[urlhttp://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/wolves/wolvesnews/10007040.Gatcliffe_favours_two_tiers_of_10/?ref=twtrec[/url

Hmmm.

Call me cynical, but one league of 10 sounds like 4 teams being dropped from SL to the next division. I think the interesting point of discussion here though is what will the Sky money split be between the two divisions ?

On the playoff crowds, it looks as though they are looking at the possibility of reducing gate fees for ST holders. So crudely; 14,000 speccies paying half price may be as good as 7,000 paying full price ?

Crickey Charlie, why not look at it as 6 teams get 'promoted'? Could perhaps work if the 20 teams all benefit from regular Sky payments and the difference is made up from additional performance related pay...prize money. get promoted to SL1 have a boost. Get relegated to SL2 your basic money is safe. What did they do in Cricket?

Not sure how play offs will work depends on number of rounds, could trhe winner of SL2 play the bottom of SL1 in a play off. hasnt Thelonius Monk previously advocated split leagues and a spiced up play off system?

There's all sorts of possibilities, at least he recognises that there are problems that need to be addressed? We need to keep the game interesting without being so radical it becomes a joke.

Anyway get back to your decorating ha ha

Slowly coming around to two leagues of 10 with the top two playing off in Semi finals and a final. Each team plays the teams in their league home and away (18 games) and teams from the other league once either home (5) or away (5) making 28 games in total.

It's the only way to make playoffs more acceptable

Ahh do you see it as two 'equal' leagues? If this is so how do you balance the leagues to start with and doesn't that rule our P&R, , or am I missing the point?

Agree with a reduced play off structure no matter what

I am having a comfort break from my painting. Or, to be really honest, the wife has gone out shopping and left me unsupervised.



At the moment, I think each SL club gets 1.1M. If we have 20 clubs all in SL but split into two divisions, it would mean each club got 330k less. And the changes to the youth system were primarily implemented to save clubs like Cas 100k. So the loss of 330k would be a big blow for a lot of clubs. At the moment, I can not get my head around where this ££ will come from ? I mean all 20 clubs would need to field SL standard players in order to compete surely ?, so the wage bill for clubs like Leigh, Fax, Fev and Barrow will have to be paid from where ? Or have I misunderstood. Has the paint solvent addled my brain.

Chaz, I don't think you have misunderstood at all and far be it for me to point out that i think you have as the original article is unclear how it could be handled, perhaps two tier and P&R gives it away? Although I don't know whether the Doc was suggesting it could be a Conference system like American Football?

On the cricket analogy will Lancs get less basic cash now they are in CC2?

I've always marvelled at your accountancy skills, but, wouldn't the 6 'promoted' teams bring with them some TV cash to offset the net loss, should the current 14 team deal remain as is?

We can't afford to support 14 SL teams so move to 20 SL teams over 2 leagues? I'm baffled. Have I missed some extra revenue stream here?

Or is Gatcliffe trying to reduce "top tier Super League" so we get bigger dividends and just basically relegating 4 teams to a re-named Championship? But then why P&R as the gap would still be too big causing the same yo-yo effect as last time? Confused.

That's the thing. Can you honestly see Fev, Leigh, Fax, Sheff, Barrow & Toulouse being worth another £1M in TV revenue per year to fund a 20 team/2 tier SL from Sky?
Without serious competition from ESPN/Premier Sports I honestly can't.

"Turkeys voting for Christmas" by the 4 'relegated' teams? Presumably Mr Gatcliffe has a cunning plan

I agree Alf it was a 'tongue in cheek' number crunching excercise.

I don't know what the figures are, but, surely they are getting some TV cash which will reduce the net 'loss' or add into the SL pot whichever way you want to look at it. If for example the 6 'promoted' clubs 'throw' in £0.5m from their previous deals, then Charlies net loss of £330k is reduced by £150k per club still a lump I know....I''ll get my coat

No, no need to get your coat. I think between us we have come to the conclusion that the second group of 10 would have to be 'division 2' . But they would get a bit more money (as there are only 10 clubs in Div 1) and perhaps further TV money can be brought in by selling additional matches ?.

So financially, the second division could be better off than the current Championship, hence promotion to the top division would not be such a big jump (yo-yo effect reduced) ? Certainly the prospect of promotion would galvanise support at Championship level for this sort of plan, and similarly those SL clubs that were relegated would still have a chance to get back (voting for X-mas ameliorated). ????

It would have to be a two tier set-up, since dividing the top twenty teams along regional lines wouldn't work as there aren't enough clubs this side of the Pennines to make it feasible. Wire, Wigan, Saints, Salford, Widnes, add in London, Catalans & Leigh and you're still two short.
Plus how would a ten team division work anyway? Each other home and away is only 18 games - playing every other team once more makes 27, but means some teams would have 14 home games and others only 13

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.