https://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/spor ... ul-3305527 Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere. Really not sure what the future of the game is in a post covid landscape, but a 10 team top tier would be the death knell for me, irrespective of the rest of his ideas. Warrington are cashed up, but not a big club. They just happen to have a rich owner at this moment in time. “A club from Hull” is also an interesting quote. In an ideal world, more teams would be in Super League, as a 12 team league is tedious enough, but that will never happen now.

https://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/spor ... ul-3305527 Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere. Really not sure what the future of the game is in a post covid landscape, but a 10 team top tier would be the death knell for me, irrespective of the rest of his ideas. Warrington are cashed up, but not a big club. They just happen to have a rich owner at this moment in time. “A club from Hull” is also an interesting quote. In an ideal world, more teams would be in Super League, as a 12 team league is tedious enough, but that will never happen now.

Self evident that 10 teams means one or fewer clubs from Hull. The sport is not viable right now and the last go at this was half-d. Change must happen - whether in this way or not.

The last two season will definitely be a catalyst for change good or (probably) bad. Just not sure RL supporters have the stomach for it anymore.

going to cause a huge poop storm deciding which clubs go, do we relegate the bottom 3 and promote the championship winners through their grand final, block promotion and just drop the bottom 2?

make or break next couple of years, id like 14 teams, but owners wont be willing to split an ever reducing cash pot even more!

Owners of some SL clubs wont give up their power easily!

If there's a restructure, 2021 league positions will count for very little. There would be principles applied overlaid with a franchise style assessment on a number of criteria to decide the final 10.

There in lies the issues the sport faces that is likely the case and that way of looking at it is why the sport is slowly killing itself off. They only seem to look at what they will lose out on rather than look at the possibilities and extra revenue that a 14 team set up could bring in. In essence its a professional sport run by amateurs and with all the business savvy within the game its mind boggling that none of them can see or agree on the best options for the sport.

For me personally a league of 10 teams just isn't enough for a meaningful league and wouldn't do much for the sport, I think I'd probably call it a day if it went down that route. All it does is further reduce the appeal and game itself.

SKY money is being reduced by 30% next year, debts are mounting at an alarming rate, and you think the sport can survive with even more teams?

If the game went semi pro would we get any money from sport England ? Every team would then be on the same footing but it would put paid to Aussie pensioners coming over for big bucks.

12 teams isn’t enough to keep people’s interest. 10 would kill the game for all but those 10 teams. The game can’t even afford 10 teams I’d wager.
I know a lot of people where it wouldn’t take much to walk away from the game for good. Really crucial time for the game.
Can also see a number of lower league teams just disappearing.

IMO It's not the number of teams that makes the impact, it's the number of games/repeat fixtures that has the bigger negative impact.
14 teams works because:

26 games, each team played home and away, thus removal of fabricated/slanted fixtures to have more local rivalry matches, it works better IMHO, I gave an example on the VT, 2x sell outs as opposed to 3x with just slightly more fans but more costs overall to host 3 games thus less net income, also multiple/repeat fixtures for the 'derby' games = fan fatigue hence fall off on those repeat big games..

Ditching 'magic' weekend, I've not seen evidence that this benefits clubs financially, given the cheap tickets are significantly less than a std ticlet (less than half the revenue for a 2 day ticket compared to 2 full price tickets) and the effect it has elsewhere including the home teams loss. That's before the some fans investment in travelling/boozing which does have an effect on CC games incl the final when those neutrals might have had a big day out there instead should their team not get there.

Newcastle already had roots and a team that had done ok, when I assessed attendances from pre 'magic' I can't see any influence holding magic in Newcastle has had than if just the normal progression from same input into an area at grass roots/development. You don't need to input grass roots/support to fledgling teams by holding a 2 day repeat fixture event that loses money to clubs.

Ditch the Easter Monday game, this is a player welfare issue IMO and is also fan fatigue, I don't really want to watch two teams flogging themselves when half the team are shattered, no problem with squad rotation but you can't replace everyone in the 17 and as we've seen, player fatigue leads to more injuries and can have a significant effect on the quality of the game itself.

Have your play-off at the end of season but change the format back to what we had of top team are champions. Do top 8, simple 1v8 etc as per old premiership but teams MUST field minimum 50% of players say u23/players or those with fewer than 6 1st team appearances (just a figure I plucked). If we are to have end of season internationals then player fatigue/injury plays a huge part on how the national team/s do in these late in the season games.

Do better at International level equals more exposure, more fans and so on.

Does less TV money per club from more teams playing in SL have an impact, yes, however with more teams but fewer games overall I beleive that that can be overcome through higher overall attendance averages whilst including more teams in the top division.

oh and also scrapping immediate relegation, every two years to have P&R, and more suport for teams coming up so that they get a fair shake regards preperation for the step up. London did amazingly well and not keeping them for the following season has had such a massive negative impact on the club and further the sport as a whole.
A chance to regroup for a second season to consolidate could have seen a resurgance, it might not but we'll never know and now I feel London, or any other club that comes up wil be damaged by the drop back down after getting hammered most weeks. It's so imbalanced. But London particularly because of their circumstances, location, lack of deep rooted history (40 years at the point Fulham came about misses deeper problems regards getting a new team in one of the most diversified populations and congeste social activities areas and of course the 'sport' that dominates.

10 teams is an idea, but not one I could support, I don't think it helps the sport overall longer term to survive never mind flourish.

I agree change is needed, but not sure this proposed 10 team league is supposed to go.

He guarantees Saints, Wigan, Warrington and Leeds a place.

Then a team from Hull, hypothetically let’s assume it’s Hull.

Then suggests Wales, York, London and Newcastle, bringing a collective core support of 5,000 with very limited away support. These would all be given a place at the expense of Rovers (average crowd c7,000+; away following 1,000+. What would any of those four teams bring to the league more than Rovers currently offer? When would the small city if York hope to eclipse these numbers

Then Castleford, at Wembley on Saturday, relegated because we need to set up a team in Wales again, or would a 40 year old nomadic London team suddenly grin the Capital’s imagination?

Newcastle? Competing against a default of football passsion. Newcastle RU have been established for the past 25 years, what’s their following? Could that be eclipsed?

I appreciate something needs to change, but don’t destroy the core at the expense of small clubs with a history of unsuccessful attempts to gain a foothold in the game.

Is there going to be promotion and relegation? If so, within four seasons you might have Rovers, Cas, Wakefield and Bradford replacing the above four teams fast tracked into the league. If so, why bother putting them there in the first place.

I’d be more inclined to extend the league and partly replicate the NRL. I’d go with a 14 club league, 26 matches, no Magic. I’d start with the existing 14, plus Toulouse and Bradford. I’d ring fence those teams initially for three years, except Xas and Wakefield (who would get 2 years, with the third year subject to improving their ground). That would give stability for all those teams. It would also allow other clubs like York, Newcastle, Wales etc to present a case to join the league and also allow a revitalised Toronto, New York or a Coventry, Bristol etc to join to.

All teams would need to run an Academy team. After two/three years teams could apply to join either replacing any failing club, or as an addition up to 16 clubs.
Sky money would be spread more thinly, but fixture lists could be simplified. Two Sky games per week, with a return to fixtures on a Sunday afternoon allowing more away fans to travel.

Any solution will have its challenges, but let’s not destroy our game by removing 3-4 established teams and replace them with proven failed clubs.

Top be honest I think the game has more chance of surviving with more teams than it does with just 10. Making it a 10 team league is short sighted once again and for me lessens the appeal to sponsors and new fans and the chance to get more revenue in. I was once heavily involved in the Ice Hockey and this was the biggest issue in trying to attract sponsors and get money in as there just wasn't enough interest in small leagues.

The games already struggling to gain any real impact in terms of major sponsors so reducing the sport further will in my experience do more damage and it will be very difficult to come back from it. This is part of the problem that it all comes down to greed and an over reliance on the SKY funding which is why the game is on its .

You may well be right, maybe that's why a number of key players contracts haven't been announced, everyone is waiting to see who can afford what.

Something tells me 10 teams = a merger.

Crazy to go down the merger route. So they’d merge Hull and Rovers, so that we could play away at York on Good Friday in front of a record 4,000 fans or 1,500 fans in London; or 1,000 in Wales.

If mergers are part of the future solution, let’s start by merging St Helens and Wigan, and see if everyone else thinks mergers are a good idea for the game?

I didn't say it was a good idea, but one team in SL means no derby games anyway.

I don’t think any one would think a merger was a good thing.

I’d never want just one Hull team in SL either. I love our rivalry and love the Derbies.

I actually think 10 teams would be OK if only it meant a bigger international calender

The sport needs to be on BBC more only hardcore RL people watch it on sky

And stop giving sponsor packages away for free it tells sponsors and the public we'll give it away no wonder there's no money when you give sponsor rights for free

Internationals are what get people talking look at cricket and union especially

Cricket crowds for domestic sides are terrible

I'd get Bradford and Toronto back aswell as they showed they had big potential Torontos crowds were bigger than most even in the championship

Us
Leeds
Wigan
Saints
Wire
Catalan
Bradford
Toronto
Rovers
Cas

All clubs above 5,000 average none of this 2k crap

Just to point out York has a 200k population according to the 2011 census.

Don't want Bradford, there's too much that has gone on that has negatively impacted the sport from what various Bradford owners have done, given that, I'd not be wanting to add them into a 14 team comp, but to have several seasons of proven financial stability and a rock solid sustainable financial footing.plan on basis of entry into SL further down the line

Agree on the sponsorship side of things, also agree Toronto in rinicple but absolutely not Bradford, they have a hell of a lot to prove.
But crucially, how many fixtures, if more than 18, how do to decide who gets whom home and away to meet your notional number of fixtures. Is that a straight top of table are champs, if not then a top xx play offs again means potential for 4/5 meetings (if you're playing more than just home and away)
This works against increasing attendance averages as I've already pointed out re fan tafigue for repeat fixtures and doesn't give any more rest for top players for internationals.

So from 10 teams what's your fixture proposal as to how to have a balanced fixture list and enough space for more internationals whilst having competitive home nation teams.

To be honest 10 or 12 teams doesn't make a massive difference

Even in the rugby union Premiership only have 13 teams

The biggest thing RL needs is more commercial and get that by a stronger international game in front of a few million people instead of 200,000 hardcore RL fans on sky

Sadly, the game in its present representation is doomed and I'd be very surprised if all the teams we see in SL right now are still viable next year and I'd include us in that, given the statements from AP.
I watch the NRL every week and the difference in standard , both in playing and media coverage, is stark.
The Aussie game is apparently quite precarious too, with salary cuts and reductions, due to the impact of covid, across the board being mooted if you believe certain commentators. We have failed to promote our game to the point whereby people don't want to watch it anymore. The use of inarticulate, parochial Wigan centric ex players as analysts sounds both amateurish and embarrassing. Are Barrie McDermott and his partner in crime Terry O'Connor the most articulate and informed presenters we could muster? Phil Clarke is so biased and blatantly so, that it turns off the fans who don't see Wigan as the flavour of the month. It was the same with the previous cast as Eddie Hemmings lauded all things Lancashire and, in particular, Saints.
I agree that the above has probably little impact in terms of clubs finances, but I would assume SKY would offer more money if the viewing figures had warranted this. Contrast this to the NRL and you'd think we were watching a different sport, such is the gulf in class.
I have no real idea what will help the game going forward, but I cannot see how it can survive in the current state in which we find it - perhaps the best idea which I heard was the NRL takeover the British game, although I have not heard if they have an appetite for this. Peter V'Landys certainly looks a proactive and somewhat fearless leader of the Aussie game and we certainly need change in ours, quickly or it will die.