Promotion & Relegation/Licencing hybrid system

[JAG]

2 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Its been going round in circles this thread for ages John. You may do us a favour by licking it.

I'll continue to the bang this drum as I'm convinced that this concept or something very similar is the best way of Rugby League moving forward.

There has been some very helpful comments posted here that have streamlined the idea further. Points awarded for final league positions, win percentages, the fact Argentinian football have adopted a similar structure. All very positive.

The negative comments have been rather vague in my opinion. Just typical RL fan impatience of wanting everything yesterday without any long-term strategy with emphasis placed on the fact that nothing should ever change in regards to their own club whatsoever.

I want this idea to take a hold as much as this '2 leagues of 10' idea that people are discussing that to me doesn't address the fundamental problems facing the sport. Unless I'm understanding it wrong.

Super League A & Super League B? - Forgive me but unless all 20 teams can win SL it's just a rehash of what we already have. Maybe someone could explain it to me. (Genuine request)

Edited September 24, 2021 by JAG

[Mumby Magic]

45 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'll continue to the bang this drum as I'm convinced that this concept or something very similar is the best way of Rugby League moving forward.

There has been some very helpful comments posted here that have streamlined the idea further. Points awarded for final league positions, win percentages, the fact Argentinian football have adopted a similar structure. All very positive.

The negative comments have been rather vague in my opinion. Just typical RL fan impatience of wanting everything yesterday without any long-term strategy with emphasis placed on the fact that nothing should ever change in regards to their own club whatsoever.

I want this idea to take a hold as much as this '2 leagues of 10' idea that people are discussing that to me doesn't address the fundamental problems facing the sport. Unless I'm understanding it wrong.

Super League A & Super League B? - Forgive me but unless all 20 teams can win SL it's just a rehash of what we already have. Maybe someone could explain it to me. (Genuine request)

Keep banging the drum mate. If you really believe in it send it to the RFL.

[JAG]

In 2017 Hull KR were promoted from the Championship to Super League and Catalan Dragons only just survived relegation by beating Leigh in the Million Pound Game.

4 years later Hull KR and Catalan Dragons will this week compete for the chance to appear in their very first Grand Final. 

In 2018 it took the almost compete collapse of Widnes Vikings to aid Hull KR (And Salford & Leeds) in finishing outside the Million Pound Game on points difference.

The following year 2019 Hull KR finished above London Broncos (newly promoted) on points difference to avoid automatic relegation.

2020 saw the collapse of Toronto Wolfpack where no relegation was necessary.

Imagine if Leigh Centurions and London Broncos had similar fortune to savour that same period of time to mount an assault on Super League rather than merely survive it.

This isn't to discredit Hull KR and all they've done this year, which has been a very enjoyable welcome surprise. It's just to point out what can happen when a promoted team have the time to develop in SL.

Counter point: "Doesn't this prove that if the Era system was in place Hull KR would likely be relegated after this very successful season?"

In ordinary times without missed fixtures I would say possibly yes.

But in the last 4 year cycle we've seen the collapse of two Super League teams (Widnes & Toronto) and the brief promotion and relegation of London Broncos & Leigh Centurions. That's 4 teams who's success or failure under this system could never be accurately estimated. I would still maintain that the Era League would help to root out unstable clubs and avoid boom and bust clubs while helping shield the newly promoted.

[JAG]

“If there was any advert for not having relegation last season, what Hull KR have done is it...Hull KR wouldn’t be in this division now if relegation had stayed in place – they would be in the Championship and would have had to go through another rebuild, it’s as simple as that." - Steve McNamara.

I agree, but I don't believe in a ring-fenced Super League.

Therefore a P&R/Licensing hybrid system is needed.

[JAG]

Time to reignite this topic. 

Seeing as Super League heavy weights Leeds Rhinos are in a relegation battle, Toulouse Olympique are struggling to compete in their first season in Super League all while a rejuvenated Leigh Centurions and Featherstone Rovers assemble a formidable squads in the Championship.

Shouldn't this 4 year cycle Promotion/Relegation hybrid model be seriously considered?

I believe the way the course of this 2022 season is taking it only strengthen's the argument for a hybrid P/R system.

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No Just go to 14 teams and grow the pie. It would be a 200,000 central funding cut per SL team if shared equally and means no loop fixtures, C4 or another FTA provider can get a weekly game so more variety. Clubs like York, Newcastle and others (might chip in Eagles when they get into new ground) will actually have the chance to fulfill there commercial potential. 

Spread the money thinner just to get rid of loop fixtures and to continue watering down a tepid poorly administered competition further is real Rugby League thinking. 

[Jughead]

I’ve never understood why we’d go for a hybrid competition, I really don’t think we can have the best of both worlds and I think it doesn’t really suit anyone. 

[JM2010]

8 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Spread the money thinner just to get rid of loop fixtures and to continue watering down a tepid poorly administered competition further is real Rugby League thinking. 

Most clubs waste their money on NRL reserve grade players anyway. 2 - 4 more clubs with an emphasis on junior development and increasing crowds and commercial revenue could reap dividends in a few years.

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, JAG said:

Shouldn't this 4 year cycle Promotion/Relegation hybrid model be seriously considered?

Why make it four yearly?

The MIGHTY BLACK AND GREENS (that's Aberystwyth Town) play in the Cymru Premier.

The Cymru Premier has P&R to two leagues below it: Cymru North and Cymru South.

To play in the Cymru Premier you must have a Tier 1 licence awarded to you by the FAW. The licence covers pretty much everything from the strength of your floodlights to your community engagement.

Clubs have to apply to renew this licence every year. You can't submit an architect's watercolour nor can you say that you're about to set up an amazing academy.

The process is really very clear. The requirements are published as is the full timetable covering application, evidence, results, appeal ...

Don't have a tier 1 licence? Then you will not be playing in Tier 1. Lose your licence? Then it's relegation for you (waves at Bangor City).

Four years just allows for complacency. If we want standards then we cannot allow drift.

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Spread the money thinner just to get rid of loop fixtures and to continue watering down a tepid poorly administered competition further is real Rugby League thinking. 

Anything surrounding preserving "quality of the competition" has been shown to be nonsense.

We've dropped to 12 and its no better than 14 - arguably gone backwards.

[Jughead]

7 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

Most clubs waste their money on NRL reserve grade players anyway. 2 - 4 more clubs with an emphasis on junior development and increasing crowds and commercial revenue could reap dividends in a few years.

Regarding your second sentence, see your first sentence. Rinse and repeat. 

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Anything surrounding preserving "quality of the competition" has been shown to be nonsense.

We've dropped to 12 and its no better than 14 - arguably gone backwards.

So fourteen isn’t going to make it any stronger, arguably worse than it already is. The idea that more = better simply doesn’t exist when the minimum standards now simply aren’t a thing and we’ll only welcome more clubs with multiple issues, as is the case with those in the competition now. 

[JM2010]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

Regarding your second sentence, see your first sentence. Rinse and repeat. 

So fourteen isn’t going to make it any stronger, arguably worse than it already is. The idea that more = better simply doesn’t exist when the minimum standards now simply aren’t a thing and we’ll only welcome more clubs with multiple issues, as is the case with those in the competition now

There does need to be minimum standards but because the SL clubs have to vote for it then it won't happen as a few wouldn't meet them

[Jughead]

Just now, JM2010 said:

There does need to be minimum standards but because the SL clubs have to vote for it then it won't happen as a few wouldn't meet them

Exactly, that. We can’t judge those on standards not already set by existing clubs, a bit like the facade that was licensing, so end up allowing anyone in, which just doesn’t help proceedings either. 

[Jughead]

https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/20088997.ditch-super-league-title-create-elite-rugby-league-competition/

Mike Critchley wrote about Super League and structures recently. It’s an interesting read with some radical ideas and some ideas that are more widely held amongst most fans of the game. 

Ultimately, there’s no proposal that suits everyone and people will have such conflicting ideas. 

[JAG]

57 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No Just go to 14 teams and grow the pie. It would be a 200,000 central funding cut per SL team if shared equally and means no loop fixtures, C4 or another FTA provider can get a weekly game so more variety. Clubs like York, Newcastle and others (might chip in Eagles when they get into new ground) will actually have the chance to fulfill there commercial potential. 

This system would be responsible for bringing about 14 sustainable SL clubs, and would continue to work as part of a 14 team SL competition. Clubs will be able to grow more significantly if they can guarantee to potential investors they will have Super League status for 4 years rather than 12 months.

[Tommygilf]

42 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Regarding your second sentence, see your first sentence. Rinse and repeat. 

So fourteen isn’t going to make it any stronger, arguably worse than it already is. The idea that more = better simply doesn’t exist when the minimum standards now simply aren’t a thing and we’ll only welcome more clubs with multiple issues, as is the case with those in the competition now. 

Cutting the numbers and introducing relegation hasn't helped make the competition any stronger. Arguably if they were going to introduce relegation as they did then they should have increased the numbers in the top flight.

[JAG]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

But then why would anyone put money into the other teams outside SL? Would we have got the new owner at York or the team in Newcastle if they couldn´t reach the top? My worry is it just kills the club outside the top clubs and to be frank many teams in there (Huddersfield, Wakefield , Cas , Salford) have had more than enough years to make it work.  It´s a franchise system in all but name and if we are doing that, fine, but you´d be dumping a few clubs who are consistently safe in SL for a start. 

I'm not sure you've understood the proposal as it addresses that very issue, there's a better potential to get promoted to SL. 4 teams could be promoted from the championship at once if so wished, instead of yoyoing like Leigh Centurions, boom and bust teams like Toronto and always the bridesmaid but never the bride Featherstone Rovers. The Championship clubs promotion would come at the cost of SL clubs who have proven over the same 4 year period they aren't competitive, and if it would be too much to stomach losing a Salford or Huddersfield for example you keep them and bingo you have your 14 team super league.

[Jughead]

I don’t really like the two tens proposal we saw at the end of last year. Playing everyone three times isn’t what the fans really want and I can’t see the clubs or Sky being okay with a drastic drop to an eighteen game regular season even if people want a group stage to the Challenge Cup. I don’t really get the whole second ten, either if I’m honest. What is the makeup of that ten? What are you judging them on that means one team makes the ten and another doesn’t but makes them compatible with the current top end of Super League?

Fourteen just doesn’t suit, either. The standards of Super League are low as it is and I personally don’t think the answer is two more clubs and a continuation of twenty-seven rounds. A load of clubs clinging on to their status with their lives being added to by a couple more doing exactly the same and recycling the same players amongst them is as appetising as two tens. There was also a lot of talk around Saints choosing to rest players for their game at Cas last week, knowing full well that a loss would barely create a ripple in their season, do we want a competition overloaded with games where top clubs losing games just shrug their shoulders and move on to the next game? A competition of nearly thirty weekly rounds is simply too many games that are rendered meaningless and I don’t think it’s aided by replacing a loop game or two with games against more clubs from the same areas isn’t much more appealing and only serves to eradicate those and not really help the competition, IMO. 

I don’t think I’d move beyond twelve right now, not necessarily the twelve we have but I’d stick to twelve for now with long term aims of increasing in the same way the NRL has done and how we probably should have done in the twenty-six years since Super League begun. However, it is hard to enforce minimum standards on clubs in the current Championship against those who’ve kept their head above water for the best part of twenty years in Super League when the clubs at the end of the competition are in some cases so incomparable to those at the top of the Championship given the differences in funding, some being given academy licences and others not. 

I’m not a fan of promotion and relegation, either. It simply doesn’t work. Three wins from forty-odd games from promoted/elevated sides since London were relegated shows the disparity between the competitions and the incredibly tough nature of putting together a competitive squad in such a short period when the majority of players are secure for work for the following year.

As interesting as the Fev and Leigh element to the Championship is, I can’t help but worry for the side not promoted this year. Maybe they will be fine and they’ll regroup again next year but especially with Leigh, we’ve seen them hit problems in the past and whatever peoples thoughts on these clubs and/or chairmen, it wouldn’t please anyone to see either struggle after trying to go big on promotion and it not coming off. 

I’d rather we didn’t have promotion and relegation in the traditional sense and that clubs could apply for promotion, should they wish. Hull KR going from bottom in 2020, blooding Mikey Lewis and playing some entertaining, if not always successful rugby to getting within eighty minutes of a final in 2021 and 2022 is the sort of thing we should be aiming for, not cutting these clubs off for a year in the name of entertainment, ignoring that it doesn’t grow the game in the slightest. Even Toulouse this year, they’ve not been that bad on the whole, given the circumstances they face. They’ve had some narrow defeats but next year, barring a minor miracle, they’ll be at Batley and Dewsbury and any growth is stunted to create a televisual event and not think of the wider effect it has on the game of Rugby League. 

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I don’t really like the two tens proposal we saw at the end of last year. Playing everyone three times isn’t what the fans really want and I can’t see the clubs or Sky being okay with a drastic drop to an eighteen game regular season even if people want a group stage to the Challenge Cup. I don’t really get the whole second ten, either if I’m honest. What is the makeup of that ten? What are you judging them on that means one team makes the ten and another doesn’t but makes them compatible with the current top end of Super League?

Fourteen just doesn’t suit, either. The standards of Super League are low as it is and I personally don’t think the answer is two more clubs and a continuation of twenty-seven rounds. A load of clubs clinging on to their status with their lives being added to by a couple more doing exactly the same and recycling the same players amongst them is as appetising as two tens. There was also a lot of talk around Saints choosing to rest players for their game at Cas last week, knowing full well that a loss would barely create a ripple in their season, do we want a competition overloaded with games where top clubs losing games just shrug their shoulders and move on to the next game? A competition of nearly thirty weekly rounds is simply too many games that are rendered meaningless and I don’t think it’s aided by replacing a loop game or two with games against more clubs from the same areas isn’t much more appealing and only serves to eradicate those and not really help the competition, IMO. 

I don’t think I’d move beyond twelve right now, not necessarily the twelve we have but I’d stick to twelve for now with long term aims of increasing in the same way the NRL has done and how we probably should have done in the twenty-six years since Super League begun. However, it is hard to enforce minimum standards on clubs in the current Championship against those who’ve kept their head above water for the best part of twenty years in Super League when the clubs at the end of the competition are in some cases so incomparable to those at the top of the Championship given the differences in funding, some being given academy licences and others not. 

I’m not a fan of promotion and relegation, either. It simply doesn’t work. Three wins from forty-odd games from promoted/elevated sides since London were relegated shows the disparity between the competitions and the incredibly tough nature of putting together a competitive squad in such a short period when the majority of players are secure for work for the following year.

As interesting as the Fev and Leigh element to the Championship is, I can’t help but worry for the side not promoted this year. Maybe they will be fine and they’ll regroup again next year but especially with Leigh, we’ve seen them hit problems in the past and whatever peoples thoughts on these clubs and/or chairmen, it wouldn’t please anyone to see either struggle after trying to go big on promotion and it not coming off. 

I’d rather we didn’t have promotion and relegation in the traditional sense and that clubs could apply for promotion, should they wish. Hull KR going from bottom in 2020, blooding Mikey Lewis and playing some entertaining, if not always successful rugby to getting within eighty minutes of a final in 2021 and 2022 is the sort of thing we should be aiming for, not cutting these clubs off for a year in the name of entertainment, ignoring that it doesn’t grow the game in the slightest. Even Toulouse this year, they’ve not been that bad on the whole, given the circumstances they face. They’ve had some narrow defeats but next year, barring a minor miracle, they’ll be at Batley and Dewsbury and any growth is stunted to create a televisual event and not think of the wider effect it has on the game of Rugby League. 

As for the number of games argument I agree and I've just started a topic on Player Welfare in the general forum that touches upon number of games being played a year, my general philosophy is less is more. The less opportunities to play an opponent the more valuable and exciting that opportunity becomes.

As for the two leagues of ten, I'm the same it doesn't make sense to me at all.

As for promoted teams not being competitive in SL is because we're not giving them time to become competitive. You can spend 4-5 years trying to get in super league and if you don't get it right as soon as you're there you're relegated and all that hard work is lost. A 4 year cycle gives clubs the opportunity to adapt to the rigors of SL and test themselves with against promoted clubs in a similar position.

And in a 4 year cycle a SL club having one particularly bad year e.g Catalan, Hull KR in the past Leeds Rhinos this seasons aren't overly punished by getting relegated. Only over a course of 4 years could you genuinely say to a SL club that has consistently finished at the bottom or lower half of the league it's time to make way for someone else.

As for the size of the SL this system would give greater indication of just how many seriously competitive RL clubs there are in SL & Champ. Leigh are a temperamental club and Toronto have come and gone we need clubs who can prove they're well run and competitive over a longer period of time rather than boom and bust clubs of the past. Featherstone are proving to be one such club but if the don't win a GF they'll stay in The Championship, seems a waste whereas you might accuse Wakefield of being a bit of a non entity in SL. But becasue there's always a weaker newly promoted club to rely on getting relegated they don't have to do much.

[Jughead]

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

As for the number of games argument I agree and I've just started a topic on Player Welfare in the general forum that touches upon number of games being played a year, my general philosophy is less is more. The less opportunities to play an opponent the more valuable and exciting that opportunity becomes.

As for the two leagues of ten, I'm the same it doesn't make sense to me at all.

As for promoted teams not being competitive in SL is because we're not giving them time to become competitive. You can spend 4-5 years trying to get in super league and if you don't get it right as soon as you're there you're relegated and all that hard work is lost. A 4 year cycle gives clubs the opportunity to adapt to the rigors of SL and test themselves with against promoted clubs in a similar position.

And in a 4 year cycle a SL club having one particularly bad year e.g Catalan, Hull KR in the past Leeds Rhinos this seasons aren't overly punished by getting relegated. Only over a course of 4 years could you genuinely say to a SL club that has consistently finished at the bottom or lower half of the league it's time to make way for someone else.

As for the size of the SL this system would give greater indication of just how many seriously competitive RL clubs there are in SL & Champ. Leigh are a temperamental club and Toronto have come and gone we need clubs who can prove they're well run and competitive over a longer period of time rather than boom and bust clubs of the past. Featherstone are proving to be one such club but if the don't win a GF they'll stay in The Championship, seems a waste whereas you might accuse Wakefield of being a bit of a non entity in SL. But becasue there's always a weaker newly promoted club to rely on getting relegated they don't have to do much.

I’ll be honest, I see no point a hybrid model. If you’re going to promote teams, leave them to grow rather trying to create a televisual event every four years and to keep a small band of parochial clubs with the opportunity of promotion. 

Take Catalans, we’re now slowly seeing the French players through the academy system regularly take their place in their squad after nearly twenty years. The same could happen for Toulouse, in time. The same could even happen at a Salford and Wakefield, for example, with players from Greater Manchester or Wakefield and their immediate area if the “trap door” beneath them was drilled shut, not opening at random on an ad hoc basis with no return for nearly half a decade on the same random ad hoc basis. 

[JAG]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

No I understand it´s a lockout for 4 years but how do you maintain interest for the teams that now have to wait 4 years to maybe go up? 

I´m not worried about losing Huddersfield or Salford anymore than other clubs. I just think that we actually have the infrastructure for half a dozen SL teams to be of SL standard and two of them are in thriving cities with the potential to bring in the commercial income that others cannot. 

How dos any team maintain interest when they know they can't or more than likely won't get promoted? How does Bradford, Widnes, Halifax, York maintain interest when over the years Toronto, Toulouse, Leigh and now Featherstone have been so dominant? 

In this system your performances are counted over 4 years and the pay-off is four years of Super League. Leigh centurions could end getting promoted and relegated twice over in the course of a four year period, how does that help anyone? Why can't the mobility between SL & The Championship be realistically applicable to more clubs? Why should SL promotion be a dog fight between 2 clubs in a GF every year (more than likely featuring the same 4 teams over 4 years) than between potentially 10 different clubs over a four year period?

In one up one down P&R the Championship Grand Final will be combination between Leigh, Featherstone, a newly relegated SL team (Toulouse) and one other team lets say York over the next four years. In a four year cycle P&R the list of teams to potential to get promoted could be Leigh, Featherstone, York, Bradford, Widnes, Newcastle, Halifax, Batley, Barrow, Sheffield.

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I’ll be honest, I see no point a hybrid model. If you’re going to promote teams, leave them to grow rather trying to create a televisual event every four years and to keep a small band of parochial clubs with the opportunity of promotion. 

Take Catalans, we’re now slowly seeing the French players through the academy system regularly take their place in their squad after nearly twenty years. The same could happen for Toulouse, in time. The same could even happen at a Salford and Wakefield, for example, with players from Greater Manchester or Wakefield and their immediate area if the “trap door” beneath them was drilled shut, not opening at random on an ad hoc basis with no return for nearly half a decade on the same random ad hoc basis. 

We've lost Toronto, we're on the verge of losing London. Widnes and Bradford have been in trouble in recent years. Same thing could happen to Toulouse if we're not careful. Catalan survived a MPG for one bad season, imagine if they weren't so lucky.

This model helps protect clubs hard work while not resigning other clubs to an endless existence in the championship. 

Absolutely nothing random about it, it's performance based. St Helens didn't randomly win Super League and Leigh didn't randomly finish bottom.

This model would ensure clubs like Toulouse, York, Newcastle have a fair crack at SL when their time comes which would only encourage other franchises to spring up, the only thing to keep parochial clubs happy would be a ring fenced SL.

[Jughead]

Just now, JAG said:

We've lost Toronto, we're on the verge of losing London. Widnes and Bradford have been in trouble in recent years. Same thing could happen to Toulouse if we're not careful. Catalan survived a MPG for one bad season, imagine if they weren't so lucky.

This model helps protect clubs hard work while not resigning other clubs to an endless existence in the championship. 

Absolutely nothing random about it, it's performance based. St Helens didn't randomly win Super League and Leigh didn't randomly finish bottom.

This model would ensure clubs like Toulouse, York, Newcastle have a fair crack at SL when their time comes which would only encourage other franchises to spring up, the only thing to keep parochial clubs happy would be a ring fenced SL.

The model you’re proposing doesn’t support clubs. Whoever is relegated in a four year cycle suffers the same fate as London, Widnes, Bradford and Leigh (the second time around) and all four face(d) difficulties afterwards. There’s no guarantee that Club A, who finish 12th in your proposed idea in year four of four, don’t suffer the same fate as the above seeing as they’re going to experience a significant financial loss through the drop in funding from playing at Super League level previously. 

The model is random because you’ve chosen an arbitrary year to decide to relegate clubs. Why not five years or sixteen? They’re randomly plucked numbers just as four is, a trap door flying open at random doesn’t help anyone, as it doesn’t on an annual basis. 

[JAG]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because London were that team who snuck up through the playoffs, there´s an outside chance but that´s still a chance. 

If it´s over 4 years what do you do if you had a bad first year, instead of writing off one season clubs and fans would be writing off the next 2 or three seasons. That´s a sure fire way to kill season ticket sales or interest. 

We don´t need to overcomplicate this. 14 teams gives clubs like Toulouse, Fev, York and whoever else gets up the room to grow as for the first year they´ll be a few weaker teams (although I actually think if Toulouse knew they were going to 14 they´d be staying up,  it buys one of Salford or Wakey time to bed in their new revenue and any club that can´t generate the extra rev from no loop fixtures and a more exciting league shouldn´t be protected. 

And now look at London since they came straight back down.

If you had a bad first year you've got 3 more to get right. If you have one great year you've got 3 more years to back it up and solidify your promotion. If you're a play-off worthy team in any particular year you're definitely capable of gaining promotion, you wouldn't have to go on a crazy/amazing run of results and win a GF, but you still could. what's not to like

[JAG]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

The model you’re proposing doesn’t support clubs. Whoever is relegated in a four year cycle suffers the same fate as London, Widnes, Bradford and Leigh (the second time around) and all four face(d) difficulties afterwards. There’s no guarantee that Club A, who finish 12th in your proposed idea in year four of four, don’t suffer the same fate as the above seeing as they’re going to experience a significant financial loss through the drop in funding from playing at Super League level previously. 

The model is random because you’ve chosen an arbitrary year to decide to relegate clubs. Why not five years or sixteen? They’re randomly plucked numbers just as four is, a trap door flying open at random doesn’t help anyone, as it doesn’t on an annual basis. 

It's not random, four years is a world cup cycle. What better way to start a new four year cycle era then directly after the heightened interest of a World Cup with brand new invigorated leagues.

At some point during the fourth season of a four year cycle a club(s) will know they will be relegated, it wouldn't be after the shock of a MPG defeat and it probably wouldn't be final game of the season. This would give those clubs the time to prepare themselves for outside of SL. I think one of the reasons Leigh haven't imploded is becasue they knew there fate long before the end of the season. 

You could finish bottom of SL in year 4 and not get relegated for having been successful in the previous 3.