I have found out that there will be 14 teams next year with London and Bradford tipped to join SL next year so every team plays each other once home and away rather than teams playing at home twice against the same team!

i've just replied to a post on the london forum


i'm pro London in terms of the bigger picture for the game, but said that this just stinks of jobs for the boys with Woods in charge if Bradford and London are both fast tracked back into SL. IMO, they need to earn it both on and off the pitch and demonstrate that they are financially viable both short and long term

I despair at the state of things at the minute. An increased number of teams, when we don't have enough good players or money to service 12 teams already and the answer is to increase the quota allowance up to 10 payers, so the usual suspects will continue to ignore any investment in to grassroots rugby league and their academies and instead compete by picking off players from elsewhere in the UK and Australia and when those teams do well, it's celebrated as a massive success for the game. 


Where this sport will be in 20 years time is a scary prospect. 

There is no logic moving to 14 teams next year apart from Wood wanting Bradford and London back in. The current Sky deal isn't lucrative enough for 14 teams so why not just wait until they begin tendering for the next broadcast team and as part of the tender they push for 14 teams then? I cannot stand loop fixtures but for one more season just keep it as it is.

The fact Wood is back in at the RFL makes me feel absolutely depressed about the sport. Everyone has been saying it for years and years but the sport is crying out for a genuine leader to come in and govern the sport properly. The sports riddled with owners and clubs voting in favour of self interest and clinging onto survival despite bringing absolutely nothing to the table and it will never change whilst the clubs have so much say in what goes on.



I presume the NRL will be staying well clear of taking control now Wood is calling the shots?

I think this article sums it up pretty well. I can't say i agree with the point made on away attendances but the rest are all good points. https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/super-league-14-team-plans-1242786

I think this article sums it up pretty well. I can't say i agree with the point made on away attendances but the rest are all good points. https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/super-league-14-team-plans-1242786

There's talk of a couple of clubs just buying their way in by bypassing the grading criteria and agreeing to not take any of the central distribution cash. So that will lead to them having teams that are totally uncompetitive and we will see at least a couple of games each week that are horrendously one sided. Which broadcasters will fancy that? 

Personally I'd go backwards, to move forwards and go down to 10 teams for a period of 3-5 years and set a date/year where we'll go back to 12 teams and then a date/year where we go up to 14 teams and let clubs outside the 10 prepare themselves long term and get in to a place where they can compete. As we stand at the minute, we just have a load of clubs scrapping for crumbs on the table and then cutting corners to survive. 

No need to expand the amount of teams, we just need to replace a few.


If you could swap out Salford, Cas and Huddersfield for Bradford, London and Toulouse - it would be a better balance. You get the London club that everyone seems to want, two big derby matches for Good Friday & an extra France trip each year.


One of the biggest head scratches of the last 20+ years has been Davey pumping money into the lame duck that is Huddersfield Giants. What's he realistically achieved?  Imagine if he'd put that into Bradford instead...

Absolutely stinks – while the loop fixtures are universally
reviled, putting in another 2 teams, does nothing for player welfare.


 


Relaxing the overseas quota because these clubs don’t have
enough home-grown talent is another backwards step. These rules were made to
improve the pool of British talent, which arguably they have.


 


And now onto the choice of clubs, three words spring to
mind, ‘conflict of interest’.


Where’s Toulouse? Consistently, the best Championship club.


How about the IMG rating points? Or are we just forgetting
these cos they don’t fit the current junta’s agenda?


 


Which raises the question, what’s IMG’s view on all this?


Why did we spend huge amounts of time and money getting into
bed with IMG to ignore their outputs and wishes when the long term partnership
has only been going ‘five minutes’?


 


There are people within the game who have a modern vision of
where the gmae needs to be, and are getting no support from the authorities, they
are forced to take initiatives off their own back


 


I’ve never been so down about the sport.

When has it ever been any different? We can all list the progressive money men that the sports has, at times, attracted and then lost because of it's backwards approach to development. 

That's before you even talk about the elephant in the room -30 years ago, Uncle Mo could have changed the game for the better. The anti Wigan agenda of RL put paid to that and it's declined since.


EVERYTHING has been sacrificed at the alter of so called  competitiveness. They'd all rather live in a world where Wakey can beat Wigan in a contest Vs having truly top teams. A sport where it's easier to sit back and let three teams produce academy lads and just poach them with inflated salaries. 


Get rid of the cap and introduce A teams into the championship. We can spend what we want and develop + keep the players we want.  

Already mentioned but the problem is that we have 2 or 3 clubs that you would easily remove from SL, and now Wakefield are up, there are no viable replacements.


Bradford, Toulouse and London are all 'ok' but don't really add a great deal to the sport's top league, in fact as pointed out probably drag it down for 2-5 years.


You'd argue that York are the best prospect but also have their flaws.