Two FT divisions of ten, 27 fixtures and a top 5 play off with P&R between divisions.
We must accept that our best will leave for the NRL until we can increase our incomes, we must therefore increase the FT jobs available especially for those we lose at 19-21 from that enviroment.
Introduce minimum spends with max as a % of retained income, eg SL1 £1.8M min spend, max 50% retained income. SL2 £1m min spend, max 50% retained income.
Reduce imports (in whatever form) to 2 in SL1 and 1 in SL2.
Licence every 3 years with the goal of reaching 12/12 within 15 years. Any club going belly up is removed from the comp and starts again in a PT league.

But it is a logical fallacy to state there is only one CORRECT way. And there is no logic to this. Doing so doesn’t make sense. There are clear logical flaws to doing this.

No, because Douglas didn’t get up for the big fights, he got up for one fight. Tyson did it against bigger names, more times. No he wasnt, the statistics show that. Leon Spinks and Joe Frazier were big enough ‘box office’ to start with. Ali struggled against Norton 3 times, and Berbick and Holmes was when he was spent at the end of his career, be realistic.
And a lot of people will argue that Ali is better than Marciano because whilst Marciano won a lot of fights against no-name fighters, Ali fought and beat some of the best fighters ever, that’s why his losses against a few average fighters are forgotten. And Sinfield is consistently good in the big games, Sinfields record in the big games is unbelievable. If Leeds had lost all the finals they have contested then Sinfield wouldn’t be the name he is. Sinfield is outstanding in big games. That’s why he is the player he is. His ability to control a big game, and to lead his team to victory in them. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be the player he is. When Sinfield hangs up his boots, it will the semi’s and Grand Final wins he lead Leeds to that will be remembered, no-one will care the slightest that Leeds lost against Salford or Wigan one time in mid-season.

Its nothing to do with change being inherently scary. Its that people like the championship being one by the two best teams squaring off in front of a packed crowd on a Saturday night in the last game of the season rather than a Sunday afternoon at craven park. They want the title decided by a big game, by an intense game rather than grinding out results in your run-of-the-mill games. There is no need to prize consistency over quality.

He didn't

He said in his opinion it's the correct way.

Your quote that "Whereas nobody, bar Wigan fans think Wigan are the champions and the history books will agree that they arent." isn't correct either.

I'm a Wigan fan and I don't think were champions? In fact I'd guess that 99% of Wigan fans understand they're not champions.
I'm sure that there are many Warrington fans who thought they were champions in 2011 (And the majority realised they weren't)? So I'm assuming those people thought that Wigan were champions in 2012 so why not mention them?

Basically they are arguing that they would rather see the team that finishes Top be crowned champions and they are given their reasons as to why they think it's the best way.

Your defending the way it's done now

Both of you have a vested interest in defending their stance and your both entitled to it However I think some of your twisting of words/statements to back up your argument is a bit Rich.

Just remind me, how many Challenge Cups has he won again? International series? Or aren't they big games?

He won a challenge cup as part of the 99 squad even though he didn’t play in the final, and he has one international series win and one other international series 'victory' which was in reality a draw.

there isnt a 'correct' way. There are many different ways, which one you prefer is an opinion, but it is wrong to suggest the others arent correct.
Because they dont seem to exist, If there were a lot of Wire fans who thought they were champions last year, or St's fans who thought they were champions in 07 or 08, they werent particularly vocal about it.
My vested interest is purely that i think the champion side should be proven in the heat of battle. I think our champion side should be the one which is able to perform to the very highest level, the one which is the best, not the one which is the most consistent. I certainly think that the Leeds sides in 2005, 2007 and 2008 were superior to the one which in 2009 lifted both the LLS and the SL trophy despite the fact the 2009 one was the most consistent.

My vested interest is purely that i think the champion side should be proven in the heat of battle. I think our champion side should be the one which is able to perform to the very highest level, the one which is the best, not the one which is the most consistent. I certainly think that the Leeds sides in 2005, 2007 and 2008 were superior to the one which in 2009 lifted both the LLS and the SL trophy despite the fact the 2009 one was the most consistent.'"

If you don't think there weren't Wire fans suggesting the same thing this time last year you couldn't be more wrong. In fairness once again it wouldn't mean that ALL Warrington fans thought the same (Unlike your genaralisations about Wigan fans earlier) just that there were lots of musings around the same subject.

In Wigans instance however I believe the debate is more to do with how we as fans see how the competition SHOULD be set up, not in the main that we have been robbbed of a title (There may be the odd fan who thinks that but they are the minority).

FWIW my opinion is not too disimilar to yours in terms of how the competion should be won, I too also believe the Play offs would (If set up correctly) provide a true test of a teams ability to win the most important games "When it matters" HOWEVER (And before anyone jumps down my throat defenidng the 1st past the post method) what I think is proving a hard balance to find is rewarding both parts of the same competition.
IMO currently there is very little reward for "Busting a gut" through the 27 rounds and I belive this is leading to a lot of disillusion with some fans regarding the set up.
It would be very difficult to argue that this LEEDS team of the last 2 years could have in fact finished even lower in the regular rounds and still won the GF as to be honest they would in all likelihood have still won there 2 lead up games to the Qualifying Semi and it would hardly have affected there Semi final chances.
This means to me there is little if no reward for Leeds finishing 5th over 8th? Which again is just another extension of the argument of finishing 3rd/4th to finishing 5th.

If the competion set up was that anyone finishing 5th or 6th would have to play 3rd or 4th away from home and then if they lost had to play 7th/8th at home whilst they'd had a week off in essence you could argue they'd be better off finishing 7th or 8th?

That's the problem IMO

As Grimmy alluded to earlier, the only way to put more meaning into the regular season games and then again find out the Team that can win "When it Matters" is IMO to Reward the team that is consistent throughout the season by and Handicap significantly the teams that couldn't do that throughout the year to really test their ability to "Win when it matters" by making it as hard as possible (Pro rata for how low you finish in the Comp) for them to do so.
The current set up doesn't do that IMO.

There are plenty who make the point that a team finishing the regular season in 5th then winning the grand final reduces the sport's credibility. Illogically, plenty of them then make the case for devaluing the WCC by opening it up to the top 3 or 4. Personally, I've no problem with a team winning from 5th but I agree with those who suggest that the regular season should be given greater importance. So why not have a 4 team WCC featuring the GF winners and hubcap winners against their Australian counterparts? And if any team does the double, the team finishing the regular season in 2nd participates.
That would give GF and hubcap winners some sort of parity, retain the elite nature of the WCC and avoid the sort of fixture overload that would occur if a 6 or 8 side WCC format was adopted.

I don't have a problem with the play offs as a concept and accept that it gives interest up to the last day of the season. I don't think Billy Boston would give up his Championship winners medal from 1960 when Wigan finished fourth in the league some 14 points behind the leaders Saints.

What I can't accept is that the team who finisher 5th gets the EASIEST game in Round one, and then gets to play the team who have had the HARDEST game in Round one in the next round.

I also don't think that the team finishing second should get exactly the same benefit as the team finishing top.

This.

But that's exactly what YOU'RE doing! You're arguing your way is correct and any others aren't. What's the difference?

As for your second assertion; in that case we may as well do away with the league altogether. There is simply no point to it. You've basically described a cup competition. In fact you've pretty much described the Challenge Cup. It was my understanding that the league was designed, not as a cup competition, but to determine which is the best team over the course of a whole season where each team plays every other. That is not a cup competition which is more about the luck of the draw and who, as you say, 'can get up for it on the day' (sic). If you want two cup competitions why didn't you say? That is a whole different argument and would have saved a lot of time.

Mate, you're doing it again. Last time I said there was [uonly one[/u way, now I am saying there is [uonly one [/uCORRECT way, neither of which I have ACTUALLY said. Which is it? Make your mind up! As a matter of fact I have done no more or no less that you; namely given my opinion of which would be the better way. If that's illogical as you state, then we are both equally guilty.

Douglas didn't get up for one fight. He didn't get a shot at the title by being 'bum of the month'. He beat, among others, Trevor Berbick, Greg Page, Oliver McCall and Mike Tyson on his way to becoming undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. The fact that he was inconsistent and lost other fights he shouldn't have was exactly my point! You also seem to be agreeing that Mike Tyson's consistancy is what marks him out as the better fighter despite losing to Douglas. You're beginning to argue against yourself. Not sure what you hope to prove by that but hey! Knock yourself out... (pun intended! haha)

Are you serious???? Ali was the most consistent performer of his generation! It was 32 fights before he lost a single fight (in what has been described since as 'the fight of the century') and 43 before he lost again! In fact those were his only losses in 57 fights up to what was universally described as his decline (where he lost 3 of his last 4 fights) As this was later seen to be due to the onset of Parkinson's I think we can excuse him this lapse!! Mate, I accused you earlier of rewriting history but you've seriously outdone yourself this time! To be honest, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing the debate if you're twisting facts to this degree just to try and shoehorn them to suit your argument. On a personal note, and as a sports fan, I think you should hang your head in shame at this slight on possibly the greatest sportsman who ever lived. Just my opinion of course....

4) Bring in a new rule that only Wigan Warriors are allowed to be champions.

Why? Are no one else capable of topping the league? Sorry for my misunderstanding but I could have sworn Warrington did last year, not to mention Saints and yourselves in recent seasons. Go on...explain. This should be interesting!

Quote ="Phuzzy"Why? Are no one else capable of topping the league? Sorry for my misunderstanding but I could have sworn Warrington did last year, not to mention Saints and yourselves in recent seasons. Go on...explain. This should be interesting! '" Warrington did indeed win the league last year but there didn't seem to be the same fervour for revamping the comp when they were knocked out of the playoffs, at least not on here. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=509953&tsmp=1350142495&start=20 Put yourself in the position of other fans and you'll probably see where their cynicism arises. FWIW I do believe a revamp would improve matters, hubcap winners and GF winners to go into a 4 team WCC which would increase the reward for achieving the former feat. If a team does the double then league runner up gets in too. I'd support a reversion to 5 teams too.

Quote ="Phuzzy"Why? Are no one else capable of topping the league? Sorry for my misunderstanding but I could have sworn Warrington did last year, not to mention Saints and yourselves in recent seasons. Go on...explain. This should be interesting! '" Warrington did indeed win the league last year but there didn't seem to be the same fervour for revamping the comp when they were knocked out of the playoffs, at least not on here. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=509953&tsmp=1350142495&start=20 Put yourself in the position of other fans and you'll probably see where their cynicism arises. FWIW I do believe a revamp would improve matters, hubcap winners and GF winners to go into a 4 team WCC which would increase the reward for achieving the former feat. If a team does the double then league runner up gets in too. I'd support a reversion to 5 teams too.

I don't think the RFL are going to move away from a top 8 system unfortunately, especially given the NRL has adopted the exact same system this year as opposed to 1v8, 2v7 etc.

Personally, I think a top 8 system would have more credibility if there were 14 competitive teams (ideally 16, but that won't happen for some time imo). As it is at the moment we know that come September 2013 the top 4 will more than likely be Wigan, Wire, Sts, Leeds/Catalan/Hull, which perhaps explains a lot of the apathy for the regular season. There's just not really anything to play for.

In an ideal world, letting the LLS winners into a 4-team WCC would be great - an RL Champions League. Unfortunately the Aussies just don't take it seriously enough for it to be a viable option. If we were going to go ahead with this plan, I'd rather have it at the end of the season so that the squad that won the respective titles actually play in the thing.

I also think expansion needs to be persevered with. Not in the sense of plonking a team in a random location and hoping for the best, but taking advantage of the resources on our doorstep. Teams should be encouraged to widen the net with regard to youth development and supporter recruitment. While places like Liverpool and Manchester may not have a widespread appeal for RL as they do with football, the RFL or the clubs themselves should be getting in to schools and showing kids there that there are more sports than just football!

Quote ="Clearwing"Warrington did indeed win the league last year but there didn't seem to be the same fervour for revamping the comp when they were knocked out of the playoffs, at least not on here. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=509953&tsmp=1350142495&start=20 Put yourself in the position of other fans and you'll probably see where their cynicism arises. FWIW I do believe a revamp would improve matters, hubcap winners and GF winners to go into a 4 team WCC which would increase the reward for achieving the former feat. If a team does the double then league runner up gets in too. I'd support a reversion to 5 teams too.'" You obviously didn't read the Wolfs forums around that time? Hence our cynicism that some fans can't see past their "It was a Wigan fan who said it so lets tar them all with the same brush as I can't stand em" attitude. I particularly liked the one last year from Warrington where the MP got involved and wrote to the RFL to change the rules (Or summat to that effect). To be honest, my personal opinion is I couldn't give a monkeys however I can't be doing with fans of other clubs who say "it's only Wigan fans" when it clearly wasn't & that "All Wigan fans are idiots" when certain indiviulas express their views and they go off on one saying "Aren't all Wigan fans idiots/deluded/arrogant" or whatever myth it is they want to perpetuate.

Quote ="Clearwing"Warrington did indeed win the league last year but there didn't seem to be the same fervour for revamping the comp when they were knocked out of the playoffs, at least not on here. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=509953&tsmp=1350142495&start=20 Put yourself in the position of other fans and you'll probably see where their cynicism arises. FWIW I do believe a revamp would improve matters, hubcap winners and GF winners to go into a 4 team WCC which would increase the reward for achieving the former feat. If a team does the double then league runner up gets in too. I'd support a reversion to 5 teams too.'" You obviously didn't read the Wolfs forums around that time? Hence our cynicism that some fans can't see past their "It was a Wigan fan who said it so lets tar them all with the same brush as I can't stand em" attitude. I particularly liked the one last year from Warrington where the MP got involved and wrote to the RFL to change the rules (Or summat to that effect). To be honest, my personal opinion is I couldn't give a monkeys however I can't be doing with fans of other clubs who say "it's only Wigan fans" when it clearly wasn't & that "All Wigan fans are idiots" when certain indiviulas express their views and they go off on one saying "Aren't all Wigan fans idiots/deluded/arrogant" or whatever myth it is they want to perpetuate.

You should be able to add Hudds to that list given their squad. So half the league competing for the top 4 - how many other sports can hope for that? You could name the top 3 in football without a doubt. That's really killing their attendances.



True. Apart from pride. And winning pay. And because that's what they are trained to do.



I agree, which is why they already do it. But it costs money.

That's everything sorted then?

Whether the whole Premier League system is competitive or not, using your football analogy, would anyone accept a team coming say 12th after 38 matches played home and away and plotting a course in an elite knockout competition with second chances for higher placed clubs if they lost their first matches, or teams fielding weakened teams to artificially lower their positions to get a better draw being crowned Champions....

If you are suggesting teams are deliberately losing games to finish lower then you are off your rocker. Any coach with any sense is going to spell players & if they do that against better teams where there is a good chance they are going to get beat then so be it. I remember a Wigan coach doing it & getting a 44-0 stuffing at Cas, ask Kris Radlinski if, on his debut, they went out to get beat.

Back to football, if there was such a competition, if a mid-table club such as Fulham came from 12th to win it the whole football world would be in raptures. I would expect bitter, paranoid whinging from the fans of Chelsea & Man Utd though.

Would you blame them? Yes, it would be a great achievement for Fulham, but United and Chelsea would be a bit peeved that they'd spent 38 games busting a gut to finish as high as possible, to end up with nothing but a hearty handshake and a "well done and everything, but these guys who lost more games than they won are actually champions".

Without doubt coaches rest players and tinker with team selection based on the opposition and up and coming/following fixtures. Apart from spreading the load I accept that it gives a coach the opportunity to test some of the younger lads/fringe players and doesn't have to be seen as some part of a conspiracy theory of throwing games. However, that doesn't mean that the current system isn't open to that "paraniod" thinking in fact it almost promotes it, particularly as the business end including the Challenge Cup is taking place in a final 6 week period more than likely involving the same teams.

Why don't you think football runs the same competition having seen the light and what a spectacle GF day was? Why are they not thinking ooohhh we can have some of that? Apart from they don't need to from a revenue stream/TV money point of view they might just think we'd have to be off our collective "rocker"?

Supposition aside, if it was a football thing then I could see a situation where the Champions are the Champions and the final Champions League place goes to the winner of a play off series to open up the reward beyond 4th place. If one of the top 3 win the play off then the highest league position 4th gets the spot.

We could do something similar with an expanded WCC series if we could get interest from NRL and some £££/AUS$

Football doesn't because it doesn’t need to, though the Champions League is a glorified play off where a team not finishing top of its domestic league or CL league can win it. I can see it changing in the future though. If a European Super League of the greedy clubs is established an end of season play-off would be too much to resist with the potential income streams.

The clubs voted for the current system, if they can’t play the system to their own advantage they have themselves to blame, not the RFL.

I would love an expanded WCC. It would, providing we were competitive, be almost too good for our biased media to ignore. I would be all for our clubs resting their best palyers in readiness for it.

I think you have answered my case perfectly well, so thank you.

Why don't you feel that football has to follow our lead? May be because it has got its product right? May be because paymasters Sky can sell a set of fixtures throughout the whole season as games that matter rather than the regular rounds descending into some 27 week warm up for a 6 week end of year frenzy, (it will only get worse IMO)?

The football 'play off'/Champions League is a separate competition. City won the Premiership and are called the Champions Chelsea didn't usurp them because they won the Champions League because it is deemed to be a better competition. when Liverpool last won it they weren't even the best team in Merseyside.

I'm not blaming the RL as such, just looking for a fairer reward/acknowledgement for a seasons' work. I'm not a Wigan, or Leeds fan, but, congratulated them heartily on their successes this year