I was thinking about the televised matches in SL, and the fact that there are some that I really want to see and others that I'm not too fussed about. As it happens, the match that started me thinking that way turned out to be a good, competitive one, with some great tries but, nevertheless, with some very mediocre defence.



The point was, that after 18 years of SL, there is still a massive gap between top and bottom of 14 teams, which, if managed properly, would not have been the case.



The trouble is that there is not enough money in the game. The lower placed clubs can't attract enough fans to even spend to the salary cap, so only on rare occasions can they really compete with the higher placed clubs.



Over the past few years, the RFL has been funded largely by Sport England grants which are based upon increasing participation. This year it has had to reduce its head count because it failed to meet its targets for previous years.



I am all for increasing participation and spend a lot of my time involved with the youth and junior set up, but to my mind, it's a case of them working on symptoms rather than cause. If we had a highly competitive SL, which would also work down to a highly competitive Championship, the numbers would take care of themselves, because young adults and children alike would want to play the game because they have been inspired by the Professional teams.



The RFL, in my opinion, need to concentrate its efforts on marketing the game to draw in sponsorship to, initially, allow SL clubs to build strong teams of equivalent talent. This would flow down to the Championship and beyond.



Apart from such sponsorship, the way the game should be funded is through gate receipts. Strong teams and competitive matches would provide that eventually.



The franchise system is, in two respects, a good idea. For one, because of the gap between SL and Championship, promoted clubs in the P&R system really don't have much chance of stopping up unless they can access external funding.



Secondly, it gives all franchised clubs the opportunity to develop and introduce young prospective talent without the fear of relegation. Sadly, this has not happened as was intended. And it won't happen at Salford with Nobby at the helm. Alan Hunt and his staff work hard to find and develop prospective talent, but with a head coach who doesn't even recognise or speak to his young, fringe, first team players, Alan and his team are wasting their time.



I digress! The RFL's focus should not be on providing staff to help the amateur game expand, it should be on Marketing the game of Rugby League in order to bring funding into the game from genuine sponsors.



A game for which I have very little time, attracts as many as 70+thousands to a single league match- more than the whole of professional rugby league put together, has many lessons to teach our game's administrators. Until we can get our governing body to focus on the bigger picture, we will not see the success that we all believe our game deserves.

One further point. That game of which I m not fond, but which is eminently more successful than ours, doesn't constantly tamper with its competition structure. It has straight forward promotion and relegation, while whoever is top of the league at the end of the season, having thereby demonstrated consistent success, as opposed to success in a limited timeframe through a limited number of matches, are champions.



No complicated leagues, no complicated play off system, no stupid "club call".



Straight forward, simple, and everybody within and outside the game understands it.



And to me, the idea of splitting two leagues into three, part way through the season, is absolute madness,and may be enough to drive the final nail into the coffin of English Rugby League.

I accuse you of showing much too much common sense not only for here but too be a rugby league fan in general.



What a brilliant idea, a league where the bottom team gets relegated, the league below then promotes their highest placed team. The team at the end of the season who has secured the most points in the competition wins the league outright. If the RFL/SL/Murdoch are watching that is the perfect blue print.

I'd like to the introduction of the bonus point for a narrow defeat and a one point deduction for a team that loses by 30+ points. I'd also make it 3 points for a win.



I'm not in favour of making a promoted team exempt from relegation in the first year. Ridiculous.

Could not agree more. This would also stop teams devaluing the competiton by just doing enough each year (i.e Leeds). The play-offs furthermore, whilst exciting on their own, do not help generate sufficient interest during the season. I think the split is a case of some SL clubs protecting themselves from relegation as over a seven game format you would expect they would emerge as the top four for entrance into Super League the following season.



My personal opinion on structure is that there just be straightforward promotion and relegation. However, promotion, as in non league football, could be determined on a club meeting a certain criteria regarding their ground and finances to ensure some sustainabilty. This would however still give teams a chance to dream and get promoted through the leagues. At present some clubs will never have the chance and the licencing system does not help that. A businessman is not going to pump money into a club without some guarantee of a return (i.e super league status). At present, someone could invest but be denied access on the whim of men in suits for three years. This reduces the possibilty of maintaining impetus and retaining players. Why continue when you could get knocked back again three years later? If there was promotion criteria although there would be chance of a knock back it is only for 12 months and with clear criteria clubs woud all be on a level playing field and know what they have to do.



Super League has killed the game in some respects. It saddens me to see a club like Oldham struggling on when it is not too long ago they would fill the North Stand at the Willows.



There are other factors to consider. The season for me needs to start and finish later. We are supposed to be a summer game but half the season is played in the worst weather. The weather is better in September/ October/ November than in February and March. Also look at Salford's fixtures this season. June / July August and September and only four home games which effectively have to sustain the club until next season. No wonder clubs have cashflow problems. I would go for a shorter close season too. Also, a later start would avoid the clash with the start of the Five Nations.



The coverage of the game needs to be looked at. It hardly gets a mention on national news and even Northern papers give limited coverage. Sky have pumped money into the game but have taken it out of the mainstream. A similiar effect has been had on Cricket as some clubs have pointed out). There needs to be Terrestial TV coverage. Why not shared coverage as happens in the FA Cup for example.



There is need for more competitions. Under the proposed format the talk is of 23 games , then seven games , then play offs. Instead why not two divisions of 12 with extra games coming from an extra cup competiton and the playoffs being replaced by the old Premiership. I see no reason why there canot be a competiton like the Lancs and Yorks Cups held pre-season which would generate interest and avoid clubs playing pointless pre season games.

I am fairly certain I heard Kevin Sinfield on Radio Manchester last night state that another option,not yet made public,is favoured by the players.

We may be a bit behind on this and it won't be settled until September at the earliest.

There is a chance of hearing the show again - [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/extraHERE[/url