I was thinking to make Super League more competative why don't they have 16 teams with a two tier Super League

Teir 1

Saints
Wigan
Warrington
Leeds
Bradford
Huddersfeild
Catalan
Hull FC

Tier 2

London
Hull KR
Leigh / Halifax / Feverstone
Castleford
Wakefeild
London
Widnes
Salford

- Could be 28 games per season, or 21 games, then have promotion and relegation with the two Super Leagues
- More full time teams means GB have a bigger talent pool to choose from
- More competative matchs in tier one which would compete with the NRL
- Could expand it to 10 teams in each comp
- 21 game season would mean more time for internationals / battle of the roses
- Every bodies happy?

What does everyone think?

i think its a great idea but will it come to be-no.why because it would water the sky funding too much and a lot of the smaller teams you are trying to help would go to the wall.

It needs to be a 10-12 team league... any team coming into the league should have to meet the criteria for the league or they don't get in. The criteria should be strict and include that a team should have to spend to at least 80% of the cap.

Wigan
Leeds
Warrington
Saints
Hull FC
Catalans
Huddersfield
Bradford
Hull KR
Widnes/London/Castleford/Wakey/Salford

Widnes
London
Castleford
Wakefield
Salford
Halifax
Featherstone
Leigh
Toulouse
Sheffield

York
North Wales
South Wales
Hunslet
Dewsbury
Swinton
Batley
Barrow
Keighley
London Skolars
Oldham
Rochdale
Whitehaven
Northampton
.....
The rest of the teams could be made into a more regional comp where the GF is contested by the winners of of the play-offs from each league.

5 team play-off in each league with promotion going to the GF winner only if they meet the criteria for the league above.

The strength of the second tier looks healthy for once!

14 team league with a top 6 for play-off's, p&r, salary cap at 50% of turnover and state of origin type series each year

I really don't get the '2 tier Super League idea'.

I assume as it's still 'Super League' that the second tier would have the same salary cap limit as tier 1 yet that clearly isn't sustainable. It would just have a much weaker second division where teams aren't competing at the level that's required.

If tier 2 has a lower salary cap limit then it isn't Super League, it's the Championship and no attempt to brand it differently will change that. It's still the second tier competition.

But the difference being tier 2 would be bottom Super League clubs and top Championship teams being full time, making the 2nd division more competative...... and making promotion and relegation a much smoother process, just a though

Wont happen

be simpler to cut the number of teams..but it wont happen either

We already have a two tier Super League.

Exactly, so why not try and have a bigger two tier super league which is more competitive with more proffesional teams?

more teams equals less sky money to go to each club. most clubs can't afford to spend up to the full cap now so less revenue will mean that the top players will be more likely to look elsewhere to showcase their talents.

I think this is absolutley true, which is why I was thinking about the two tier Super League, as there is a class difference in Super League anyways, so why not just have two Leagues to make it more competative

I very seriously doubt it could sustain being full-time thats where i think the problem is. I think it could get off to a decent start as its new and a change but then when the initial boom interest has died down then keeping the clubs full-time will be a big struggle. Teams will try splash the cash on signing players to get to the top step of Super League and if they fail could end up in a big mess.

Why not stop buggering about and keep what we've got.
However, dont like the fact that we have to play Stains at least 3 times in league fixtures, when the Wilfs get their MM match against who evers left out of a bad bunch.
Still, the way things are going, I'd play Stains ever week. Perhaps thats the answer; 2 teams only Wigan and Stains, sod the rest.

to stay in super league you should have to spend to to 80% of the cap, if you cant, then your out. max 10 teams. we need to keep our best players in the game, and we are being held back because the lower teams cannot pay the full cap, so we cannot raise it.

how long has the cap been at the same level? players in real terms are getting more and more poor, whilst being asked to do an increasingly more difficult job with the new levels of fitness. the cap should be rising every couple of years to stay in line with inflation. clubs at the bottom of the table, who offer nothing to the competition (except 4 points for the top of the table clubs) are holding back the cap. without them we could raise the cap (with sky money spilt between less clubs) and keep our top players here, whilst attracting more young kids to play the game.

if you were a talented 16 year old at the moment you would no doubt be advised to play union because of the increased earning potential compared to league.

And do not for one second believe this 'sky wont want us if there is no london club in the league'. this is rubbish. League is sky's second top sport in terms of viewers, and I would guess they pay a hell of a lot less per viewer for league than they do for football. all this means that sky will do what ever they can to hold onto RL as it is a success for them. If they do drop the sport (which in my mind they never would, it would be business suicide) another channel would pick it up because of the massive benefits to them for a relatively small outlay.

The problem is much deeper rooted than that. The greatest problem with the game at the moment is the commercial and business side of things will always take priority. My Dad has been angry at the fact we play St. Helens three times in the League this season whilst Warrington will face a much easier (on paper) prospect in Widnes. From a purely sporting perspective he feels the game is unfair and a greater balance should be restored and we should remove the Magic Weekend from our season.

From the other side though we have seven league games all on SKY and a showcase event in Manchester which will bring new people to the game, even if just for that one spectacle. Its bound to be profitable and makes sense.

I personally think Super League could exist with just eight teams, all spending the salary cap to its maximum (and perhaps raising it) and including the biggest and best supported clubs. This would improve the competitiveness of the league but would ultimately cost the game and clubs money from less games. To make a two tier competition would probably lower our SKY money and kill off sides like London if they were to be relegated.

For me the best thing the game can do is look at the viewing figures from SKY over the course of a season and see if there are any trends in areas that currently don't have a SL side within ten miles of another. This is where they should be looking to infiltrate the schools and encourage the building of five or six amateur clubs throughout those boroughs. After ten or so years more encouragement (if the game is thriving and players are developing at amateur level and making the step up to Pro) can be offered for a Semi-Pro side to enter the league and then ultimately a bigger side to make it to SL.

Within twenty years we might start seeing well developed expansion clubs with a strong local attraction knocking on the door of SL and that makes it more invest-able and marketable. Just my opinion anyway.

You theory falls flat on the fact that London are one of the clubs spending the full cap amount.

But if this happened, Warrington would have to play someone half-decent on Magic Weekend!

They are paying the full cap at the moment. fundamental to my idea was the fact that the cap should rise (as soon as possible). if London can afford to pay that amount (and be one of the top 10 clubs, as i stated a 10 team league was ideal, which for me they are not. the top 10 are Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Warrington, Hull FC, Catalans, Bradford (if they sort out their financial difficulties), Huddersfield, HKR and A.N Other.) then I would have no problem with London staying. we should obviously have more than just the ability to spend the cap as the criteria for SL, but it should be a major part. other wise we are will all lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator, rather than the clubs pushing each other to further the sport.

also a 10 team league would allow a better exiles england series, open up the possibilty of more games v teams from down under

just home and away games with a 5 team play off series

so are widnes

Widnes were never going to be a force in their 1st season because the players they had available to them were limited as most top players were already under contract. The 2nd year they should gradually improve as more players are available and their 3rd year should be where they are aiming to be competitive with at least the teams 6th to 10th at worst...

They were the last pig to the trough for 2012 so were always going to be the runt of the litter.