What sizes of conferences are we thinking about? If money were no object 2 x 10 would work as:

Home [uand[/u away against the 9 in your conference = 18 games, 9 home fixtures.
Home [uor[/u away against the 10 in the other conference = 10 games, 28 altogether, with a further 5 at home.

Fewer teams and it does become difficult, admittedly.

That's exactly what should happen regarding the youth set ups. Each club forms a partnership with another, and you could have a carbon copy format, although i'd like to set it as an u23's comp mainly, with a limit on 24+ of about 6-8.

I'd rather we kept it at 18 games each and use the 'free' weekends to have a meaningful four nations competition running alongside the regular season.

The championships are a feeder league. They always have been and always will be. In all circumstances the lower tier is a feeder league to the leagues above. Its how a pyramid works. There seems to be a section of lower league fans who cannot seem to accept this and seem utterly confused that the championship isn’t treated as an equal league to SL. Its crazy.

I’ve said before that a good position for the lower league clubs is as part of a pathway to the top for players. The start of this is removing the responsibility for youth development from the SL clubs and taking a whole game approach to it.

Starting with investing more in coaching at the very youngest ages. Then at 13/14 the very best players get funnelled through to playing for super clubs at youth age RL. For example the 200 13 year olds in the country train with the very best coaches in addition to their amateur teams so they carry on playing with friends, but also say 8 games a year at the super club level. This would carry on until the year they turn 18 at which point they will join a lower league side. Again the very best coaches are paid for by the RFL and working with these young players. It would also allow us to run ‘masterclasses’ where the RFL could pay for say Joey Johns or Darren Lockyer to work with 20 best 17 year old half backs, 20 best 18 year old half backs, and 20 best 19 year old halfbacks for 6 months of the year. Travelling around to the different lower tier clubs and spending some one on one time with the youngsters helping and advising. We can have the likes of Peacock working with all the Props/2nd rowers. Paul Sculthorpe running a loose forward masterclass. Etc etc. At 18 and 19 a young player plays for the lower league clubs.

At 20 they go into a draft.

This has the numerous benefits including giving the best young players a good quality league to play in, it gives the game a proving ground for them, it gives the lower league clubs better quality players, it give SL better quality more rounded, more polished young players. It would also give the game a better spread of talent at the top level, as well as increasing the interest in the lower league and the game as a whole. Fans would always be talking about who their team should pick, and then they would be interest in how they do. This year we would have the likes of Crooks, Singleton, Ward, Bateman, Clark all coming up to the draft, I think fans would be pretty excited to see who they get and definitely interested in how they were doing in the lower leagues.

They try and build a sustainable buisness, and apply for a liscense. I'd also question whether a full time SL club is sustainable in the likes of Fev, Leigh, Batley etc.

Thoughts? It's either idiocy or lunacy, or possibly both.

I agree fully with Charlie Sheen (now there's a statement that should never be taken out of context), the structure isn't the problem, it's the lack of strength within it. A few clubs just need to realise that they need to fix some of their own problems. The only thing I think some of the lower end clubs do need help with is perhaps some way of being more able to keep hold of the players they do produce, or at least being more fairly compensated. It does seem to be getting worse for the top prospects being snaffled up by the teams with more money, and the fees are often so arbitrary that the 'selling' club is clearly the loser.

And as for the too many one-sided games argument, I've a radical idea. Why don't all clubs get refereed the same? Some blowouts are inevitable, there are always going to be some teams running hot against another having one of those days, but how many times do we see 'top 4 refereeing' resulting in domination of possession/position to rack up a big score and freezing out the opposition?

Very rarely, if ever

I've disagreed with you on this before, and still do. We all know your allegiances.

You can disagree all you like but to bring referees into this discussion is foolish. Please point to the games where a referee has "caused" a blow-out score through constantly (unfairly) pinging one side.

To be honest I'd much rather see the format stay as it is than this new suggestion. For me it's not the league structure that's the problem but how RL is perceived in this country. The game is in major need of a profile boost and whatever strategy Nigel Wood and co at the RFL are implementing clearly isn't working.

The fact that I don't keep a list to call to mind does not mean it does not happen. I also never said it was just down to constant pinging of one side. It's a combination of some unfair pinging, some infringements not being punished, and inequality in the treatment of the ruck. Lots of little things all contribute to where the game is played, by whom, and in what circumstances. The chief 3 areas I think you see it are ball steals/knock-ons, interference/holding down at the ruck, and moving off the mark/not standing square. Then there's also the issue of how many forward passes certain teams/players seem to get away with, which is adding points to scorelines illegitimately.

And the reason I brought it up is because too many blowout scores is being cited as a reason for restructuring the competition, but IMO it's mainly a symptom of problems on the pitch not off it.

I think it's a terrible idea.

Aside from the fact that the first part of the season provides an unlevel playing field by only paying teams once, you'd only know the club's fixtures upto early April.

I believe the proposal is then to play a couple of rounds of the Cup before starting the second phase of the league campaign with a new fixture list.

This so called 2 leagues then split after approx 11 games.what a total *uck up. Why cant the so called experts that are supposed to be running the game get any thing right,
yeh have two leagues with promotion and religation. with the top 2 of league 2 and the bottom teams of league one playing to see who goes up or stays in the relitive league's.
we'll then have 22 league games, plus cup games with freee weeks to play internationals/origin games, then maybe re interduce the yorkshire, lancashire cups

the spilt league is a terrible idea! it will see the top teams get richer and the less glamorous clubs lose more money!

wigan v saints, ( home and away),for example 3 times a season would bring in decent gate money!
cas v london 3 times a season would be financial disaster for clubs like them!
how clubs could vote for that is ridiculous!

look at our own derby with rovers, if say rovers are in the bottom 4 come the split and end up joining the middle tier, depending on who had the home fixture first, the other is going to lose out on a big financial payday! cant see any intellegent cheif exec or chairman voting for that!

Crazy idea. As it's panned out this season you lot were 9th after Rd 11. You'd just have got Ellis, Holdsworth etc back in time to face Sheffield & Batley...& York wouldn't have missed the split by much. What happens if your dual-reg team ends in the same competition? Absolutely bonkers.

Complete horse.

According to Gollum on Sportstalk just now it's the one 'gaining traction' at the moment.

Jeezus feckin' wept.

I know you don't want to hear it, and the relevance to this thread is questionable, but I've seen plenty of games where this has happened. Plenty. And it's not just about what gets given - it's about what doesn't.

See any game that Silverwood has ever refereed involving a 'top 4' side against an unfancied one for reference.

Referees regularly affect the outcome of SL games. But nothing will get done because there's no will to tackle the issue, not enough referees even if there were, and far too many people in denial.

Honestly, we might as well put a deranged chimp in charge of the RFL. This is an awful idea.

Oh, c'mon!



They're not going to fall for that again. Judging clubs as businesses has been well and truly deaded, and at least the rfl don't seem to be looking at another round of applications.
You can't build a sustainable SL business outside of SL. Most can't even do it in SL.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22488221

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22488221

FFS. Think it will alienate more than it attracts. I'll certainly think twice about remaining a season ticket holder.

Widnes and Catalans did alright. I agree that most championship clubs couldn't do it, but gettin rid of franchising won't change that. Can Fev really sustain a full time SL club in the long term with a population of roughly 10,000 people, can Leigh with 40,000, or Batley with 50,000? Sheffield, and Halifax maybe able to but it would take them a lot longer than 12 months to be able to build a squad or an infastructure capable of surviving in SL and remaining sustainable.

Anyway it looks like changes will be made. Getting rid of franchising after only 5 years is a very short sighted and will damage the game long term, I can't help but feel the RFL have lost their nerve on this.

For me there's a distinction between licensing and franchising and the Bradford and arguably Wakefield situations saw of us move from the former to the latter. Nothing in it for those without a franchise, so it'd effectively be another breakaway, where the RFL seem to want something that is a whole sport solution.

Are the Bradford, Wakefield and Salford situations a result of the liscensing system or a result of years of mis-management by the clubs themselves? I just don't see how bringing back P & R, and as a result making the future of several clubs unstable is a good thing.

The problem is it seems (as you say) the RFL, and the championship clubs inparticular want a 'everybody wins' situations which is understandable, but very unreasonable in the current climate.