bbfaz

I agree. I think below, two or three global divisions, it'd have to be hemisphere-based. You look at Davis Cup, that's regionalised from the second tier down.

Has the rationale for playing as separate home nations ever been proved to be correct? It was supposed to help develop players in Scotland and Wales and Ireland through giving them access to international football. If that hasn't worked, then RL has abandoned the one brand that they had which has recognised across sport, Great Britain Rugby League, for nothing.

I had this discussion with somebody over the weekend who knows Ralph Rimmer and he had a lot more confidence in him than anybody here. The view being that it's been a difficult and very slow process to put the people in the right places and we're currently going through the "it's going to get worse before it gets better" phase. Time will tell, I guess.

The ICC has had success with the World Cricket League, in part because when they run a division and take teams away, they're playing a 50-over match every day and the tournament lasts a week. It's not a long time commitment and it's not a massive expense, as squads are kept to 15/16 and they don't have a large support staff. You can be in and out in 10 days. Realistically, for Rugby League, you can probably play every six days. So you'd be looking at doing a double-header on Sunday, then the following Saturday and then the following Friday. You'd need three weekends away, plus a few days before and after. So it's more like 16/17 days with a much bigger squad and support staff. I like the idea and think it'd be great, especially at a lower level where you can quickly sort out who can play and who can't. The big success story of the WCL is the quick emergence of Afghanistan, who had good players but no infrastructure. It challenged myths and showed how good or bad teams like the United States actually were. So long as we don't pee in the paddling pool so to speak and put too many heritage players in, which gives a false impression of just how good a country is. However, as always, it comes down to money.

Viva Chile.

I'd like to see the RFL open up League 1 to new clubs who don't expand the geographic footprint. It's all well and good trying to create new teams but if there's an existing team who want to go pro (and can, more's the point), they should be allowed in. Whether there is anybody who can step up is quite another matter of course.

I have no real opinion either way but I worked for a football club where they pushed the COO into the CEO role and he floundered because it's a different role for a different personality type.

I get the impression things are going to be changing by the day.

They've all tried to do the "stitch up" thing before but it doesn't work. Mutually beneficial, local partnerships would work but, sadly, nobody can get out of the viking harvest mindset, just like they can't get out of the "union off-season" mindset.

How comes the league seasons were so short? I love that there was a East Midlands/South Yorks league.

Do you have all of these on a page, Celtic? Years ago, I did a comprehensive list of American soccer teams and their leagues season to season and would like to do the same with the Southern leagues when I have the chance.

As I said above, they're looking to create 8 team divisions, East and West. They have enough applicants fom West/South West/Wales to form a West division. I don't know the applicants but, based on who was formerly in the various NL D3/RLC National/CLS divisions, those who applied last year and those who've openly shown aspiration towards it, there's probably a fair guess on the 8 they've let in. With the failure of the bigger Midlands teams (not just last year, but in recent years), they don't have enough Midlands/East/South East teams to create the East division as yet.

I think the word conference is superfluous and the league should be what it is and nothing more than that. I genuinely don't see how that's controversial...

You haven't seen our pack. 😁

Have played, do not currently. It's disingenuous to suggest that, at this point, it's a national anything. By calling it a national anything, it sets up an unrealistic expectation about it. Let it be what it is, which is the elite Northern amateur league. As for this Southern Premier League, the RFL are proceeding with the West/Wales league but don't have enough in the East/South East. So they're getting behind the London League committee's plans, which involve a cross-regional Premier League and a single London/South/East pyramid.

Yeah, I think we'll pass on that. Would also be helpful if the NCL stopped claiming to be national. And both a conference and a league, that's just stupid.

The next stage is going through the applications and making sure they're viable/compliant.

Right back at you.

Asked and answered, you just don't want to read it.

Thanks for the clarification. It was put forward to other people as an idea that had come from the club. I have taken to calling the two plans they put forward last season the "Wales" and "Nottingham" plans. Problem is, I'm not sure that even this plan would work. I've recently been looking back at the stalwarts of the various RLC divisions, the clubs who made it work long-term. The National Division was a bunch of Northern teams plus Hemel. The South Premier was three London teams plus Eastern (as it is now, though it's three different London teams). I'm sure you could make similar cases with other divisions. EDIT: From what I've heard, teams are actually interested this time around. My concern is whether it will pan out long-term and, potentially, do more harm than good.

This is not how the cap works in practice. In practice, the clubs below are no closer to winning titles than they ever were. Just because you can't follow that logic, doesn't mean you're right.

Again, the instigators of this are Clubs and Competitions with the RFL, asking again if people are interested in an inter-regional league based on a plan first proposed by Nottingham Outlaws last year. As far as I am aware, Nottingham are exploring their northern options. If you are talking about the All-Golds, it's my understanding that Lionel is among the interested parties. Last season, the only serious applicants were Bath RL, Valley Cougars, Torfaen Tigers, London Chargers, Coventry Dragons and Hemel Stags A/Community.

Ultimately, a player's Salary Cap Value is not the same as the amount they'll earn in a season. There are special dispensations (£100,000 of total salary cap relief) for club trained players. Club trained marquee players have half the salary cap hit (£75,000 compared to £150,000) so you're better off using the marquee player exemption to keep your best players rather than sign others. Not just that but if you're outside the top 25 highest-paid players or under 21, you don't count against the cap at all. Then, when those players become really good and play for England, the club receives a bonus. So, given the best clubs get the best youngsters because they're in the richest recruitment areas, the salary cap and your quality of academy players very much have something to do with each other. I'm not aware that there's a limit on academy spending either, meaning you can outbid others for the best coaches and afford better facilities. Whether facilities make a difference to the end quality of the players is unknown but a more impressive facility makes for better recruitment, that's for sure. Small clubs have gone pop with the cap in place. Any number of teams down the years haven't spent to the level of the salary cap. London spent the salary cap for years and didn't achieve anything. If it brings the pack closer to the top clubs, you'd expect to see a title spread similar to NRL but, still, only three teams have won Super League in the past 15 seasons. The list of League Leaders and Grand Final runners-up is pretty short too. I know what the intention of the salary cap is but it doesn't work that way in practice.

There's an idea that the salary cap exists to protect clubs from themselves. Realistically, it just protects the status quo. Cards on the table, how much do you truly pay your players? Essentially, the big clubs are biggest fish in their amateur RL pools and consistently bring in the best local young players on a conveyor belt. There are all sorts of cap exemptions to reduce the cap hit of long time players. It only affects the first 20-something players, players under a certain age are cap-exempt. If a player doesn't cut it, you've got somebody as good in the juniors and you move him on. Take London. Realistically, the only way they make a splash long-term is for some idiot to throw money at it. Right now, he's forbidden from doing so by the salary cap, even with creative accounting. Even with a salary cap they basically went #### up, it didn't stop Bradford or Crusaders from going into administration, nor did it stop Wakey or Widnes. It's a pointless rule but, so long as they're not stupid, it keeps the top clubs at the top.

Deadline is today.