Well I suggested elsewhere that the promoted side are given one year without the threat of relegation, we previously had the situation where the promoted team couldn't start recruitment straight away so were lagging behind. To prevent the notion of yoyo teams (us in previous incarnations of the league) that buffer year would allow for recruitment and the gradual blooding of younger talent.



There has to be something mid season international (or if you like rep rugby like in the NRL), we can't expect a GB team too play say 3 meaningful games per season and compete with players from NZ & Australia when they play at a higher intensity week in week out, play mid season tests on ANZAC day and the cream of the Aussies play SOO.



The GB thing for me is a no brainer, still have the home nations event but make that for fringe players to show their wares on a slightly higher level and give them the goal of a GB test jumper to aim for.



I don't get the incentive thing, professional sportsmen get paid to play a game so for me every game should demand the same level of effort from them. The simple answer is there is an increase in prize money the higher up the table you finish that should then be channeled to the players thus making it more lucrative for them to finish higher up the league.

That’s all well and good but surely that would create a huge disadvantage of attracting better players to lower standing clubs. Players may be reluctant to commit to a club they consider a risk in preference to a higher standing club. This could create further disparity in the game with players accepting less money from a higher standing club simply because it’s a safer long-term option.



This would be an unfair obstacle in the player recruitment process.

To answer your question, however, all responsible directors should include a clause in player contracts giving the club the option to terminate the contract if the club ceases to be in the current division (ie if it is relegated).



They Do ! Current SL contracts no matter how long state that if the club you are contracted to lose SL status then the contract is terminated and you are a free agent. It is one of the conditions a player abides to when he signs.

Yes but there is a big difference between signing a 2 year contract with a club that has a 3 year franchise license compared to one that could out of Superleague 12 months down the line.

Why not have all players employed by the RFL, funded by the licence fee for their basic salaries. Then clubs could bid extra funds for particular players to be contracted to them for a set period and pay win bonuses etc directly to the players

That way, the lower division clubs get something of a guarantee that players will be available, whilst the better off clubs still keep the ability to realise their ambitions by targetting the best players for their squads

Not sure where you are coming from there.......a better example would be a player signing a 3 year contract with a SL club with 2 years left on the clubs SL Franchise.

If the club was to lose its SL status the third year of the contract would be nullified.

Does anyone have the stats of how many promoted teams were relegated the year after during the promotion-relegation era of Super League?

Quote The Perry Boy="The Perry Boy"Does anyone have the stats of how many promoted teams were relegated the year after during the promotion-relegation era of Super League?'" markillsport.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... super.html

Quote The Perry Boy="The Perry Boy"Does anyone have the stats of how many promoted teams were relegated the year after during the promotion-relegation era of Super League?'" markillsport.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... super.html

That's an interesting read, and doesn't squash the fears I have of bringing P&R back too soon.

Butcher..i know my mate MR has me on his assassin list but I have to agree with him here.



The club finishing top of the pile are rightly Champions of that particular sport, those who finish below the cut off for staying in the division should give up their place and allow teams who have competed below them a chance.



Your argument about them being unable to compete in such a short period is valid but they shouldn't be denied that chance.



The way the structure is at the minute the top division is fundamentally a closed shop and doesn't encourage the teams below it to invest or develop themselves. You find that once the gap has opened up showing the potential playoff teams then the teams below eight place have nothing to play for both Salford ( and it isn't a dig) and London testimony to that this season.



Restructuring is a tough nut to crack as you will please some and not others but in this country we must be the only sport who turn it's back on Promotion and Relegation...I do stand to be corrected however.

Contracts should be binding whatever league a team ends up in , this way they can command a transfer fee and money is fed down to the lower leagues, giving more clubs the chance to survive financially

Jeez, you're like a cockstruck teenager when it comes to MR. Let it go man, let it go.





You're using the words 'club' and 'team' interchangeably, and they're not the same thing. You say you want the [iteam[/i that finishes top of the lower division to be given the chance at the higher division. So, do you want the [iclub[/i to be forced to take their place in the higher division with the [iteam[/i that got them there? If not, why not? If so, what do you think their chances would be in that higher division?





Another way of looking at it is to say that if you want the top division to be populated with the best clubs - and, surely, that's what the top division is meant to be about - then having a system where a better club can be replaced by a weaker one on the strength of one good and one bad season on the field seems massively flawed to me.





A closed shop that allowed Widnes in. Not a closed shop, in other words.





Is there another sport that promotes directly from a part-time division into its fully funded full-time top division?