I think ideally it would be 10, with the current level of competitiveness in the league. But I can't see 4 teams being relegated, particularly as they have already said 4 teams are going to promoted from Champs 1 to the Champs. The whole league needs revamping, I don't think we'll see anything happen until this current licensing period ends though.

I still think a two-tiered SL would probably work, though all of the TV deals would have to set up sensibly so there was enough money to go round. Football league style promotion and relegation won't work between a full time professional elite division and a part time semi pro 2nd tier.

Less matches for the same money? The close season seems endless as it is. The clubs would not want less cash coming in, and a lot of fans would feel a bit short-changed if ticket prices stayed the same, but for me it would be the loss of matches that disappoints. On relegation and promotion, yes I’m in favour. Maybe the club gaining promotion should have a season free from relegation fears giving them time to get a foot-hold in the SL. If they ended up bottom in their first season the side next to bottom would suffer the ignominy.

I find it all infuriating because there are arguments for both sides. A freeze on P&R was brought in to stabilise the league, which in some ways it did (Bradford/Crusaders aside)... but.. NL/Championship/Conference clubs will always struggle to build to a level to move up because you hit a ceiling.

Ambition is stifled, clubs work within the means of their league (there's the stability thing) so even when they do meet the 'criteria' they'll struggle when they move up a grade.

The only thing the RFL could do a few years prior to reintroducing P&R is ensuring lower league clubs have an upper league partner so that playing resources can be shared through dual registration. It's not guaranteed to make newly promoted teams an instant success but it would create less of a gap between leagues. A few lower league clubs use a feeder approach and it does have an impact.

I'd ruddy love relegation and promotion, but it wouldn't be feasible for years.

I see your point.

What budget do the NL1 clubs work off?

that amount of contraction would ultimately kill off the game outside the M62 - who would you drop? London yes, the French (they'd throw their dummies about a lot, but..) probably. The other two? Regardless of Bradford's current woes (and I do believe that if the RFL don't throw them out at the end of the year then the licensing system's reputation has to be called into doubt), keeping them out on any other grounds would kill the game. Who else? One of the Hulls? Simply because there's not room for 2 clubs in a city that size (I don't subscribe to any of this BTW, before I get a load of abuse). Or Widnes, last in, first out?

P&R would be a retrograde step and ruin everything that's been created over the last 6 or 7 years. Stability and forward planning not influenced by the fear of the drop. Or perhaps we introduce a "transfer window" & ban clubs buying in anyone (including loans) after mid season.

I think they're looking at the wrong question, for me it's not whether to reinstate P&R or expand, split or contract the league, it's why the license criteria appear to have been bent and flouted to accommodate someone's "vision" of the future. Some of what's gone on smacks of Blatter's expansionist nonsense, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are brown envelopes involved somewhere in the last few years.

I have said before, in my view P&R is not the biggie, it’s getting people to pay the same or more for less games. Does anyone think that the clubs would be happy with less cash! Players yes would like to play fewer games, but would they be willing to have smaller less lucrative contracts, we can’t keep some of them NOW. Too many think the be all and end all is to beat Oz, and to do this we must do this, or do that, why? Put our game first, they do with their own game, get a better feeder structure in the youths for all SL clubs and for that you need cash, and put Oz on the back burner. P&R, maybe? But cutting the league down and thereby stopping expansion, for me is a bridge too far.

They'd get a bigger share of the TV money, though, and it would probably be the smallest crowds that were lost. I haven't done the maths, admittedly, but deduct expenses (staffing, rental, admin etc) and the gate profits might not be that much compared to a 1/12 share instead of 1/14.

I agree though that P&R is a non-starter.

Just because there's less teams doesn't mean you have to play less games, unorthodox i know but it was done in the past and could be scheduled to make things fairer.

I really don't like the systems where you play some teams twice and others 3 times. I don't think there's a fair way to do it. Fewer teams could free up other weekends for events such as mid season internationals, extended world club challenge etc, but they obviously need the NRL to be on board (v unlikely).

There's no easy solution really, like I said in an earlier post I don't think any drastic changes will be made for at least another 2 seasons when the current license period ends. It's up to the people who are currently reviewing the game in detail to come up with the best format possible for then.

It's all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The game is heading for a semi-pro future anyway. People need to realise that and either start preparing for it and get used to the idea of a competition similar in standard and profile to the French domestic league or address the really big issue facing the game which is the appalling financial management at club level and the totally ineffective regulation of the game by the RFL.

Promotion and relegation is a sideshow. In fact, I suspect it has been raised as an issue by the authorities to distract people from talking more about the Bulls failure and the serious financial problems at Salford. You've been had, I'm afraid.

That's a ridiculous, defeatist attitude IMO. 14 clubs in the current format isn't sustainable, that's obvious. But there are well run clubs with owners who are good businessmen who, under the correct format can provide a competitive, professional division. Some bad decisions have been made by both the RFL and the clubs. We need the RFL to have a team to closely scrutinise all aspects of the game and come up with a better league/season format ASAP. Sponsors and TV deals must be improved also.

We have teams with 15/16 k average gates, get 75k+ at Wembley for CC Finals and a full house at Old Trafford for the GF, plus high viewing figures on SKY every week. The game in this country is at a very important crossroads and some big, potentially difficult decisions need to be made. The sport will survive though, I have every confidence in that.

Defeatist? Possibly, but I think that I'm being realistic, rather than ridiculous.

Here is a fact that cannot be denied, which tells us a great deal about the health of RL: the salary cap has not been raised since it was brought in.

In real terms the value of the salary cap has been eroded by over a third. If this continues for another 10 or 20 years the irrestible force of inflation will ensure that the game becomes semi-professional. Many players will be able to earn more in other careers (not merely other sports) and will not play top level RL. As wages drop further players who want to play RL will have to get a job to get by.

Only radical change can avoid this future for the sport. I'd like to say I hope that will happen but I doubt the RFL and the clubs have the will or the capability to turn this around.

In essence what we need is a league in between what SL and NL currently are, the gulf is currently too big.

Where did I say I would drop the French? Catalans would be one of the first 5 teams on my list

We kind of already have it.

Wigan
Warrington
Saints
Leeds
Catalans
Hull FC
Huddersfield
Hull KR
Widnes
London (need to shape up quickly though).



Then:

Bradford
Salford
Wakefield
Cas
+
Leigh
Halifax
Fev
Sheffield
Barrow
Workington

Somehow from the above, I'd have two leagues of ten and I'd bring back the Lancashire / Yorkshire Cup's early on in the season (in a league format) to play on free weekends and midweek in the later stages, which would be seeded so to allow the bigger SL clubs to get around the Championship & Championship1 grounds giving them much needed revenue.

The salary cap hasn't been increased because there's been little/no need for it, outside at best 6/7 teams. When David Gallop visited a few years ago he reported that a number of clubs were only spending 30-40% of the cap. That's the problem - massive inequality between top and bottom (I think in the NRL the lowest spend was something more like 70-80%). It also goes a long way to explaining league positions every year, and why the RFL simply cannot treat Bradford in the same way as Wakey. The only solution is to try to increase revenues across the board - e.g. from internationals.

BTW anybody suggesting reducing the number of teams would have to talk to Sky first. They may want London to be included at all costs, and if their opening position wasn't that any reduction in the number of teams would see a proportionate reduction in revenue to the game (i.e. drop one club, lose 1/14th of your revenue), then I'd be stunned. That's where I'd start from.

Just on that, I do think that Sky could get more actively involved. Whilst they seem to hold all the cards (where else would we get that kind of money from?), I'd argue RL in the UK is a good programme filler, particularly when football is off season. On London, for example, I'd seriously pose the question that if Sky want them to stay, they should underwrite them (or part own them), as is the case with the Storm here in Aus.

The salary cap hasn't been increased because the financial position of the clubs has worsened significantly since the cap was brought in. In financial terms the last 15 years have been really bad for RL. The lack of financial controls on clubs (other than the counterproductive SC), the abject failure of the licensing process and the inability to achieve good TV deals and sponsorship for a sport which delivers Sky Sports its second biggest audience are astonishing. Or rather they would be astonishing if this were any sport other than RL.

We have always had amateurs running a professional game and nothing has changed in recent years, if anything the situation is worse.

P&R is a sideshow. And the authorities would much rather you talked about it than discuss the real issues.

You would keep the worst performing teams in SL and move the more successful out? That makes perfect sense...

What do Catalan, London, Workington & Barrow do whilst everyone else is playing in the Lancs/Yorks cup?

Catalans and London in the Lancs and Workington and Barrow in the Yorks?

It'd be a bit like the Johnstones Paint Southern section match a few years ago between Gillingham and Notts Forest.

If we have less clubs in SL what happens to expansion? Who’s chucked out? and as I've said before, the loss of matches, how is that made up? If we let Sky have a say it would mean more Derbies, and if you don’t have extra games and drop two clubs from the league, that’s four less matches. Not a happy prospect for me. If you fill the void with meaningless internationals and friendlies you just run the risk of injuries to more top players from the best sides, and as we know from this season the fans will hate that.

You didn't & I wasn't implying you did. But by contracting to 10 teams you'd have to concentrate on the so-called heartlands. Which means dropping everyone (& preventing anyone new joining from) outside the M62, plus two more.

Also, I'm still to be persuaded that a SL(1) and SL(2) structure would work as there aren't enough full-time teams. You'd have to recruit at least 8 more (assuming two leagues of 12) and there would have to be some cross-league games to make the season worthwhile: set the bottom 6 of SL(1) against the top 6 of SL(2) with the top of SL(1) aiming for Trafford Rangers' ground & the bottom of SL(2) scrapping to stay up (and buying in NRL pensioners).

We in RL are at a low point in the numbers that would be considered SL calibre players.
For 100 years until 1995/6 we had Union players coming into League by the dozen each year. That source dried up with pro Union.
We then brought over NRL players with a great exchange rate against the AUD$. They had 14 teams and competiton for places in the NRL was intense. Lucrative deals could be had here with all the tax breaks etc.
Now the £ has be devalued, tax breaks gone and the NRL has a 16 team league plus a massive tv deal that we can't compete with. That source has largely dried up. It's only 4 or 5 years ago that overseas players comprised almost 50% of the playing roster in SL.

SL clubs will to be challenged whether they can recruit, train and maintain a playing squad of SL calibre players over the next few years. As soon as the easy options are no longer available then they want to reduce the numbers playing in SL.
I'd stick with 16 and ask each club to provide details of their local plans to enlarge the number of schools playing RL in their area. What they are doing to train up coaches in the schools and how they will run the structure from schools to first team. We should from 8 club trained players in the 25 man squad to 8 players in the first 17 as soon as possible.
If or when they go to 10 or 12 clubs someone will be bottom, struggling for crowds, have difficulty with recruitment and have financial problems that come with being bottom of the League.
Stop complaining about a lack of talent and produce it!

hen

I agree.

Sod Promotion and Relegation it doesnt help anyone, if we want something from the past that was better than what we have got now pick one from the list below........

give everyone plastic pitches to allow the sport to go back to a winter sport. (dont play in sub zero temperatures though)
Allow signings of Top quality Aussies on short term deals when its their off season.
Reinstate the GB team and bring back Ashes Tours.
welcome back real boxing day and new years day fixtures.
play the Challenge cup final at the end of the season where it should be.