Salford look like they are about to buy their way to that level. I don't think Cas are, nor Wakey for that matter. That is the problem. While you could argue you might replace them with Featherstone or Halifax and they might make a better job of it, which you ought to get with a properly run licensing system, that isn't what is on the table.

Instead the likes of Batley are going to be in "SL2" along with possibly Cas and Wakey. How is SL2 going to prosper anymore than the championship? Do you think Batley playing Wakey would attract as large crowd as a top of the table championship game did this year such as Fax v Sheffield which got 1,553? Why would Batley get any more than the 499 they got when Workington showed up this season for the same fixture in SL2? Just because they were in a competition called SL2?



Who does this minimum cap apply to? All 24 teams in SL1 and SL2? Is it realistic to expect Batley or Workington for example to generate enough income to pay to that level?

SL 1 is a 12 team comp under the proposals(I will state again it should be 10/10) so that's where the 1.8m should apply
I would have a £500 charity bet with you that if Batley played wakey in 2015 then it would be higher than their biggest gate this season
In a 10/10 structure SL 2 should have a 1m min spend also, a 10/10 also allows 650k for SL 2 without moving SL 1 funding or increasing the pot from TV
IMO the options are 1) stais quo - game dies under SL. 2) 10/10 - ticks all/most boxes. 3) 12/12 then 8/8/8 - compromise better than 1 not as good as 2

Dave O, btw we are probably having a better debate than those tasked with running our great sport at either side of the table

You might be right but I'd bet it would lower than any crowd Wakey got in SL this season and once the novelty had worn off in a season or two SL2 would be on a par crowd-wise with the Championship.

I think the problem isn't games against the two demoted SL sides anyway. It's how will existing championship fixtures be any different under the new format.

Currently the championship is a 26 round competition. The proposal is for a 23 round competition before the 8x8x8 split.

I don't see why the fixture between Batley and Workington in a 23 round competition is going to get any more on the gate than 499 in a 26 round one. Because it is now called "SL2"?

That seem to be the extent of Wood's thinking. Change the structure and the name and all of sudden 5000 will turn up for this fixture. Yeah right!

If London were one of the two SL sides sent down to SL2 which is quite possible I dread to think what some fixtures would draw crowd-wise.



Given option 3 which is the one on the table simply seeks to solve the games problems by replacing a 26 round competition with a 23 round one before the 8x8x8 split I can't see what good it is going to do.

You may be right! The one thing I agree with from those such as Swire criticising the stance taken by the SL sides is why haven't all these discussions been had before? There may be reasons we don't know about for this but it does look a pretty amateurish way to sort it all out.

On Super league clubs running Super league, what about letting those clubs in SL who have proved they can't even run themselves take over control of the helm.

Or should they be excluded and all the decisions including those that affect them be taken by more responsible clubs.

Yes, what about Leeds and GH taking the reins I'm sure you Warriors would trust either of the above.

Just something I've been pondering a bit since the GF.

Seeing the big Wigan turnout, it got me thinking that if there are say 30,000 fans who are interested in Wigan enough to support them at finals then for the club to have a turnover of less than £5m (excluding Sky cash) simply isn't good enough.

The club's supporter base and brand should be capable of supporting a much bigger business. I don't want to get into the IL debate (he's done a lot of good things for the club) but Wigan could do better financially.

Even smaller clubs should be ambitious - a club with a 15,000 fan base rather than a 30,000 fan base can still raise its income very significantly if it markets itself properly and develops revenue channels. A club with 15,000 fans that could get £300 in revenue on average per fan per year would have turnover of £4.5m before corporate sponsorship, Sky money etc.

It isn't just the RFL management and structures and the overall marketing of the game that need an overhaul. The clubs need to up their game too.

Having said that, as long as the SC is in place (which IL is favour of) at such a low level there isn't that much incentive to do any better.

I agree with this, but this may only be his opinion whilst the total revenue of the game is so low. Obviously there are clubs that will never be able to sped the full amount.

However if we do see this "cold war" having a positive effect on clubs earnings, perhaps we will see a change of opinion from IL?

I would hazard a guess that they have been heard before, yet the RFL has probably paid lip service to the club chairmen and are just winging it in the hope the new structure will be rubber stamped without question or serious scrutiny.

IMO I do sense a very high level of arrogance from the RFL and i do think the SL club chairmen have simply had enough of the BS coming out of Red Hall and this was displayed in the statement they released about them being too busy overseeing clubs going bump etc.

Part quote: It isn't just the RFL management and structures and the overall marketing of the game that need an overhaul. The clubs need to up their game too.

Good point, it is a real problem across the sport that many clubs at all levels are not maintaining yet alone increasing the support and the supporters must come out as one of the most important aspects of any club or sport.

If no one followed or watched the game then SKY and other backers would have no part in it.

The reality is times are tough for the man and woman in the street, especially up north.

I made the point, that was missed in an earlier post regarding wages, where I am concerned I am earning thousands of pounds less with more qualifications and repsonsibilities than I was a decade ago.

Rather than that being irrelevant it is very relevant because many others are in the same boat or worse.
The point is that no matter what a club does some through no fault of their own simply can't afford to come to games.

Having said that it would only be prudent for each club to have a carefull look to see if was doing all it could in it's own backyard whilst pointing the finger elsewhere.

There are some tough times ahead that's for sure and who knows all the answers or even if there is an answer.

I suspect that's true; they certainly ignored the players poll which came out almost unanimously against the idea.

Your point wasn't missed as I did mention it. I don't think you are correct. Sport is not an ordinary job funded by simple company profit. No one gives my employer a share of £18m over and above the income my company gets for the services it provides for the rights to show me writing computer programs all day. The company isn't sponsored and no one here is famous.

The economics are different and the fact is even in these tough times sportsmen can earn more by playing RL in Oz or going to RU than they can playing RL. RL in the UK can either decide to get its act together and try and compete with that or give up. It's way off right now but that could change virtually overnight with a suitable TV deal (for example).

What there isn't any scope to do is cut players wages simply because we have £2.5m unemployed and people in many jobs haven't see a pay rise for years. Whether you like it or not professional athletes are somewhat immune to all this.

Similar arguments were put forward about not raising of the salary cap. The argument went most people on here would give their right arm to be able to earn a living of say £50K a year playing RL so the players should be grateful and if not raising the salary cap erodes their wages so what? They swan off to Oz for more money it will be OK as the production line will replace them.

That totally ignores the fact that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Yep, £50K isn't peanuts to you and me maybe but it is in the world of professional sport and it is in the NRL and RU.

I want to see players of the standard of Sam Tomkins at full back not Jimmy Birts.



My view has always been the International game being neglected as I reckon it has been is a major cause of the games ills. It has a much lower standing because it is seen in a pretty poor light. I have always said tinkering with the league format (going to the GF system then mucking about with the format) and things like the magic weekend show far too much energy is expended by those running the game on tinkering with what goes on the in the league. I see the proposal on the table as exactly the same thing happening again.

They complain about micro-managing the clubs over licensing but they are happy to micro-manage everything else and can't resist tinkering. It's as if they all suffer from OCD!

I think you are probably right. [url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_13512-more-woe-for-the-rfl-at-barla-meeting.html?BARLA have rejected it[/url, the players have and the SL chairmen bar Hethrington (as far as we know he's the only one known to support it) have. The only ones in favour seem to be the Championship clubs, the RFL and Hethrington.

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/sport/h ... -1-6134778 Well there you have it, your master has spoken. Keep all the money with the same 14 teams with one up one down. The very thing that failed and brought in franchises and licensing and he wants to run Super League.

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/sport/h ... -1-6134778 Well there you have it, your master has spoken. Keep all the money with the same 14 teams with one up one down. The very thing that failed and brought in franchises and licensing and he wants to run Super League.

“A strong Super League with better marketing and profile, enhanced central revenues, reduced RFL central costs and clear focus on Super League priorities for the whole of rugby league rather than the disruption of a risky, distracting reorganisation.”

All well & good, but (a) how [idoes [/iit prevent clubs parachuting in players to avoid the drop and (b) given it was IL who masterminded the demise of the reserve teams what guarantee of the creche being properly funded & supported is there?

Automatic P&R is a demonstrable failure so I don't agree with IL on this.

However what you are failing to see is the new proposal is no better.

What this tells you:

"The RFL’s latest proposals are believed to give the top four Championship clubs significant cash payouts in a bid to narrow that chasm."

is all it will do is in effect increase the size of those far ahead of the rest money-wise from 14 to either 16 or 18 (18 if the two relegated SL clubs retain their high level of funding).

Given its pretty clear the newly wealthy four won't be getting as much as the current SL sides I still can't see how this will let them compete. You need to eliminate the gap, not close it or the problem still exists. Who has decided championship clubs on £650K will be able to compete with SL clubs on twice as much? Why does it follow?

Also what happens if one of those top four championship sides becomes the 5th (or worse) best championship side? Do they lose their newly found wealth? If so then you have exactly the same situation we have with one up one down with income drastically altered because of where you finished in the league.

If they keep it having been deemed one of the "best four" then the closed shop you complain about still exists.

There is simply no way to bridge the gap on a season by season basis between clubs on such different levels of income.

With the new system you either license the four clubs given extra cash for a number of years so they keep it or you have exactly the same problem faced as you would a club getting relegated from SL. Suddenly and overnight they lose their new found wealth.

The RFL is still trying to get a square peg in a round hole and is being disingenuous to suggest their proposals are some sort of magic bullet that solves the problem of relegation from SL, the disparate wealth and funding of the various clubs.

There just isn't enough money to expand SL and that is in effect what these proposals mean and they don't solve the yo-yo problem. They will just move it.

Looks to me with Barla, the players and those SL clubs against this, the charge of being self serving lies with the championship sides. They want a slice of the pie but aren't bringing any money to the table to pay for the extra ingredients required. The tail trying to wag the dog again.

BARLA are against it? Are you sure? BARLA are against some rule changes I thought, nothing to do with the structure.

In context I arn't actually failing to see anything, I simply posted what Mr Lennaghan proposes which is a return to the same as what has allready failed.

With the same teams and the same old p&r we know it failed in the past and know it will fail in the future as the gap as you say is too wide, enter the yo yo boom and bust scenario again, it's staggers the imagination that anyone assosciated with rubgy league can even think of that as a way forward and worst case undermines their entire credibility.

The new proposals are a result of trying to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes and as a result of a full game review that advised a full game solution taking into account the Watkins report and advice from people from within the game and sporting experts who have an unbiased view such as Brian Barwick.

It is claimed that this will fail with countless speculated reasons why it will fail without it even being tried.

If anyone claims to have insight like this and can fortell the future so with such certainty can they please tell me my lottery numbers for this week.

Back to reality.
Regardless of what we think or say at the moment there are two proposals on the table, the RFL based on the above mentioned full game review or back to the same old as per Mr Lennaghan.

With respect,take the Wigan glasses of for a moment and then choose.

a news paper with a biased view because their local club will get less funding if the majority of super league clubs get their way who would of guessed it.

How about you wait and actually see what the real proposal and business plan is? the funding what the RFL are proposing is worse than the benefit system in the UK.

Your turnover is very surprising. As a comparison, Leeds Rhinos turnover £10.3m.

I guess it shows the misguided who the biggest club in the British game is.

Perhaps Gary Hetherington actually knows a thing or two about how a Rugby League club should be run.

The words and proposals are Mr Lennaghans wherever it is printed so how can that be biased.

Everyone will have to wait for the outcome but what he would like to happen is clearly set out so I don't have to wait before commenting on it.

I'm actually saddened that he has said it because it offers no real plausable alternative and I hoped there would be something better put on the table from the leading man at such a leading club.

I actually think it will do his cause no good at all, the real critics will no doubt have a field day with this as it is Déjà vu and it will not be taken seriously.

I already agreed simple P&R is stupid. No need to post the above again.



And the evidence it will succeed is where? The "speculated reasons it will fail" seem obvious pitfalls to me. If you are so in favour of the proposals tell me why my concerns are misplaced.

Saying why the proposals came about is no reason. I suspect you can't say my concerns are misplaced.



It's nothing to do with foretelling the future. Pointing out the pitfalls is simply questioning the proposals and you don't seem to have any answers so must be ignoring these concerns.



Neither are satisfactory because neither address the issues properly.

In 1991 when Wigan beat Leeds to clinch the Stones Bitter Championship (Mission impossible) they received £44K.

In 2013 for winning sponsorless Superleague they received £30K.

Is that progress?

Is it me being a cynical old barsteward, but the more i read about this the more i feel the issue is with Nigel Wood and that the club chairmen simply have no confidence in the bloke.

He has sent a cover letter to the RFL to set a meeting about the subjects they would like to discuss after the world cup, What the news paper is trying to persuade people to believe like your self is that this is the plan agreed by majority of the clubs when truly its only a subject letter. People will find out the business plan/model the clubs have discussed and agreed upon (more than likely it will be more than 1 page).

But even the championship clubs must know that they don't deserve more money, the only real money coming in to rugby league in this country is the TV money and that is purely from the 14 clubs in super league it makes no sense to why clubs who don't even contribute should be awarded more money when the 14 super league clubs are struggling.

FYI Ian lenegan is more of an astute business man than me or your self so i wouldn't disagree to hard at what he suggests when it comes to the administration and set up of the ruling body.