- Change SL to 12 tier League
- Bring back Promotion and Relegation
- Someone else in charge of refs
- Have an actual sponsor in super league that will pump a bit of money into clubs

add to that, put someone in charge at the red hall who has a clue and bingo!

Whilst the idea in theory is sound, I think in practise it would run into the law. Something about restraint of trade not allowing a youth player to sign outside of their area. The points system suggested would bypass this as it's not stopping an individual but a club and the club would have to sign up to this rule to compete a bit like the cap at the moment.

In a way though the player drain is not the cause of the problem just a symptom. The real issue is revenues and how they have fallen compared to our competitors. People have said that the RFL have pushed the stadia issue too far, forcing clubs to develop stadia they cannot afford. But if you look at those clubs who have managed to develop new stadia this on the whole has managed to bring in more fans for SL clubs and a more secure financial future.

I don't think there is a silver bullet for the problem of revenues as this is down to how each club manages it's finances. In terms of a league structure I would favour 2 equal leagues. It does not resolve the money issue but it would resolve some of the competitive issues.

Wigan, Saints, Warrington, Salford, Widnes, Wrexham, Catalan, Another French team (Toulouse)

Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Cas, Wakey, London.

If everyone plays home and away in their own league, that's 14 games. This should ensure the smaller clubs get their big payday's as the derbies are still in place. At the moment there is no viable option for a London Derby, but if there was then I would introduce it. It also solves the intensity issue as the big clubs only play a smaller number of 'low intensity' games. ie Wigan would only play Salford, Widnes, Wrexham and Toulouse as opposed to (Salford, Widnes, Cas, Wakey, London, Hull K.R, (Huddersfield depending))

I know 14 games is not enough, so at this point in the season cross divisional games come into play. The top 4 from each division play each other home and away. The bottom 4 play each other home and away. 6 more games. This leads to 20 games per club. It throws some bias into the system too, meaning the lower placed team get an oppertunity to close the gap and make the playoffs.

After the cross divisional games. The leagues come back together for the last set of fixtures, the top 4 playing each other once more and the bottom 4 playing each other once more. Repeat fixtures I know, but we can't avoid this without more teams at present and 16 teams is pushing it with the players available.

This gives clubs 23 games if more are needed the the number of repeat fixture would need expanding, maybe home and away in the last set of games giving 26 games. Then the playoffs kick in.

Top 4 from each division 1v4, 2v3, 3v2, 4v1
Straight knockout comp.

This means finishing higher gives a distinct advantage to the top teams, but the cross divisional games means that a lower placed team may sneak in on the odd occasion.

The leagues would not be closed off, but a new team joining would have to meet minimum standards. In a way I'm not concerned about a salary cap, but I would suggest that a 3 year licence have some kind of break even clause, so a club cannot buy success through debt, but it does not stop money men gifting money to clubs, it just stops them leaving clubs with debts they cannot afford to repay over the long term.

The leagues long term could expand infinatley, with 20 teams you can have 2 leagues of 10. Even if just one club could be added, it does not matter so much that the leagues are uneven in size as the playoffs would decide the eventual champion so an even league is not required.

I can't see the current proposed 10 league suggestion catching on as whilst it puts teams against one another on a more competitive level, it's taking money from TV away from the likes of Cas, Salford, London and it's taking away the big payday derbies that generate revenue. Leigh Cas is never going to replace Leeds Cas, no matter how competitive the game is.

It means a bigger spread of the TV monies, but the big clubs get their derby paydays and more fixtures against bigger clubs more often, which may compensate for less TV money and hopefully get more fans in to watch more competitive games.

I think that you will start to see the decline this year. If you look at Wigan for example our team next year will be far weaker than this year. Going forward we will continue to lose our top talent to either RU or the NRL. Some clubs will be affected whilst others less so. For example if you look at Wire most of their top players are the wrong side of 30 so are of no real interest. Forwards cant really play in like for like positions in RU so I was always comforted with many of ours being contracted. NRL clubs rarely paid transfer fees but this is changing so everyone is now fair game. The only up side of this is money coming into our game in the form of transfer fees but this is short term. Agents will be advising thier clients to sign shorter contracts.

I dont really know what the answer is. The only real way of keeping players in our game is to pay them more. However how many clubs are actually able to afford to pay up to the limit as it stands now? For the ones that can then the issue is the level of the cap.

So many of my fellow supporters are not renewing next year. Lower crowds will mean less money coming in. As the top players move on then the standard of the game naturally declines. The lower the standard then the less money the RFL can command in sponsorship and TV rights. The less that comes in the worse the situation gets. Its a vicious circle.

We are staging the next world cup for both RL and RU in the next 3 years. Which competition would exite you most in terms of crowds etc? RL doesnt have this problem in Australia as their club game has thrived for years.

I can honestly say tha IMO our club game will be semi pro within 5 years and who knows where we will be after that.

I take your point about the England team but what difference will it really make if none of them play over here.

Its all very depressing

Quote ="Tricky Dicky"The game needs a massive overhaul. I think there should be 2 x 9 team leagues, all playing each other home and away and then playing each of the teams from the lower league / super league 1 away once. This would provide a 24 game season. At the end of the season Promotion and relegation between the two leagues could take place IMAGINE LEAGUE MAKE UP Super league 1 Wigan Wire Saints Leeds Hudds Hull Hull KR Bulls Catalan Super league 2 Salford Widnes London Cas Wakey Leigh Fax Fev Sheffield Salary cap between the two league could differ slightly i:e £1.2m in League 2 and £1.6m in league 1 but at least there would be full time clubs in two leagues and the leagues would be very competitive. Thoughts'" Hey…You pretty much nicked my Idea! The only problem with your idea is too little home games for SL1 teams to break even - We would need a third round of fixtures against each other (half teams in league home / half away – on rotation) and then half the division up, with only 5 games away to SL2 opposition IMO. This would then be the perfect solution IMO- as I put in another forum (See my post in another thread which expands a little further viewtopic.php?f=2&t=539609&tsmp=1352035110&start=60). Cross pollination of fixtures ensures it is all one league (and not a re-branded championship), leads to less blow out boring games as more are evenly matched, and in the games which are SL2 v SL1 fixtures, given there are only a handfull of key fixtures for the SL2 teams to get up for, and they are at home, this should increase the chances of upset and ensure they are competitive for a handfull of games they can raise for, where they would not be as competitve week in week out (see featherstone in the cup last year).

Quote ="Tricky Dicky"The game needs a massive overhaul. I think there should be 2 x 9 team leagues, all playing each other home and away and then playing each of the teams from the lower league / super league 1 away once. This would provide a 24 game season. At the end of the season Promotion and relegation between the two leagues could take place IMAGINE LEAGUE MAKE UP Super league 1 Wigan Wire Saints Leeds Hudds Hull Hull KR Bulls Catalan Super league 2 Salford Widnes London Cas Wakey Leigh Fax Fev Sheffield Salary cap between the two league could differ slightly i:e £1.2m in League 2 and £1.6m in league 1 but at least there would be full time clubs in two leagues and the leagues would be very competitive. Thoughts'" Hey…You pretty much nicked my Idea! The only problem with your idea is too little home games for SL1 teams to break even - We would need a third round of fixtures against each other (half teams in league home / half away – on rotation) and then half the division up, with only 5 games away to SL2 opposition IMO. This would then be the perfect solution IMO- as I put in another forum (See my post in another thread which expands a little further viewtopic.php?f=2&t=539609&tsmp=1352035110&start=60). Cross pollination of fixtures ensures it is all one league (and not a re-branded championship), leads to less blow out boring games as more are evenly matched, and in the games which are SL2 v SL1 fixtures, given there are only a handfull of key fixtures for the SL2 teams to get up for, and they are at home, this should increase the chances of upset and ensure they are competitive for a handfull of games they can raise for, where they would not be as competitve week in week out (see featherstone in the cup last year).

Many years ago in the 50s and early 60s there was only one division which consisted of 30 clubs and to get away from having to play 58 matches they used the following method.
There where 15 clubs in Yorkshire and 13 in Lancashire at the time (Barrow was in Lancashire) Workington and Whitehaven where then included in the Lancashire side of things,which meant 15 from Lanc's and 15 from York;s.
This meant you had 28 fixtures when you played each team home and away from your County and to beef the fixtures up to the 36 matches it was at that time, all the Lancashire Clubs played 4 teams from Yorkshire home and away and the Yorkshire did the same (they played 4 teams from Lancashire)
The 4 teams you played from the opposite County I think was based on the previous seasons placings.
Having checked the 1954/55 season the 4 Yorkshire teams Wigan (who had finished 4th) played finished 1st,4th, 8th and 12th the previous season in a 30 team league.
This system seemed to work quite well for a few years.

So putting something like this into the previous suggestion of the poster who said 9 teams in each division could be worked on, 16 matches against teams from your own league and 8 matches against the other league.
How you picked the 4 teams from the other league would be open to debate,it could be based on previous league placings or more on a regional basis which would give some cracking local derbys.
It is only a very basic idea and I could see a lot of obstruction from Sky and fitting promotion and relegation into it may be a problem,but it can't be any dafter that the present playoff system.

I think this hits the nail on the head about possible problems with the initial idea. Any kind of restriction that would force youngsters in Leigh to sign with Leigh as juniors and be paid a low wage compared to signing with Wire for much higher wages will never work. There has to be little to no financial disadvantage to restricting who junior players can sign for for it to work.



This is THE issue. Had the RFL got the nous to get a £38m a-season TV deal out of a broadcaster as the RU Premiership has just got out of BT Vision we could have a far better structure than we do now and pay players enough to remove the financial consideration from the question of moving to RU or the NRL.

As it is there is barely enough money to run a 12 team super league on so called professional lines. Any idea of a two division super league with more teams in it than 12 is a complete non-starter unless there is a lot more money to distribute to [uall[/u the teams involved. Any form of promotion and relegation between any kind of league structure is only feasible if financially it isn't a complete disaster to get relegated (and equally doesn't require clubs to secure a huge increase in revenue to compete once promoted).

The fact RU have got this TV deal when their viewing figures on Sky are worse than for Super League leaves me pointing the finger at the RFL for their abject failure to secure more revenues for the game.

As I have said on another thread despite the so called time of austerity we live in, RU has just got this £38m a year deal while we are supposed to accept giving away free sponsorship to Stobart's is all we can hope for.

Some really good ideas here.
I like the 9 + 9 with the first nine playing each other twice and then playing the other nine once. That would give us 25 games which is ok.
Dump the Magic weekend from SL and bring it in at the last 16 stage of the C Cup. Eighteen teams is too many for the Magic weekend anyway.
The OP was concerned about smaller clubs holding onto their better players and not having them poached by bigger clubs therefore becoming more competitive. If we are serious about wanting a more competitive SL then this is a major problem we have to overcome.
I do think the player rating system would stand up to scrutiny which would put fresh emphasis on clubs producing their own talent.
Produce your own and you'll survive and thrive, don't and you won't do either!

I think money has a part of it, but maybe the players want to try to play against the better teams as much as possible. Something which the NRL can offer which sadly the SL can't.

Why on earth will it be semi pro within 5 years?
We have the second most watched league on Sky Sports.
Our league is virtually on par with Unions premiership for attendances, and would be much higher if it wasn't for the economic downturn up north.
We will make a big profit on the World Cup, no matter how much the flatcappers try to drag it down.
I hear the same old nonsense every year about fans 'not renewing', but the crowds just keep rising.
Only thing that holds back this league is the attitude of its fans.
And always will be.

JonB95. You say we have the second most watched league on Sky Sports.

The problem for the Rugby League is it is probably one of the cheapest in terms of the cost to Sky.

My point is really based on the fact the the problem has not really hit us yet. As players continue to leave our game the quality will dip. Whilst some people (including me) will alway have a season ticket some will lose faith as much as interest. Whilst I take your point about sky currently how long will they want to fund a sport that is becoming weaker, and please dont tell me that its not. As for average crowds they are not virtually on a par with RU. If you add the average of the 14 SL clubs and divide it shows and average of just over 9500. Yawnion averages 3000 more which equates to nearly 25%! I didnt realise that the global credit crisis was restricted to the north of England however you could cancel that out with the fact that the summer months does lead to larger crowds. If things carry on do you really think that crowds will rise?

We might well make a profit on the World Cup but so what? Where will the money go? My point was about the crowds etc and how our players would kill for an international game like they have.

So the attitude of the fans is whats holding the game back? Really?? I dont think any of the players off to pastures new would cite this as the reason that theyre going, whichever club they leave.

And it should cost more. But what position are we in to order Sky Sports around? They have been something of a saving grace for our sport.

Thats true but I do think our game is undersold by the RFL

The reason club RU is 3000 in front of us average wise is due to saracens playing at wembley once or twice a year giving thousands of free tickets away. Harlequins do the same at twickenham. If saracens, harlequins, london irish and wasp didnt take games to big stadiums and give away thousands of free tickets the average crowd of club RU would be around 10,000. RU is exactly thriving they have had wasps go in admin and the only have one top flight team in the north sale and they may get relegated this year. As for the welsh RU clubs they all went out of business and there down to 4 regions and there still struggling to make ends meet. I think people on here really overate RU

Don't forget here the Union average is taking into account both the Twickenham double header and the Saracens-Harlequins game, in which about 70,000 of the crowd were there primarily because they either got free tickets or wanted to see McFly perform. I don't think this says anything about the greater popularity of rugby union. Of course the credit crunch isn't restricted to the north, but i'm sure as you know rugby league is most popular in some of the more.. 'deprived' areas of our country, in stark contrast to union! (cliché, but true)
The quality of our league is still far above any of the dog turd i've seen dished up this season in the Aviva Premiership (which is declining just as badly imo). I'm sick to death of our fans complaining about how crap Super League is. If anything I think it's WONDERFUL that we are seeing more and more young players coming through in place of the Australian veterans. It will in the long-term increase the credibility of our competition.
I'm sure we can weather a few years of a dip in intensity. The more young English players experiencing Super League week in week out, the better it will become over a longer period of time.
The profit made from the World Cup will be distributed however the RFL chooses. I don't know, I don't work there! Of course, the number 1 benefit is the increased awareness to our great sport across the globe. Our international game is small of course, but we have to accept this and do whatever we can to send the game to new audiences. Union's world cup is of little interest to me - i'm sure it will have an effect, but will it be long-term? It's already under fire because the games have been all scheduled for soulless football grounds with virtually zero rugby heritage (apart from Gloucester). Do we really want our game to sell its soul like that?
The difference in union is that their fans generally accept their game as it is, and will fight its corner whenever they possibly can. And the RFU is not the most spectacular organization in the world either.
I don't know why I bother myself with some of the whingers on here. Just accept the game and keep smiling, if you love the game enough then watching it week in week out should be enough to put a smile on your face - we are lucky to have what we have.

I agree 100% i can not believe what i read with some of these lot.

sale sharks 6800, London welsh 4500, London irish 7000, London wasp 6500, Exeter 7000, Worcester 8000, Saracens 6500 that is approx what will watch these clubs on a average game at there regular stadiums. Its nothing to shout about is really not much different to are lower clubs. Only club that gets regular big crowds is Leicester Tigers the rest are bumped up with these free ticket days at wembley and twickenham. Also london irish on st patricks day go from 6500 - 7000 to getting 20,000 for a day probably due to free tickets. The only team in london that get decent crowds is harlequins average 14,000. We talk about boom and bust most of these union clubs are losing a fortune but still want to offer people like Tomkins big money it is only due to wealthy owners as they take are players. We could do same if we raised cap and the likes of IL put his hand in his pocket. Yeah we would lose money but its up to owners to clear the debt and if we ever lose a wealthy a owner the club goes t*ts up just like saracens would if there owner walked away. If we are going to die as you all say we might as well go down fighting and yes there will be a gap between the top and the bottom clubs but there already is now so nothing will change. Look at there losses in this in 2009-2010 and nothing will have changed for them www.nowrugby.com/mb/showthread.php?t=84333

sale sharks 6800, London welsh 4500, London irish 7000, London wasp 6500, Exeter 7000, Worcester 8000, Saracens 6500 that is approx what will watch these clubs on a average game at there regular stadiums. Its nothing to shout about is really not much different to are lower clubs. Only club that gets regular big crowds is Leicester Tigers the rest are bumped up with these free ticket days at wembley and twickenham. Also london irish on st patricks day go from 6500 - 7000 to getting 20,000 for a day probably due to free tickets. The only team in london that get decent crowds is harlequins average 14,000. We talk about boom and bust most of these union clubs are losing a fortune but still want to offer people like Tomkins big money it is only due to wealthy owners as they take are players. We could do same if we raised cap and the likes of IL put his hand in his pocket. Yeah we would lose money but its up to owners to clear the debt and if we ever lose a wealthy a owner the club goes t*ts up just like saracens would if there owner walked away. If we are going to die as you all say we might as well go down fighting and yes there will be a gap between the top and the bottom clubs but there already is now so nothing will change. Look at there losses in this in 2009-2010 and nothing will have changed for them www.nowrugby.com/mb/showthread.php?t=84333

Some on here say that they are fed-up with the doom merchants of RL and we should look at the woes of the RFU to get the real picture of the respective sports into a true perspective. I believe it’s not me and others like me who can’t see the real picture. If you lot think for one minute that RU will sink like a stone just because our beloved game is a much better product, and in time good will conquer evil, think again. All I can say you’ve probably lived in the North for too long. Aside from the product, all our game has is its fans and an inept management structure, and though I agree these also apply to RU what they have which we don’t is backing where it counts, from the big boys at the BBC, to the old school ties in the halls of power, of newspaper sport, and even government. Just watch the coverage on all TV channels and see the difference in coverage, the BBC love to promote the Northern cloth cap an whippet image, and if you think I’m wrong, then it’s not me who’s deluded.

I do not think RU will ever die but i also do not think RL is going to die or go semi pro in the next 5 years as some say. For as long as the 57 old farts are running RU/the country union will always get more coverage on tv and in papers. RU as always been the same and had big international scence but it does not mean we have to die.

Quote ="JC1984"sale sharks 6800, London welsh 4500, London irish 7000, London wasp 6500, Exeter 7000, Worcester 8000, Saracens 6500 that is approx what will watch these clubs on a average game at there regular stadiums. Its nothing to shout about is really not much different to are lower clubs. Only club that gets regular big crowds is Leicester Tigers the rest are bumped up with these free ticket days at wembley and twickenham. Also london irish on st patricks day go from 6500 - 7000 to getting 20,000 for a day probably due to free tickets. The only team in london that get decent crowds is harlequins average 14,000. We talk about boom and bust most of these union clubs are losing a fortune but still want to offer people like Tomkins big money it is only due to wealthy owners as they take are players. We could do same if we raised cap and the likes of IL put his hand in his pocket. Yeah we would lose money but its up to owners to clear the debt and if we ever lose a wealthy a owner the club goes t*ts up just like saracens would if there owner walked away. If we are going to die as you all say we might as well go down fighting and yes there will be a gap between the top and the bottom clubs but there already is now so nothing will change. Look at there losses in this in 2009-2010 and nothing will have changed for them www.nowrugby.com/mb/showthread.php?t=84333'" The massive new TV rights deal RU has secured has obviously passed you buy. It's £38m a season for four seasons and the Premiership clubs are planning to increase their salary caps on receipt of their share of this money. How big their crowds are or how rich their owners are is just not an issue when that sort of cash comes flowing in. And that is before they secure any other sponsorship which you can bet won't be given away for free to Stobarts and before they get any central funds off the RFU. They are not even attempting to fund their outgoings of gate receipts. If you think RU is in a bad state financially you are barking up the wring tree. We are the sport trying to run clubs on a £700K handout from Sky and then balancing the books by the clubs generating their own revenue. Just how much money do you think a team as big as Wigan can squeeze out of the fans never mind the likes of Wakey? All this "I prefer the club to be self supporting financially" is a load of rubbish in this day and age for pro sport. In the past the odd sugar daddy like Dave Whelan could bank roll a club but now its well past that already in RU. Like soccer but on a smaller scale it is generating such a big income from outside revenue it's taking players wages to a new level. Pro sport has become a very costly exercise where the costs way outweigh what monies clubs can generate in a traditional way. RU played BT Vision off against Sky to get a great TV deal in these so called times of Austerity. How far away is that from giving the sponsorship away for nothing?

Quote ="JC1984"sale sharks 6800, London welsh 4500, London irish 7000, London wasp 6500, Exeter 7000, Worcester 8000, Saracens 6500 that is approx what will watch these clubs on a average game at there regular stadiums. Its nothing to shout about is really not much different to are lower clubs. Only club that gets regular big crowds is Leicester Tigers the rest are bumped up with these free ticket days at wembley and twickenham. Also london irish on st patricks day go from 6500 - 7000 to getting 20,000 for a day probably due to free tickets. The only team in london that get decent crowds is harlequins average 14,000. We talk about boom and bust most of these union clubs are losing a fortune but still want to offer people like Tomkins big money it is only due to wealthy owners as they take are players. We could do same if we raised cap and the likes of IL put his hand in his pocket. Yeah we would lose money but its up to owners to clear the debt and if we ever lose a wealthy a owner the club goes t*ts up just like saracens would if there owner walked away. If we are going to die as you all say we might as well go down fighting and yes there will be a gap between the top and the bottom clubs but there already is now so nothing will change. Look at there losses in this in 2009-2010 and nothing will have changed for them www.nowrugby.com/mb/showthread.php?t=84333'" The massive new TV rights deal RU has secured has obviously passed you buy. It's £38m a season for four seasons and the Premiership clubs are planning to increase their salary caps on receipt of their share of this money. How big their crowds are or how rich their owners are is just not an issue when that sort of cash comes flowing in. And that is before they secure any other sponsorship which you can bet won't be given away for free to Stobarts and before they get any central funds off the RFU. They are not even attempting to fund their outgoings of gate receipts. If you think RU is in a bad state financially you are barking up the wring tree. We are the sport trying to run clubs on a £700K handout from Sky and then balancing the books by the clubs generating their own revenue. Just how much money do you think a team as big as Wigan can squeeze out of the fans never mind the likes of Wakey? All this "I prefer the club to be self supporting financially" is a load of rubbish in this day and age for pro sport. In the past the odd sugar daddy like Dave Whelan could bank roll a club but now its well past that already in RU. Like soccer but on a smaller scale it is generating such a big income from outside revenue it's taking players wages to a new level. Pro sport has become a very costly exercise where the costs way outweigh what monies clubs can generate in a traditional way. RU played BT Vision off against Sky to get a great TV deal in these so called times of Austerity. How far away is that from giving the sponsorship away for nothing?

The RU has signed the new deal for £38 million per season with BT? but how much were they getting from SKY and how much will that drop by in the new deal or will Sky not televise any of the RU games.

The RU Clubs should use that extra tv money to balance there books out. Saracens losing £6mil a year even with the extra tv money they will still lose money and any extra money they get they want try using it to stop there mass exdous to the french RU instead of wasting it on RL players. If Rugby Union clubs are so safe why did Wasp going into admin ? How can crowds and rich owners not be an issue for RU clubs with this "money flowing in" the money flowing in is obviously not as much as the money flowing out otherwise all aviva premership clubs would post profits but only 2 clubs do

I think they once said that about jousting !