasting rights; this bankrolls the full-time professional era. The current deal with Sky expires in 2016. Whether or not because they were overstretched by the new Premier League rights contract, it is noticeable that Sky are cutting coverage elsewhere. There’s talk of Sky reducing its commitments with darts, for example, which has been a bit of a boon for them in recent years. It also lost out to Premier Sport for rights to the RL World Cup (if it even bid for them) and opted out of showing matches in the earlier rounds of the Challenge Cup. I doubt it was a coincidence that around this time talk of league restructure became serious — the RFL were spooked.

The new league restructure and resulting hype will kick-in around the time TV rights will come up for renegotiation. In effect, this is the RFL saying to Sky (or other suitors) ‘we’re still cool’ and ‘we can change’. So as for a long-term plan, it wouldn’t surprise me if there isn’t one. This is all about 2015.



We can argue about the relative merits of the full-time professional era but with hindsight it saved many clubs. Big clubs at that.

I have posted on earlier posts when the original restructuring plans were ' leaked' .
It's re arranging chairs on the Titanic
I fully agree with Chico's main point , Finance is the number one priority for the governing body .
for two seasons now we've had no money in from a Main Title sponsor ,
we've all but binned academy structure with DR
Now were basically losing 50-60 full time Playing roles by stripping two professional teams from SL
They won't increase the salary cap
they won't allow a marquee player nomination outside of the salary cap .

So the supposed aim of the restructuring is to improve the quality & competition
but this will not stop the issues the SL - RL currently experience

No more money coming into the comp
No increased revenue to attract more prestigeous players
no mechanism to halt the drain of our best SL players ( UK & Foreign ) back into the NRL - RU
A shortened league & PR will further curtail risk taking by putting academy lads into 1st team action
No emphasis on future academy spending for the next generation of SL players
just the same Sky money shared between the Haves... and a bone thrown to the have not's to join the table and /or starve trying

The more I hear and read about the proposed 2 leagues of 12 to be split into 3 leagues of 8, the more I like it. Suppose it was happening now at this stage of the season. The top league would comprise : Wigan, Huddersfield, Warrington, Leeds, Catalan, Hull KR, St Helen's and Hull. Presumably then, a top 5 play off.

The 2nd League would comprise : Wakefield, Bradford, Widnes, Castleford, Salford, London, Featherstone and Sheffield. The aim here, presumably is to get into the top two to be included in next years Super League of 12 teams. The remaining teams would be battling to get into the top 8 of their league to get into the 2nd division the following season.

This gives a chance for all teams to be promoted. Sounds like an exciting scheme and gives something for all clubs to aim for at the back end of the season.

It also gives a pathway for teams like Hemel and Oxford to ultimately achieve SuperLeague status and keeps existing top flight clubs fighting to retain their status.

Rugby League has always been an innovative sport. Long may it continue.

Sorry for being so positive about all of this.

I have to disagree.

The point is it's peace of mind for a player to sign a 2 year deal if the player knows the club have a franchise for the duration of his contract. If a player signs a 2 or 3 year deal with the threat of relegation he could find his contact is cancelled after 12 months.

I think under the current franchise system, it was more unlikely for a club to lose their license (at the end of the 3 year license period) compared to the threat under the new structure of a team actually being relegated every single year.

You don't have to be a risk assessor to realise that the franchise system gave players (especially those at lower standing clubs) more peace of mind.