Fair shout that Maurice, i'd feel bad for Sheffield though. They get crowds of 1500+.

Would a winning team not be better for Quins and Crusaders? I'd put them in SL2 so their fans don't have to watch them keep getting battered.

SL2 sounds like a plan.

I have always liked the idea of the top 4 in the championship playing the bottom 4 of SL.
The results count to play off positions and to RnR criteria.
Woudl be much more intersting if the Champ was ful time to get the standard high enough to comete against lower SL teams.

Barrow would need a serious ground upgrade to be contenders.

Not to be in a SL2 they wouldn't,all they'll need is floodlights.

Great post, lots of thought gone into it.

I see. We're expecting much lower standards in SL2 then.

I AGREE A GREAT IDEA IN PRINCIPAL.

BUT HOW WOULD YOU DECIDE WHO LEAVES SL1 AND DROPS DOWN FAIRLY.

I SEE FROM DJ'S POST HES DROPPED WIDNES, SALFORD AND WELCHIES. WHAT IF WIDNES TAKE EVERYONE BY SUPPRISE AND DO WELL IN SL, THE WELCHIES CROWDS ARE GROWING, AND SALFORD ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE TO CHALLENGE 'BIG' SL TEAMS, HELL THEY BATTERED BRADFORD ON TV A FEW WEEKS AGO.

IM NOT SAYIN YOUR WRONG, JUST HOW WOULD THEY DECIDE?!

THE RFL HAVE WRECKED RL WITH ALL THIS, AND UNTIL THERE IS A MASSIVE SHAKE UP WITH SPONSORSHIP/TV MONEY IT ISNT GOING TO CHANGE.

You can still be a professional club playing out of a stadium that is not fit for SL1.

From a stadium point of view there would have to be lower standards.

Their are clubs in SL who have had millions thrown at them over the years and they are still playing out of stadiums which the RFL say are not fit for purpose.How are clubs down here on a third of the money suppose to improve there stadiums?.

Surely the idea of a SL2 is to help to produce more professional clubs and more high quality british players.

If a club like barrow win the right to be promoted but fail to meet the off field criteria then they will remain in SL2 until they meet them

Not that low.

Out of the clubs you mentioned, Barrow's ground is by far the worst.

The idea of franchising is to improve standards. Otherwise, what's the point ?

Its suppose to improve standards on the field as well as off it.

I suspect in the next ten years there will be clubs knocking on the door of a SL2 that currently dont exist in the pro game at the moment,if thats the case then clubs like barrow know they need to improve there stadium or they will be out.In effect what you will be doing is giving them extra money and the same breathing space as those clubs that have been lucky enough to be in SL for the best part of 16 years.

Some interesting views on this www.rlshop.co.uk/2-tier-super-league

Some interesting views on this www.rlshop.co.uk/2-tier-super-league

The questions begs though 'are the current SL clubs bothered about improving standards on or off the field' for without some 'punishment' for not meeting those conditions then is it not irrelevant?

But then I suppose it depends whether SLE gets rid of any of their member clubs in July.

Key point on the blog is "Funding from Sky would have to be increased".

What's in it for Sky ?



Great debate - but I can't see why Sky would want to finance anything but the cream. Last figures I heard for the Championship were around 400,000 viewers - I stand to be updated on this point but it's not exactly a dish-seller.

I thought that was the viewing figure for SL and the champ was about 60 thou and growing?.

Maybe our game last week was a 'sounding board' to see if showing sunday Championship games were worth while?

IF espn want to cover rl then anything is possible.

Could be right.

So not as good as I thought then.

The point it griff,SL has had 16 years to get to that figure,How many years has the championship had, Is this the third?.

The point is, what's in it for Sky ?

I would say it would be a long term investment for sky because the championships have a wider spread than sl,and at the moment you could possibly say there are another 60 thousand people tuning in to sky who might be doing something else on a thursday evening.

Lots more meaningful fixtures. That's what.

Lots less glorified friendlies requiring Eddie and Stevo hyperbole to bolster it.

I don't see either of those points as representing commercial justification for forking out a fat wedge.

Your view is coloured by the fact that you like Rugby League.

Meaningful fixtures generally result in bigger crowds and better atmosphere.

That results in a better spectacle.

Whether the better spectacle results in bigger TV audiences I could only guess but it couldn't do them any harm. Perhaps someone has viewing figures for televised SL relegation battles to support or knock down this assertion?

Bigger gates at the clubs clearly brings in extra money independent of TV cash.

It's the utter lack of meaning to fixtures that has seen a drastic reduction in second division crowds over recent years.

Let's keep RL up't norf with a weekend in France thrown in.................. =#FF0000use of emoticons in this way are not allowed on this site, abide by it's rules or stay away.

YOU NAUGHT PARKA WEARER - TUT TUT