Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 9:19 am  

Licensing was a great way to get stability and grow the game if done correctly. Weak RFL not policing it and enforcing rules made it a farce.

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 9:49 am  

Mable_Syrup wrote:

Licensing was a great way to get stability and grow the game if done correctly. Weak RFL not policing it and enforcing rules made it a farce.

The ' Game ' ? , or SL ?

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 10:09 am  

The game. All clubs who feel they can make a go of it and match the criteria should be invited. They can have time to prepare and invest properly in the infrastructure of the club to make them stronger. Firefighting to stay up only encourages short termism.

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 10:14 am  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

The game. All clubs who feel they can make a go of it and match the criteria should be invited. They can have time to prepare and invest properly in the infrastructure of the club to make them stronger. Firefighting to stay up only encourages short termism.

And the criteria is ?

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 10:22 am  

I could see a viable middle 8's with the bottom six of a 14 team league playing the top two in the Championship. In reality, the 3rd and 4th placed teams are always going to be whipping boys. The problem might be that it becomes a foregone thing, like the top 8, after 3 games.

I have no problem with a 14 team league as it would make Wakey safer. It's as simple as that for me. What might happen, however, is that the bottom teams might be filled with more squad players and the league might become more divided again. If KR and Toulouse, for example, were in, we'd lose some of our players to them, which means we'd have less of a chance against those higher.

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 10:30 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

And the criteria is ?

Well this is only a rumour so I've no idea. Similar grounds to the minimum standards perhaps. Running an academy, staying solvant, set revenue generation, decent stadium etc.

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 10:43 am  

PopTart wrote:

But that would just be a u turn .
They reduced the numbers to improve quality at the top, improve quality in the next level down to strengthen the league and play less games.
For me it's done that.
The top 8 needs work but the middle 8 is an excellent comp and gives the top teams in the lower league something to play for and makes the game exciting for the normally dead rubber bottom 4 of super league.

I don't think it has improved quality, what it seems to have done is even out the competition to some degree which is a good thing, although the salary cap changes risk undoing that again anyway. And the league season has actually increased in number not lessened, 30 before the play offs rather than 27.

I'd also say both sets of 8's need work as the middle 8 generally has a couple of fairly uncompetitive teams in it. I'd go back to to the top 5 or 6 superleague play offs and i like the idea of a bottom 6/top 2 promotion/relegation play off in theory but whether that would work in practise i don't know.

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 11:32 am  

If Super League went to 14 teams, I couldn't see the middle eights being as they are as we already play too many games

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 11:48 am  

You can imagine the meeting that took place. "Looks like we'll have to return to licensing to get rid of Wakefield"

Re: 14 team SL : Sat May 13, 2017 12:24 pm  

Wollo-Wollo-Wollo-Wayoo wrote:

You can imagine the meeting that took place. "Looks like we'll have to return to licensing to get rid of Wakefield"