Wellsy4HullFC

Just thinking out loud so don't think I genuinely think this is the way... Perhaps central funding could be guaranteed for 1st-12th, and if anyone wishes to apply to join above that will have to invest themselves and produce the goods to earn their funding? If a club falls outside of that 12 and can't afford to reinvest, take relegation. A sort of elected promotion and relegation system rather than a forced one. If clubs are consistently finishing below 12th, should they be in SL anyway?

Who else have we got out injured? Believe there's no Borough and Chamberlain. Think that might be too many injuries. Can't see past a convincing Wigan win.

Hasn't that been the case for the last 30 years?

For the record, I never said a bottom 4 playoff. Bottom 2 of SL and top 6 of Championship makes 8 teams (pretty much straight knockout apart from a 1st spot playoff in round 1). A team like London would not have made it into SL last time under this route unless the bottom side were that poor. A team like Wakey and Leigh probably would have. A team like Salford probably wouldn't survive it. Hull wouldn't have been able to coast last year, but had they succumbed then would have had 2 shots at promotion the following year with investment. I do personally prefer on pitch results to determine the league you're in, but I'm also a big believer in standards. I don't think those standards should decide whether you're in or out of a league though. Meeting standards should be encouraged and perhaps be rewarded in a different way though, such as through central funding investment (i.e. you're not just given money for being in the league, you are rewarded money for hitting criteria, thus encouraging owners to invest with guaranteed returns for hitting targets). If the owners can't or won't invest, they should make way for people that can through this "natural selection".

If we were to do P&R again, I'd like to see a bit of a mix of what we did with the 8s system. Those games featuring Championship v SL clubs were very interesting. I wouldn't do it to the extent of 7 rounds + a final though (that was a bit much!) Something along the lines of: Week 1: 1st qualification final: 1st Championship vs 11th SL. Loser into semis. 2nd qualification quarter finals: 12th SL vs 6th Championship 2nd vs 5th 3rd vs 4th Week 2: 2nd promotion semi finals: Loser of 1st promotion final vs lowest ranked 2nd highest vs 2nd lowest ranked Week 3: 2nd promotion final That way, 11th SL and Championship winners get 2 shots at SL, so a good reward for finishing higher. Both SL teams could survive or neither. Minimum of 4 SL vs Championship games, maximum of 5. A nice mix of playoffs between the 2 leagues 6 with 2 spots and weighted reward in a very simple structure (basically quarter finals with a wildcard in the first round).

Oh I agree. I'm trying to find some kind of logic though, whether it's good logic or bad!

I feel the sudden push to 14 is to try and get the clubs with potential in and give them a shot before going back down to 12 and getting rid of Huddersfield, Castleford and Salford. Without that ballooning period, it's harder to push the ones out they don't feel add value.

We joke, but this will probably be expected of new applicants now.

Fingers crossed

Move it to the Challenge Cup Round of 16. Everyone wins!

Still think Rovers are pretty clear for the LLS. Their next 3 weeks are Catalans, Salford & Castleford. Wigan have Hull, Catalans & Warrington. They both meet in 4 weeks. I can't see them dropping any points, and Rovers will likely increase their points difference, so effectively Rovers need to lose another before they're overtaken and I can see that being more likely to happen to Wigan than Rovers.

Ah you are right. The table hadn't updated when I checked.

York v Bradford huge tomorrow now. York win, they're top. Bradford win by 16+, they're top. Bradford win by less than 16, or it's a draw, all remains the same.

Just showed what we were capable of in the second half when we could actually keep hold of a ball. The last few weeks have been so frustrating in terms of ball retention. Could never build any momentum and were constantly defending. We've got a couple of big players to come back in regards to attack too. But with Hardaker at full back playing out of his skin, do we need Pryce...

Absolutely. For both the Cup Final and internationals. As long as we guarantee one big fixture in the capital, there should be no issue moving the Cup Final around. What a boost for Welsh RL it would be again to get the final there occasionally. It's not like we can have a Lions game there!

I'd love to see a bit of variety come back for the Cup based on whether we hold an international in London that year. Home international series, hold a game in London, CCF in Cardiff/Murrayfield/other 60k+ stadium outside London. Away international series, CCF at Wembley. Create demand.

I've a few like that (including myself) that are waiting until everyone that's wanting to go knows whether they can go or not without moving other commitments. I think 2 games at Wembley in a year (CCF and international) might dilute the appeal of the ground slightly. I'd have loved to have visited Tottenham.

Like you say, we just can't hold the ball. It's not necessarily that we have a poor attack without those players playing, it's that we don't know his good the attack is because we never have the opportunity to do it as we keep dropping the ball! Fix that and we'll start winning games.

There are no winners of a best mullet competition. Only losers.

Not sure how many fans are going to be able to travel to the other side of the world in such short notice. It's hard enough selling tickets for Wembley with 4 weeks notice!

Making the game more available and attractive to young athletes and they identifying them and putting them on a development pathway in a quality environment is what will increase quality in the long run. There just seems to be this blanket idea that "more is good". I mean, it's not "bad" per se, but if they're all rubbish or have little promise, it doesn't increase quality.

And again, this falls into the myth that more players = better quality. The correct pathways, identification and quality competition is vital.

Looks like I'm in the minority, but I think this is a good move temporarily. The quality of the league is decreasing. We struggle to field a league with 10 competitive teams, let alone 12. With NRL increasing, they are going to hoover up even more of our top English players, thus reducing the quality further with not as many quality English players coming through to replace them. There seems to be this myth that having our youngsters play more games is all we need to do to improve them. There is so much more to it than that. The quality of the environment they're playing in is massively important. They will not improve much if they're playing in a substandard competition alongside other low-level players. They need to be in higher quality environments with bigger competition for places. People are arguing on one hand that we'll only get low quality players coming over, and on the other hand saying they'll take the places of our talent. Well if our talent can't displace low quality imports, that says a lot about the quality of our pathways. If we have talent, they'll push out untalented players. This is without even considering the fact that we may be expanding to 14 teams soon and need even more players.

Confirmed by AllOutRL.

You have no right!