What a stupid idea the whole thing is. If they want to spice it up a bit make it simple, the bottom two clubs at the end of the season go down and the top two in the champinship go up. Is someone short of something to do, killing time by having brain farts and introducing them as new rules. Leave the game alone.

This.

I Hate it.

Some posters have already hit the nail on the head and the tag line should have read "Super League to be cut to 12 teams", the rest is just sugar coating the pill.
The one saving grace is that at least there is some advance warning, although as many have said, how do the lower ranked SL clubs sell a full season ticket and what the hell happens to player recruitment if you are on the edge of the top 12 (or 11 clubs)

As has been said it can only be a backdoor way of getting the competition down by two clubs and sod the rest. Ultimately, probably a couple of years down the line, the drawbridge will be pulled up again and the rest can coco. The proposal as it is just isn't feasable. How are two 12-team leagues going to fund fulltime squads with less money to go about? Sky are rapidly losing interest in RL so that isn't going to happen, we can't attract sponsors and crowds are down. And clubs going back to playing each other several times a season isn't going to increase interest, only boredom.

The biggest change needed in rugby league is in the corridors of power at Redhall and the boardrooms of many clubs.

It's official, Kermit has taken over from Nigel Wood (aka Miss Piggy)
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
etc.
Only Rugby League could create such chaos from what should be positive PR

Do we know this to be a fact because I thought RL was one of their more watched sports after football.

I've said before that it should be 2 conferences of 10 teams with the split based on odd/even league positions from the previous season.

Team play all others in their conference on a home & away basis, with a further 6 & 8 inter-conference games (not sure what basis the teams would be "drawn" on but even the RFL could sort that one!!!).

That gives a 26/28 game regular season. Top 4 in each conference play off to determine a conference winner. Both conference winners play each other in Grand Final.

Simples!!!

There's no way we can get the money for 20 full time teams and there's not enough decent players to fill them.

After all the rubbish we've had to endure over the last few years in the name of trying to keep the clubs/game solvent, I can't see a better way of sending a number of clubs to the wall than this.

The richer clubs who suffer injuries to key players at the start of the season will be able to weather the loss of income if they end up in league 2 after 11 games. The shortfall in attendances will mean that other clubs with full time players and salaries to match won't. What's the point of a full-timers v part-timers division anyway?

How do you sell season tickets for this new concept?

How do you fund the drop, and the other way round, how do you fund the rise to SL status without seriously compromising your financial means? Where do you get the players from in the short term to make the investment viable?

It'll line the pockets of the administrators, but the game can go and die.

I think you are all trying to make sense of a situation the RL given the chance would have introduced at the last round of franchise. The RL had the opportunity to make a three year plan, but circumstances forced their hands.
Promotion and relegation could have been over a three year period, with the team with a poor record over that period relegated and the team with the best record promoted. The rl could have said at that time we want 2 teams to drop down after a play off.
I have no doubt that the RL know what teams they want playing in SL, and have for some time. In wakefields case they were never wanted, and spoiled the party for Mr Lindsey when they won The trophy for league leaders and went on to beat Featherstone in the final. They received no SL money in our first season.
Bradford received great treatment. In Wales a so called new area nothing. I work in London and I understand they have told the RFL they will no longer be playing RL at the end of the season.
The RFL stinks its administraton dated, and works on the old working mens club principle. Please don't expect the RFL to put its neck on the line and run the game in a fair manner, THEY DO NOT WANT AND NEVER HAVE 2 TEAMS IN THE WF REGION.

Might be well watched but it isn't backed up by their actions. In recent years they have dropped the NRL, championship & northern rail, varsity match and now they weren't interested in the world cup or the internationals in future years. Throw in the fact that sespite having the rights they turned down the chance to show a challenge cup game in the 4th & 5th rounds and the dropping of state of origin and the anzac test and theres your decline in interest. They aren't all of a sudden going to pay enough to cover the extra teams in a convoluted superleague setup. And other providers just don't have the funds or the subscribers. If this is the answer we desperatley need a new question.

By the sounds of all that they've been getting rid of events that haven't been getting the numbers, which is what it's all about for Sky at the end of the day.

Completely agree with you're last sentence.

They might be interested in the Leeds and Wigans of this world but will have no interest in the Featherstones and Sheffield. And if the french clubs can negotiate their own deal then they might just take their bat home as they did with the international deals.

Either way this idea is a non-starter and they need to get back round the table and think again.

Agree with all of this entirely.

We will always be seen as potential outcasts since the demostrations we made in the advent of the SL era regarding Maurice Lindsay's ideas on mergers.

One thing that does stand out in the new proposals is there is no mention of ground facilities and/or new stadia. Surely this is a positive for both Cas Tigers and WTW at this present time ?

This split league will be in in two year the championship clubs want it and the top S/L clubs do so the vote will go through I would think

It certainly will. The only thing that needs ironing out is the funding and the disparity between what the SL1 clubs will get from Sky (1.2 million ??) and the SL2 clubs (300K ??).
My only problem with this proposal would be - the 4 teams going up after round 11 from SL2 would not be able to compete with the other 8 existing SL1 teams because of the difference in Sky monies. The wealthier clubs and those not under threat of demotion need to make a sacrifice on this one IMO.

We're in danger of confusing the general public and alienating potential new viewers. Just keep it to promotion and relegation to a 12 team super league as is the British way. No soft favours to developmental areas in Wales, Gloucester or France either promotion on merit whether that be teams like Featherstone or Sheffield.

The 4 teams in S/l 2 going up after round 11 don't play the top 8 they form a split league with the bottom 4 of S/L for the second half of the season At the end of the season the top 4 in the split league of 8 would go into S\L the following year I agree it will be hard to beat the bottom 4 S/L teams in the split league as they would be full time and 4 part time ( this needs lookin at ) but it is a way for the ambitious championship clubs to get into the top division

I stand corrected JTfev. Its the middle division where the inbalance lies. There would be the 4 teams from SL1 (say Hull KR, Wakey, Salford and Widnes) who would be getting 1 million plus Sky money against the top 4 from SL2 (say London, Cas, Halifax and Fev) on 300K.
If we can get the Sky money evened out a little bit more and all 8 teams were full-time this could be a good division to watch. In effect it would only need 2 extra teams to make the step up to a full-time operation.

Throw Toulouse into the mix and it gets very interesting.

Reduce the top tier to 12 with some fairy tale about splitting divisions and helping the game, then cast aside everything below the 12.

Result a 12 team super league.

But there would still be meaningless games unless we turn back the clock to 2006 with P&R one up and one down.

My understanding is the bottom four SL1 clubs would play against the top 4 SL 2 teams . The four teams who then finish top of SL2 would return to SL1 for the next season. Am I right please.

You are right - the only thing I am unsure about is if these 4 clubs who return to SL1 the following season do it from their final league position or through a play-off. I am inclined to think its the latter and not the former. The play-off series in SL2 is to be crowned SL2 champions only (I think).

Tiger wouldn't SL 2 games be the playoffs

Out of the three suggested options, the first is the clear winner for me. 12 teams in Superleague with the bottom one being relegated and the top in the Championship being promoted. I bet it wouldn't be quite as clear as this though, I doubt they would relegate the new French side if they came bottom!

I actually don't think they should let in Toulouse, if they earn their place via promotion from the bottom then fair enough but I don't agree with the fast pass method. Personally I don't want to watch even one French team, certainly don't want to watch two!!!

That split the league half way through option is just a crafty way of eventually obtaining an eight team Superleague. I doubt the others would get a look in.