Some clubs can't spend the full cap as it is at the moment and some that are are operating at a loss, how is increasing the salary cap going to help stabalise these clubs?

As for the rest of those suggestions, well I think your living in fantasy land if you think any of those will happen anytime soon. I was expecting a return to winter rugby to be suggested at some point.

They'll have to get off their then and get some fans through the gate then won't they as opposed to sitting back and letting the big clubs do it for them.

Shape up or sh*t out as Peter Kay said on Phoenix Nights.

What abothe likes of the Hull clubs, Bradford and Saints? They attract good crowds and have some good revenue treams yet they're operating at a loss. The problrm isn't with the RFL (although obviously they can improve in some areas), the simple fact is most of the blokes running the the clubs haven't a clue. The RFL get a lot of stick over the stobbart deal but that was voted for by the clubs, as was the decsion to scrap P + R, and keep the salary cap as it is.

Is there any way we can get these views to the RFL because they are spot on cas. Or maybe spam them onto the other fans boards for reaction so we can get a country wide petition kind of thing going to the RFL Panel. These views would really get fans' bums back on seats and increase the games profile without doubt. I have no doubt the lower league clubs would agree to this also as their game suffers as a knock on effect as the SL dropping. Let's get our game going again.

Some of them haven't got a clue you're right. The problem is that most of them are happy to sit there and let others do it for them and vote for the ridiculous things they vote for.

Why should they bother trying to sign players who are 18/19 and develop them when they can let Wigan, Leeds, St Helens and Warrington do it for them and then sign them up in a few years? The new academy structure is an absolute joke.

This gets mentioned a lot but whenever it is what is never mentioned is how to make it feasible to operate P&R between a full time professional league and a semi-pro lower division that pays 1/4 the wages.

Relegation isn't just a sporting issue and ceased to be so once the game went full time. Players, coaches and staffs livelihoods are at stake here. The average wage if you divide the NL1 salary cup up equally across a 25 man squad is £16K per player. In SL the average is £64K. Who is going to take up a full time job in the sport as a player if it is possible they will see a pay cut of 30 or 40 K or more at the end of the season?

And its no good saying the players could all get a contract with the promoted side because apart from the fact they probably wouldn't it would make the whole thing a charade if they did.

What also gets ignored is with P&R clubs take the short term view every time. If you think some clubs are not pulling their weight on the player development front you watch them vote to remove the home grown player rules so they can import average ready made Aussies to try and stay up no doubt getting into debt in the process.

Bottom line is there is not enough money in the game to afford P&R. NL1 would have to be able to pay at least a £1M a year in salary to make it feasible for players to drop down without ending up unable to pay the mortgage.

Games should be free to get in to so that crowds are increased. This could be paid for by increasing the tv deal to £2billion per year.

It really saddens me that the OP makes a few suggestions (some good some not) and all some can do is make spurious silly comments that help no one, perhaps these people are after jobs at the RFL because it is the same head in the sand everything is rosy kind of outlook.

Sadly although I agree to a lot of the suggestions made by the OP I cannot honestly see any of them actually happening. P&R as pointed out by DaveO is a real issue due to the gulf between SL and Championship, and I find it impossible that two or more SL clubs would ever vote themselves out of SL.

Perhaps less radical but more gradual changes are the way forward, sad to say but one option would be that ANY club going into administration is automatically removed from SL to Championship - this could be one way of reducing SL over time (it is highly likely given existing financial circumstance that at least one more SL club is likely to go into administration in the next year or so). I do think that moving the CC is both feasible and should seriously be looked into.

Personally I have never liked the playoff system (finish top=champions in my book always has been and always will be) - but it looks like it is here to stay so needs to be changed - if the RFL aren't woken up by the poor crowds for the first round then they are truly a lost cause. Top 8 is far too many.

Sadly though I cannot see any significant changes being made - the RFL are far too parochial.

Essentially we've had P&R this season - Crusaders down Widnes up. Ok Widnes struggled for their first few months, but when they settled in they pulled off some good results. Yes they would have gone down again, but ask their fans if they'd prefer that opportunity to stagnating in the lower divisions.

It isn't remotely similar to having a normal P&R system in place. The Crusaders went bust and Widnes have been doing exactly what the current system allows which is building a team for future seasons not trying to get enough half decent players on board to avoid going straight back down. Widnes also knew they were going to get promoted and so were able to start planning for that. Fans will soon tire of being promoted then relegated and the yo-yo effect we would inevitably see given the gulf between the two leagues.

Franchising isn't perfect or it would have perhaps spotted impending problems at Bradford but if we had P&R things would have doubtless been no different in that regard anyway but being immune from relegation for three seasons really does help clubs bridge that huge gap between the two leagues.

And in any case that ignores all the other problems I pointed out the main one being relegation is a financial disaster for the the clubs and the players who may well find themselves unable to pay their mortgages.

Some OK suggestions but some have been tried before and not worked. And why is there this idea that the game is on its backside come from? We as a sport rare always facing struggles but for some round here it's as if its on its last legs.

And as for making more of the league leaders (I wonder why that has been suggested!) we have just had a 70K plus crowd attend a showpiece event, the media coverage has been excellent and positive, all good for the game, Ive spoken to quite a few non RL followers and they have all said what a great game it was (funnily enough none of them question why Wigan weren't there) by making more of the league leaders will just make the GF less meaningful and having what Ive written above why on earth would we want to do that?

I do however agree that the top 5 or 6 format was better and should be brought back.

I don't think a 70K crowd is anything special. In 1985 I was at Wembley with 94,000 on the ground. It also does not follow that making more of the league will make the GF less meaningful. Where does that idea come from? The problem is the current play-off format reduces the league to a pointless 8 month exercise that has little to no baring on who ends up champions. If you want the GF to be the be-all and end-all the link between the two competitions has to be stronger otherwise people will just not bother going to league games.

In all seriousness, the OP appears to talk a lot of sense, but might it not be better to let Maurice Watkins do his job based on access to a lot more information, rather than attempt to solve all the problems with contested views from the terraces? These things are seldom as straightforward as they look on the surface, and all the suggestions have pros and cons.

For instance, as pointed out above, while most people would probably prefer a promotion and relegation system, the gap from full time to part time leagues is too big to make it work. Somebody pointed out that Widnes struggled but then improved. It isn't a good argument for P&R though, as under that system, improve though they did, they'd still have gone straight back down. They couldn't support a SL wage bill on Championship income, so they'd have been cutting their squad and then if they did the yo-yo routine, starting the cycle again next time. The Championship has to be stronger before P&R can work.

It's then possible to view the 8 team play-off as a response to that. Without P&R a 4 or 5 team play-off format would virtually remove interest from the fixtures of half the league in the last quarter of the season. In that sense the 8 team format is a pragmatic solution to a less than ideal scenario.

Because you are taking some of the focus away from the 'main' prize. the point and the reason teams compete in SL is to become champions and to do that you need to win the GF. If more emphasis is placed on the league leaders, this means there are 2 prizes on offer, I personally think this is wrong. As I said I think giving the league leaders a better advantage in the playoffs is a good idea, but then again I think Wigan had a great advantage in this years playoffs, but just didn't take it (like a champion team should!).

in my opinion we should reward the top team for the regular season and thought this event when warrington won it or whoever before them in the other proceeding 5-10 years.

I think in order to give a greater value to the league winners position we must differentiate the playoffs from the league altogether. Rename it as the regal trophy or whatever but only allow the top 8 teams to be in it - possibly in groups of 4 with the top 2 in the semis from each group.

If we did that it would seperate this competition from the League which is a marathon and not a sprint.

It's a salary CAP, not a requirement to spend £2m.

The challenge cup doesn't take focus away from the main prize and never has. As I said in 1985 I was at Wembley with 94,000 on and it got a lot of coverage in the press and on TV. Better than it has done recently IMO but it didn't devalue the league despite it being a bigger day out than the GF which was then how we decided the champions. The only reason more emphasis on the league would devalue the GF is because you let someone tell you so. Pretty much the same way as just deciding a play off system delivers worthy champions is a completely arbitrary decision. The idea one competition detracts from another when they are different competitions (which they are) is nuts.

As to the advantage doing well in the league gives - there isn't any. There is no difference between 1st and 2nd except the club call gimmick and if you finish 5th you get an easy game at home v 8th while 4th is away at 1st. Any team who needed two points to finish 4th in the last game of the season will throw that game. Guaranteed. That would never happen in a top 5 system. Wire having to play away at Saints is equally daft. They finished 2nd so should always have been at home to any side lower than them in the league. A seasons worth of effort over 27 games should not be wiped out because they lost in week 2. The top 5 is miles better at rewarding league position and what that means is the league and play offs are then linked much more strongly and you could then call them one competition.

I would agree with this, we are losing out to Oz and RU by dragging the clubs that can, down to the level of the clubs that can’t. It’s now becoming a case of sink or swim; we are looking like a poor man’s sport to possible new recruits for both on the field and on the terraces. I also agree with a great deal of the original post, but no reduction in the league unless another competition is brought in as stated. This is a must for me no reduction in overall games.

As opposed to removing interest from all 27 fixtures you mean as the current format ultimately will IMO? There is a simple solution to the problem of a clubs season ending early. Improve the team and compete! The top 8 system is like prizes for all in school sports. No matter how rubbish you are you still get a prize. There is no incentive to improve when you can get into the play offs on the back of losing more games than you win as Wakefield did (lost 14 won 13).

Making it necessary to win more league games to qualify for the play offs is imperative if the game wants to maintain any creditability for the league cmpetition.

As long as measures are put in place to stop clubs who can't afford to spend that, us included, then it's a good idea. In fact why bother with a cap level at all? Just say that all clubs can spend 50% of their income on players wages.

Pemps for Prime Miister

How many leagues do you know in any sport where the whole league is in contention for a spot in the top 4 or 5 with two thirds of the season gone? Even in a well structured league it doesn't happen.

Your answer of "improve and compete" works at the individual club level, but if a couple of teams get better, somebody else will slip out of contention and their matches will be meaningless instead. I'm not saying this because I want to reward the clubs themeselves. Meaningless matches are no good when you're trying to market the competition as a whole.

The current system is not perfect either. The best solution, IMO, is to try to drag the quality of the Championship up to a higher level. You could then go back to P&R with a viable top 5 play-off - which I think is by far the best play-off format we've had in my lifetime.

Surely you are ancient and loyal enough to remember the old Premiership? An end of season seeded knockout competition for the top 8 teams? You should remember, it was around in Wigan's glory days and most of the winners' spoils will be gathering dust quietly somewhere at the back of the Wigan trophy cabinet. It doesn't exist anymore. And it doesn't exist because after the novelty wore off, fans, players, sponsors and media were disinterested in a second or third tier additional competition at the end of the season. If you separate the play-offs from the league, you should scrap them altogether.

Of course the Challenge Cup doesn't detract from the SL Grand Final, its a different competition so not a valid comparison.

I agree the top 8 system is not perfect, but you seem to be missing the fact that 1-4 get a second chance, so how finishing 5th is 'easier' than 4th is a mystery to me. Just because Wigan couldn't use their advantage doesn't mean there isn't one.

What extra money?

It's a cap not a minimum spend. If clubs can afford it then they will use it, if they cannot then they won't.

It's simple isn't it?