Looks like the current Super League and Championship set up will be changed from the start of the 2015 Season. There are three options on the table... Quote Option 1 - Super League reverts to a 12-team competition (from 14) and a 10 or 12-team Championship, with one club promoted and relegated each year. Option 2 - A two-division Super League with each division comprising 10 teams. Option 3 - Two divisions of 12 in Super League, with teams playing each other once to provide 11 fixtures before splitting into three groups of eight in mid-season and then playing each other home and away to provide 14 more matches. Each of the three groups in the third option would conclude with a play-off series and a Grand Final or play-off final. The final standings at the end of the regular season would determine the make-up of the two 12-team divisions for the following season. The third option would mean two teams being relegated from Super League at the end of next season. '" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22488221

Looks like the current Super League and Championship set up will be changed from the start of the 2015 Season. There are three options on the table... Quote Option 1 - Super League reverts to a 12-team competition (from 14) and a 10 or 12-team Championship, with one club promoted and relegated each year. Option 2 - A two-division Super League with each division comprising 10 teams. Option 3 - Two divisions of 12 in Super League, with teams playing each other once to provide 11 fixtures before splitting into three groups of eight in mid-season and then playing each other home and away to provide 14 more matches. Each of the three groups in the third option would conclude with a play-off series and a Grand Final or play-off final. The final standings at the end of the regular season would determine the make-up of the two 12-team divisions for the following season. The third option would mean two teams being relegated from Super League at the end of next season. '" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22488221

2 10s makes most sense to me. Option 1 is just a return to pre-2009, and although it is clever in a way, option 3 is too complicated.

I would prefer option 1, but option 3 sounds like it's gathering momentum. As Sadler says, this is the RFL equivalent of the 1983 Labour Manifesto!

The game appears to be lurching to a slow painful death at the moment. We may as well sell up the silverwear to Koolcash and all go watch Dockers or Skirlaugh.

Given that the country's been in recession for the last five years I don't think we've given licencing a long enough time establish (a rather hopeful, perhaps fanciful notion this) stability.

Option three is ludicrous and can only be designed to allow Big Fat Nige to attend as many lunch dates in Maccy D's as possible.

Option 1 , bring back promotion and relegation .

Indeed.

The most sensible option is the one that's not listed.

Tell the 14 Superleague clubs that there is no magic bullet. That it is up to the individual club to work within the constraints of the salary cap and it is also up to them to secure a revenue stream capable of sustaining themselves within Superleague.

If the dog's breakfast of Option 3 is adopted, how will they market season ticket sales? Why should anyone buy a season ticket when he doesn't know who he will be watching his preferred team play?

Agree 100%

What are we telling the other clubs then?

This is primarily an attempt to solve a sporting problem, rather than our economic woes - how good it is, is a different matter.

Never since the advent of SL has there been a stable settlement between those in it and those outside, so irrespective of how skint the game is, we're long overdue a resolution.
SL tried breaking away, but came back. It tried P&R, but across an ever widening gap. It tried judging clubs as businesses but didn't have the stomach to make hard decisions on that basis. It has always had a bit of an identity crisis, neither one thing nor quite the other and it isn't healthy.

Our sporting problem and economic woes go pretty much hand in hand don't they?

They're linked, but if everybody had another half million, the big clubs would be pushing for a cap rise (long overdue in fairness), and we'd most likely end up back at square one.

It's the nature of sport - look at all the money that passes through football, it is richer than ever, but no more 'sustainable'.

The premier league also contains clubs at very different levels - from the Champions League elite, to those merely chasing 17th. It is a wider spectrum than we've got, tbh, but in football there's a greater chance of a surprise result over the course of a single match. When the gap gets too big in RL the result is in no doubt at all.

Imo, We've got 2 problems that would remain even if we got a sudden and biggish cash windfall. 1. Clubs in the same division operating at widely divergent levels and 2. We've never finally decided how open and connected SL should be to the rest of the pro game.

I don't think a Cap rise is long overdue. Our players across Super League are on the whole getting far better paid than ever before. All that will happen if we increase the Cap is that the same players will get paid more money. We cant even begin to compete with the NRL Cap so the drain there will continue regardless.
The clubs should be under pressure to get their houses in order or face the consequences. Increase their revenues and invest in infrastructure. The initial franchising criteria pointed towards this. The Bradford situation blew it out of the water.

Option 1

But they will need to find a way to compensate for the lost revenue of less games per season.

MORE magic weekends

Although seemingly I am in a minority of one I think option 3 is quite enticing albeit with some obvious downsides.

For lower mid table teams like Rovers if you make the cut after 11 games then that's an achievement and every other game is then against quality opposition. Every game from the word go would be massive no room for slow starts.

For the big hitters like Leeds & Wigan it would probably be a formality to make the cut but thereafter they can look forward to quality games every week in what would be the highest intensity competition we have ever had.

If you don't make the cut you are then in a mini-league which would be a dogfight to earn Super League inclusion for the following season. Again every game massive.

At the same time it solves the problem of the alienation of lower league clubs by giving them a clear unambiguous pathway to Super League with the sole criterion being performance on the pitch. And should the worst happen (relegation) then it isn't the end of the world if you are good enough you can come back and without jumping through hoops or having men in suits sit round a table and decide if they want you.

Rather than the initial 11 games I would make it 12. You'd have to play someone twice but then everyone would have 6 home games & 6 away which is fairer IMO.

Let's remember that this plan is the idea of Maurice Watkins a highly regarded man with years of experience at Manchester United and no previous involvement running Rugby League. He doesn't have an axe to grind or any baggage and he has simply put together a detailed and thoughtful document.

No option is perfect least of all the current closed shop model. With the odd tweak here & there I think option 3 solves a lot of problems and could be very exciting. And if it doesn't work out as I hope then unlike the current system it can be easily adapted or discarded.

Always preferred p & r but I have to agree with you bobness, I think they are looking at a way of reducing the number of one sided scorelines, which are boring to watch. Theoretically the games after the split should be more competitive.

The problem with SL 1 & 2 is funding.
Whether the top division is 10 or 12 clubs, where will the funding come from for the 2nd tier of the game.
The reasoning behind the change is to give the big boys more cash (because they are basically greedy), which means that, just as we have now, the gap in funding between the top flight and second tier won allow any promoted club to compete and therefore the likes of Fev or Halifax (or whoever) will just yo-yo between the 2 divisions, which is why we moved to licensing in the first place.
Plus, with the likelihood of Toulouse being included, this means that the axe will fall on 2 or 3 current SL clubs.

In 2007 we had to stay up. Short term survival was all that mattered. The likes of Jim Gannon, Danny Ward, Mark Lennon, Luke Dyer etc we brought in to achieve this. Look at the side now. Liam Salter, Rich Beaumont, George Griffin, James Green etc. This is what the stability of licensing has brought. Developing young players is the only future, bringing back P&R would set us back years.

SL2 only works if there is enough cash for the teams in it to turn full time pro. Which'd mean fewer teams in SL1 and possibly a little less money for each of them. Seems a hard sell, but they would get the more intense competition they supposedly crave and more promising kids could remain in the full-time system for longer.
If it is just a re-brand of the Championship, I agree it is pointless.
£900k for 10 SL1 teams, £450k for those in SL2. Might just about work.

I haven't seen it asked (Sorry if I missed it) so here goes.
Does the new ideas (especially option 3) mean the club tie ups have to be thrown in the bin.
How can a comp that will suddenly involve all 24 teams allow for 2/3 of those teams to share a playing pool?

Yeah, I think they'd have to be - a few more season long loans, and a couple of overage players allowed at... Well the under19s, might be a bit young for that. Go back to 20s? Big gap from the 16s then, though.