It should happen but it won't.

Two full time tiers with promotion/relegation. SL currently get 1.4m pa on an even split, SL2 would get £620k with the 4 dropping and the 100k from the championship clubs coming up, more if Sky will tip a bit more in for an extra game a week.
27 games with a play off for promotion, top 4. 1 v 2 winner to GF, 3 v 4 winner plays loser game 1 to make final. Could make 13 home and away and a 'magic' fixture
Increase intensity at top whilst expanding the FT player pool, remember Hill and Hardacre were playing Championship very recently.

its a great idea, obviously some teething problems to be sorted but lets face it sl as it is has some fairly long in the tooth problems anyway

teams from sl1 would get better crowds... if they did play everyone 3 times e.g. 13 home and away plus magic weekend we are probably cutting out our 4 lowest home gates of the year and replacing them with potentially an extra wigan at home, saints at home, leeds at home etc (exluding catalans)

teams in sl2 might lose a payday because they won't be visited by the teams that actually take a decent away crowd but perhaps actually competing for something might boost salford's, london's home support a bit as long as they publicised both the leagues well, i.e. better than they currently publicise sl please

There isn't enough players of sufficient quality to support a 14 team league, and I doubt whether there would be enough money to support 20 teams.


Would that be me?

Lose two teams and the magic weekend. 12 team league where everyone plays everyone else home and away (22 games) then each team keeps their points as the league is split into top 6 and bottom six where they play 10 more games (everyone in their 'half' home and away).

As I see it there is only two negatives. Firstly you could argue that the bottom six teams have nothing to play for in the last third of the season - but isn't that pretty much the case as it is now anyway (at least this way then towards the end of the season they are more likely to be playing teams of a similar standard each week = more competitive/interesting games for supporters). Secondly you would have to lose the playoffs unless you wanted a ridiculously long season.

The positives. Every club know before the season kicks off that they will play 32 league games, 16 of them at home. Sky can start their season end buildup from round 18 or so when they start their "will they or won't they" make the top six. The last 10 weeks of the season consist of 3 top games each week contested by the best 6 teams in the competition. Champions are champions because they are the best team over the course of the whole season, not just able to get 'up' for the really big games. Best teams generally are the best because they have the better players. Better players generally make up the bulk of the international side. Playing higher intensity games for 10 weeks out of 10 can only help to battle harden the players when it comes to playing the Aussies.

I love the idea of two leagues of ten - SL1 & 2. Nine home games, nine away games and choose a number of development area grounds for 9 'on the road' games which means each team plays each other 3 times - home, away, neutral. That gives newcomers a number of games to get to know the sport in their area. They could do cheap season tickets for those who want to watch all 9 on the road games.

Just make it one tier, and 10 teams.

It would be great to do this, if the money were available and the clubs outside the current 14 had the structures, market value and ability in the boardroom to make it work.

They don't and it won't. I fear the RFL might be convinced to try it by idealistic flatcappers who reflect on an era that never existed.

Not sure I understand. If you have a div 1 & 2, surely you have your 'one tier of 10' anyway ?

I imagine Sally was being sarcastic, but this is exactly what will happen - no bold talk of a 2-tier SL will change the fact that it will be the top league of 10 being SL and the next 10 will simply be the new Championship that Sky will not care about in the slightest. It's completely pointless. Reduce SL to 10 teams and we will only get the money for 10 teams, it's as simply as that.

Clearly the RFL clubs would need to sound out Sky about their thoughts on a 10 team SL. Would they reject it out of hand though ? If you had all teams playing each other 3 times, Sky would get the required number of matches and games such as Wire vs London or Cas would be replaced with rather more attractive games against Saints and Wigan.
If I was working for Sky, that would at the very least merit careful consideration.

As far as the second division are concerned, yes you could call it the Championship, but the important factor is that they would receive more money. That would make these clubs more viable and give them a better chance of building their club into a more robust, self sustaining business. At the moment I would suggest that the gap between SL and Championship is just too large to bridge, even with the licence period that they are granted.

You can call the two leagues anything you like, but the reality is the second division will not command anything like the same interest as the first and TV revenue will be split accordingly. This would be a relegation out of Super League for four teams, not a promotion into it for six. The second division will still be that even if you do give it a nice shiny "Super League 2" branding.

It seems to me to be an attempt at reducing SL to ten clubs without admitting it. This may or may not be a good idea - I know plenty of people believe it is - but either way just be honest about it.

As an aside, it's easy for people on here - with our club probably stronger than it's ever been in terms of bargaining power - to say "reduce the clubs in SL". We know that Warrington would make the cut even if it was reduced to six teams, nevermind ten.

If such a conversation was being had on the Salford, London, Castleford, Wakefield, Widnes and Hull KR boards it might be a slightly different story though. Possibly Bradford too given this year's issues.

Would we be so concerned about "the good of the game" if it possibly meant our club facing relegation or even the dreaded merger mooted in 1995? I highly doubt it.

I would certainly acknowledge that it is indeed demotion of 4 clubs at present. But these lower clubs are not playing SL standard rugby and their finances are 'the tail wagging the dog' at present. So the salary cap can not be raised to retain our better players, the RFL have to pay to keep Bradford in the league, and we have to reduce our youth training by 50% because the bottom clubs can not afford the £100k to run them. SL ought to be a lot more competitive and hopefully that will provide better games for speccies and TV.

But this is not the only result that comes from the change. People have long claimed that P&R should be brought back as an incentive, and this system would deliver it. Also, the second division / championship would have more money to spend on building their business and better players. It ought to reduce the big jump between the two leagues and at the very least reduce the yo-yo effect. This system at least attempts to address one of the major failings of the licence system at present.

I've never actually understood, in neither RL or footy, why leagues that aren't the top league are called "The Championship" when the Championship is the thing you win when you win the top league.


I like the idea of a twenty team Super League split into two divisions with promotion and relegation for one team each season. It may be the kick up the the game needs. I'd go for a top 5 or 6 play-off system in SL1. Then maybe have a three year cycle Liscencing System to try and give a other clubs ie. a Cumbrian club, for example, a chance to apply for SL2("on a Ragga tip", remember that one? haha!)

The one "merger" I would be in favour of is Whitehaven and Workington putting Cumbria back on the top table of RL. Don't get me wrong, I would never for one second suggest either club give up their own identity completely, but they could surely exist separately as Conference sides for example while pooling resources into a Cumbrian SL franchise.

Neither club is ever likely to play at the top level in their own right again, so surely the fans would support that motion if it brought Super League back to the region. A strong Cumbrian outfit would be great for the sport.

Absolutely, and I'd like to include Barrow in that too. Cumbria is very much a sleeping giant, a source of untapped talent with huge potential. If the fans would buy into it it would be great, alas I don't think they would unless total extinction was the alternative.

That's why I advocate them retaining their own identities at a lower level (similar to the Wizards in Warrington) rather than give them up altogether, but uniting behind a Cumbrian banner for Super League.

That area is undeniably an RL heartland, but it's impossible to see top flight rugby being played there again unless they all come together to significantly boost the numbers behind it.

Well If my memory is correct, 'Cumbria' won the 9's competition this year, so clearly they can combine their club resources when they put their minds to it. Perhaps it is feasible to have a SL Cumbria team, but I suspect it would be a long shot.

On a different but related problem, the RFL site is highlighting the loss of some of the younger players in the UK to Oz (HKR player) and I see from the Wigan site that Hansen is now rumoured to go down under as well as Hock. Then their is Briscoe, who may leave at the end of next season. So it certainly looks as though the movement of players to Oz is gaining momentum. Perhaps Yed's suggestion that SL needs to modestly increase the salary cap may need to be revisited ? I assume the RFL keeps a track of the numbers moving, it would be interesting to see them.

Who's going to pay for it?

As for Cumbria - I can't see it. People always claim it's "a hotbed of RL with huge potential" etc. But is it? OK, yes the area does produce a decent amount of players, many of whom go on to the highest levels. But, you need more than a decent player pool to make a decent SL club. In fact, arguably you don't even need that - look at us. Warrington is not over-blessed with RL clubs. At junior level especially, Warrington is firmly a soccer town. Many of our u20s players are recruited in from Wigan, St Helens, Halton, Yorkshire and yes, Cumbria.

What you need to make a SL club are: Fans, strong commercial support and, ideally, a wealthy backer. Cumbria would struggle on the first and there is no evidence to suggest they'd fare any better on the other two than any of the existing SL clubs, many of whom who are finding it really tough, even when they do well for fans.

Cumbria played England a couple of years ago for the Garry Purdham match. It was reported that the game had attracted a "huge" passionate crowd from all over the county. The size of the "huge" crowd? 5,000.

Cumbria is a geographically large, low-density rural county. There is no way it could generate the crowds needed for a strong SL club.

Nonsense. Each of Workington and Whitehaven have 25,000 population, while Castleford only has 37,000. Granted, Cas are struggling at the moment but they are currently in SL and have managed so far. Barrow have a population of 70,000, bigger than Cas and Widnes and nearly as big as Wakefield.

I don't know what these Cumbrian teams need to do to get into SL, but they have the population to do it, so all this talk of merging is ridiculous. I suspect the answer as to why they can't reach SL is that like the rest of the non-SL teams they don't get a cut of the Sky TV rights...

Aren't Castleford actually the best supported team in RL in terms of average crowds compared to the population of the town? Given that they don't have much of a catchment area due to the close proximity of so many other clubs they do well to sustain as they do.

As I said before, I use the "merger" term loosely because I don't actually advocate Whitehaven, Workington and possibly Barrow (although I think that might be too far away from the other two towns) actually sacrificing their own identities completely. I don't think they're ever likely to get into Super League in their own right though, and surely the people there would get behind a Cumbrian franchise if it could bring top flight rugby back to the region.

Yes, that might mean the existing clubs accepting demotion to Conference level and a more "junior" status, but that in itself would provide a platform for players to look to represent their home town as youngters before progressing to Super League level with their county if they're good enough, rather than have to leave Cumbria altogether as they do now.

Currently if either Whitehaven or Workington were to get to SL (which could only happen via a return to P&R and a big improvement for either club on the pitch) then obviously only their own supporters would go and watch them. Given that all those factors are quite unlikely to come together any time soon though, I'm sure the people there might be open to uniting behind one "neutral" Cumbrian club at Super League level and their historic club at amateur level rather than plodding around the lower reaches and watching SL on telly as they do now.

On saying all that though, I do acknowledge SEB's points as being fairly difficult to argue with!

The difficulty with any cumbrian team is where do they play. A rotating schedule of grounds never works and would require 3 SL standard grounds in Cumbria.

Basing them in any one Cumbrian town defacto makes that town the SL side and the rest of Cumbria would not get a look in.

So there can be no joint venture unless they play in a completely different town to the 3 current pro/semipro sides.

If there was a joint Saints/ Wire team that played every game in St Helens, it could be called the Cheshire team, but in the end how many Warrington fans would follow that, rather than follow the Wire team and want them to gain promotion back to the top league in their own right.

Everyone outside can see the sense in a merger, or a grouping of talent, but sport is more than just the best financial deal. It's about tribal followings.

Cumbria could never work with a single team. Barrow / Workington and Whitehaven supporters wouldn't accept it - just in the same way as the mergers at the start opf SL didn't proceed.

2 leagues of 10 ? Not for me. 1 league of 14 is too much.

I do worry for the sport as the finances as so perilous - and whether we like it or not Sky have been a saviour. The problem is that many clubs have wasted the money.

I appreciate that sports teams are different to normal businesses but they should at least try to break even - with or without a benefactor.

Warrington have to be very thankful for Simon Moran and to the council for their support, but the club is at least trying to make it's assets work for it 24/7.
Not many other clubs are doing that.
Leeds are one of the few others

So at last we agree then SEB. We should give up on the failed London SL team as they don't satisfy the requirements either?



I notice that crowd is 25% higher than a recent Wales vs England international held in Wales....



Whereas Wales is an urban metropolis by comparison.


Basically what I am pointing out SEB is that your arguments against Cumbria could be used against London and Welsh SL viability. I'd say give Cumbria another go. It was 16 years ago they last had a chance. London has had since 1980. Wales blew it.

Wales could have worked if it'd been given more time to build in the lower divisions, London will never have proper crowds (although they do come up with half-decent players occasionally), and I believe Cumbria (preferably Barrow) would work if given a chance.