GaryO

Facts from day one would have been good to peruse, keeping back - if that was the case - the proposed funding was the master stroke. Still, there is an increase in payments which help out with day to day running costs.

And there was I as a supporter of one of the CC "big four" buoyed and elated at the initial proposal of CC clubs having what seemed to be a pathway to the big league once again, and I was overjoyed at the thought of seeing my club welcome Wigan, Leeds, Saints ...... et al to our ground. On reflection I was totally dim in my euphoria and I let elation cloud my usual calculated approach to "why". These figures (thanks, Ginge) represent a very well calculated and orchestrated way of "keeping the Buggars where they belong" No wonder McManus, Leneghan and the other rebels have come out - post vote - to acknowledge their support of this sham. I must concede and offer my congratulations to Wood and Rimmer in how they have seemingly been everyone's friend whilst in reality they have stabbed the CC clubs in the back, with false hopes. On the funding alone and without a Ken Davy or a Good Doctor Koukash they will never ever be in a position to compete, ah well back to reality the dream was good while it lasted.

As I stated on another thread Craiq "unless all along it has been ( the new structure) one calculated and very effective scam by the RL to entice a bigger contract from SKY and keeping the 12 teams who start 2016 in the SL for perpetuity" I have not yet seen how the funding is to be allocated, are the figs being quoted actual as published by the RL or are they a supposition for the sake of a debating point? Any imbalance in funding such as stated will not create an opportunity for promotion as was implied by Parky.

How do you define a sponsor, does it have to be a corporate organization, or could it be just a individual, or maybe a very big collection of unnamed individuals lets say donating something like £500K.

Sorry Parky, but I find reading Mr Sadlers reports does not give transparent coverage of a situation, he is like a traffic cop who wants to take you down his road of thinking, nothing at all wrong with that if you are a disciple of his, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be I am not.

Fair enough Steve, got your message loud and clear, not much else to add.

Steve, sorry to see that your "greymatter" will not extend to the complex intricacies that this new structure will demand and you require something similar, i.e. keeping mediocrity. Can't sat that I blame you really, if I was a supporter of a team that had just won it's first trophy since France surrendered, I wouldn't want to change the goal posts either, although I would always look for improvement. How is it that most SL Chairmen are commenting (and especially the one's from the expected top eight, read E McManus. #4100) at the positives that can be extracted from this new process which will far outweigh the negatives, funnily enough don't recall seeing anything from Mr. K Davy. We will always have the opinions of the one's who are aggrieved by the result of any committee jurisdiction, we have the usual suspects that have been "spinning" for the against - A'La Parky - for a while now who claim that these comments are PR Hogwash, but they have to say don't they, to substantiate their debate of the last few months, and worst of all we have the "I don't agree,so I hope it fails" the category which quite obviously you are a member of. There comes a time in life when there is discord in any family, but the one's that pull through are the one's that stick together whatever their view, we have got what we have got, grasp the positives, let go of the negatives, this can work for everyone, give it a chance and get behind it.

Think I denoted a touch of the Fletcher Christians in the post below

Well he had better pull his socks up and do the job he is payed for, surely half of the Sky Money should be enough, after all if we read the speculation over the new proposed funding that is what the Championship clubs will get to set their strategy in place.

Bloody Hell, is he drinking the same syrup as YipYee.

Obviously remembered incorrectly, thanks for that Griff, Just thinking a little further on this subject or more specifically the timing of the "second coming" isn't there a comparison to be made today in that at that time we had a massive player drain to Aussie which included most of the Ashes winning 1970 series and 1972 World Cup teams. Now there is food for thought.

As I recall no bickering whatsoever, it obviously had a different feeling to it as there was a clear pathway back to the "first" which meant something to play for. If I remember correctly, the play of system for the championship at the time was the top four of a 30+ club league,effectively for 75% of clubs the league season was over very quickly. The new second division gave great impetus and involved quite a few clubs in the challenge for promotion.

Iv'e got a spare spade if you want it.

Please John, If I want a newspaper to give me a different view from Conservative, I will read the Mirror etc, etc. The editorial is belittling of the proposed system, it is very anti the proposed system, to use your (LE) terminology it's like a Party Political Broadcast, but only allow one party to spout then have a vote on it, C'mon. For many many years - well over 40, I could not wait for Thursday to come around so I could buy my Rugby Leaguer, then it changed and was published on Monday then it became LE, and I am sorry to say I considered it nosedived, it no longer gave open minded views, but "I will tell you how it is", attitude. I prefer facts and being allowed to make my own mind up.

I notice the editorial is by LE it has no author. May I suggest it was penned by Peter Mandleson, classic spin reporting. Seemed best to use a political analogy, as with Mr Chaimberlain and Mr. Snow?

So in your expert view no promotion deemed feasible by any team not at this time plying their trade in SL, and if one does manage to escape the net and wriggle through to SL, then they will get hammered each and every week by at least 50+ As I questioned what are the supporters of the expected survival fighters afraid off. You quite clearly state it is a non-contest. You end your post with a classic statement "I don't see the benefit for SL......other than there will be meaningful games......" as I stated more meaningful games means more intensity means better competition, but it seems Sir this is completely left field to you, it is quite obvious you do not want to see a better standard league structure in SL as this may impact your teams survival. Admit it and stop hiding behind what you have been saying for a few weeks now in respect of for the good of the game your real objective is SL or nothing for your club, incidentals like improving League Intensity just does not count.

I have posed the question on this thread 3 times “why are the supporters of the teams in the lower echelons of SL afraid of the new system” It is quite obvious from some of the more vociferous comments placed by the supporters of these clubs that there is a fear factor in entering a 7 game play off against clubs from a “sub standard” competition. I am a supporter of one of the 4 clubs of the Championship that is expected to be in the mix, and as such I welcome the opportunity of our players testing themselves in this format with the ultimate prize to take, if successful. Furthermore, I can only foresee that it will also be good for SL, this coming season should see some interesting games to avoid the last two spots (if that is the way of demotion from the top 14 to 12), and in the next season surely no one will want to finish outside the top 8, so that should keep the intensity of the SL till the end of season instead of some of the totally banal games that have been served up when there was no fear of relegation. As some have suggested, the middle 8 of the first 3x8 series should consist of 6 of this seasons present SL sides and that leaves only 2 other places up for grabs from the present Championship, the odds are in favour of no change from the now incumbents of SL to still to be competing in SL at the on set of the 2016 season. So in MHO, this format improves the quality of SL, by bringing more meaning which means more intensity to games, it also brings a new vigour, expectation and hope to those of the Championship that desire it, As I stated at the beginning I have asked the question what is the fear of this format, I never got any answers then, and I don’t expect any now.

Firstly apoligies if I have caused any offence with that analogy, but Bradford do give that impression, I have been watching this game since 1961and Bradford in Trouble is a most definate recurring theme. But surely you must agree with my last point.

Quite right Bradford are not and never will be safe, the club has a terminal illness, there are times when it is in remission and all is well, then as usually happens with this kind of disease it will raise its head again and will require intensive care. Not nice, but there comes a time when resources have to be taken into account and effort put into healthier options. There are a lot of opportunities for the present 14 SL clubs to re-enter SL in 2016, in fact 7 opportunities if they fail that mini league and not finish in top 4 then they along with their supporters have no right whatsoever in believing that is their rightfull place, it's coming guy's accept it, get on with it your destiny is in your own hands, just what is it your frightened of, surely not those upstarts from the Championship.

So no change there then, except the next season we have a bit of variety in that we will have some different players in the equation. At least that should create a little more interest, and who know's, may just throw up some gems who have not had the opportunity before.

Why don't we also add on a round robin of darts and domino's to avoid any stalemate! What a load of tripe that is, obviously Martin is still a big fan of licensing and wants to keep the three year cycle going, all he is suggesting is a different entry model. I don't see what the problem is, why are people running scared of the 3 x 8 and more to the point the middle section, if a team who has played in SL all season and presumably with and against better players in a higher standard of Rugby League Football cannot overcome the teams from a sub-standard league and finish in a position to guarantee "survival" then they do not deserve to be in SL.

On the whole question of P & R, I am pro to its concept but I do have an overriding fear, which for mine was the reason that it was dropped for the licensing concept in the first place, being:- The promoted team had insufficient time to generate a team that was capable of competing at a much higher level than it had be come accustomed to playing in, the timing of the CC Grand Final was of such that the only players left available were the ones from the team heading in the opposite direction, or spending, or should I say wasting money on very ordinary overseas players. Whatever the decision next week, and I do hope that we reinstate P & R, whether it is from 2x12 = 3x8 or straight 1 or 2 up/down, we should still use 2014 season for the qualification process for entry into the SL, but we should restrict the entry till the beginning of 2016, this could then be carried forward on that 2 season cycle, i.e. 2015 qualifiers gain entry in 2017................... and so on. The 2014 season as far as the SL is concerned could be deemed a "trial" season and not until the end of the 2015 season should the qualification for relegation be enforced, this would then revert to each season to mesh with annual P&R. The promoted team should also be given the SL funding for the period they are in the “waiting season” this would allow them a full season of preparation and recruitment not only in playing personnel but also the backroom staff required, they could market the SL entry in their locality, give a big promotion to Season Ticket sales et, etc. in fact prepare accordingly and not as the knee jerk reaction as they had to do previous.

Sorry re the double post, mobile malfunction. Just wanted to say after weeks on the subject my congratulations to Mr. Parksider in his eloquent summation of the topic, Great Post.