Interesting piece written by Andrew Chalmers on the T & A website today, on the subject of self interest of larger rugby (union) clubs www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... our-sport/

Interesting piece written by Andrew Chalmers on the T & A website today, on the subject of self interest of larger rugby (union) clubs www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... our-sport/

The votes of Toronto, Toulouse & Widnes are key.

If the proposal goes through, it makes next years SL clubs more secure and next years Championship clubs would have a more difficult path to promotion.

Self interest and crystal ball gazing will be utilised...

Toronto & Toulouse don’t actually get a vote as they are not full members. This goes some way to explaining why the superleague clubs don’t want them in superleague, as it would dilute their collective voting power to a point where the lower divisions have a clear majority. There are 7 additional votes too given to community organisations apparently, no idea how they’ll vote.



I agree that the change would make superleague clubs more secure, but I don’t entirely agree that it makes promotion harder. From what I’ve seen relegation is automatic, and one of the top 2 from champ will be promoted, through a one match playoff, without having to beat any SL clubs. It guarantees promotion, whereas there is no such guarantee now. Assuming there are no strings attached off course...

I can never really see where people who are in favour of the middle 8s as a way of promotion are coming from. I always thought it was a way of offering championship clubs promotion - and thus keeping them quiet - whilst being completely unrealistic.



It's taken a really special effort from Widnes to be so bad that a championship club will actually get promoted this year. All this against the 100% guaranteed route of promotion that the new proposal (that nobody actually really seems to know the details of) offers.

That is true enough, but that would leave the 'new' SL club as the whipping boy. It's likely to be very similar to the old, and discredited at the time, yo-yo system where the same, two or maybe three clubs, take turns to go up and down every year, with each promoted club, essentially, taking on the players from the relegated one. Any new club in SL needs security for at least three season to build and become really competitive, imo. This promotion element has a bit of 'here we go round the mulberry bush' about it.



What would be next? We don't like the yo-yo so we'll go back to licensing? I think that is essentially what the SL clubs want anyway with the P&R element only being suggested a sop to gain votes from the lower leagues.

I don't mind the new structure. The only change I would make is the promoted team is exempt from relegation for the first season. Gives them chance to build a team.

Does anyone have an actual breakdown of what the changes are? I've seen bits and pieces here and there, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive list of changes anywhere.

Essentially it's a return to exactly what we had about ten years ago. Nothing actually new at all.

The bit that concerns me is not actually the bits that have been made public, it’s the bits that haven’t. Chalmers keeps suggesting that the proposed changes empower SL to the exclusion of all others, makes you wonder what the details actually are...

This was my thinking as well. Offering the proverbial carrot of direct promotion with the stick of (much) less money......

There is a statement on the Batley website from the Chairman about P & R. Very interesting reading. Any one know how to put it onto here because I haven't a clue ?

Yeah, its interesting reading:



[urlhttp://www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/2018/09/08/chairmans-statement-game-restructure-proposals/[/url

That is a well argued and justifiable compromise.

And suddenly things are a lot clearer...

The Batley chairman is correct to say that the 'eights' do provide a genuine chance of promotion, though this is very largely on the back of two, independent but connected, big changes from the position when the system was first started.



The first was bringing in the change which allowed the same cap for ALL the clubs involved and the second was the new clubs, Toronto and Toulouse. As we have seen with Leigh, if they couldn't compete with a wealthy owner, it's very doubtful that any other of the current, traditional championship clubs would have the money to make use of the increased cap to even get promoted , let alone survive that first year. Unless there are other very well funded 'foreign' clubs out there, I feel the way up for most clubs would be barred under this system. So what happens to the eights next? Assuming there are no other new clubs coming through I think it will be dropped and we'll be back to some form of licensing or SL membership scheme, maybe with an independent SL, free from the control of the RFL. After SLexit, as it were.

1 up 1 down with the option for a 2nd Championship club to go up at the expense of the 11th placed club makes sense. It's similar to the current system AND it means that you won't have the club who's 11th but with a buffer between them and 12 shutting up shop for the year as they'll be pushing to avoid 11th place as well having to ensure they are competitive enough to avoid the drop.

Well unless there is a change to the structure, then it's the play-offs as York have overcome their last bannana skin.



Was a good game to watch although i have to say after his farcical performance refereeing us and Workington, i'd love to know how Mullhern got a big game in York/Oldham. Unsurprisingly he got a huge call wrong at the end. Oldham kick, York player fields it, loses ball in tackle. Oldham regather and then take the tackle. He then gives the hand over to York. I mean the outcome didn't match any possible play that happened. Whether it went forward or backwards Oldham got to the ball first so its a fresh set of 6! Last minute too! When so much is at stake why is it acceptable to have this level of officiating who don't seem to know the rules. He's guranteed to ref the play-off semi or final isn't he. Anyway rant over.



Well done York. They fully deserve top spot IMO A club on the up!

Great Stat on Twitter in that York have had eight games decided by a score or less this year, and won seven of them. By contrast, the Bulls have had four and lost three of them, the only win vs York first day of the season.



York certain deserve the title IMO, and we need to start winning close games if we are to take part in the playoffs.

I noticed this today after looking at who their final two opponents were. York certainly weren’t all that impressive today but they seem to find a way to grind out a win. The amount of ball that Oldham spilled in good position was criminal and I’m sure Naylor will feel they blew a chance in that 2nd half to snatch a result.



As for the Bulls, they have lost twice at home against their promotion rivals, that is a big concern. Let’s hope they can pull it together and string some performances together when it matters in the play offs. Can’t see York slipping up now with two fairly easy games left to go.

Let's hope York see it as "two easy games to go"...

Will we find out the outcome of this meeting actually on Friday? Will there be someone looking for white smoke from one of the many industrial chimneys at Red Hall?



Or presumably, as is the way with anything important involved with the RFL,will it be a botched press statement days after the news has leaked out from multiple sources anyway?



I think this is probably a rhetorical question. As the people who are participating in the meeting probably don't know themselves how it is to be announced, so there is bugger all chance of us poor saps knowing.

Is the increase to 14 clubs for the championship still part of the structure changes though?. This was initial proposal that the lower league clubs rejected. All the talk about fridays vote is to do with removal of eights and funding for next three years. I haven't seen any mention of the increase to 14 for championship in any of the reports about the vote, so are we just assuming thats still in there?

I understand a clear, unequivocal statement is to be released at 1600 on Friday delivered to the people of Narnia by Lord Lucan sat astride Shergar whilst being cheered on by Comical Ali

The change to 14 is still part of the talks, has been mentioned by a few journos over the past week or so.

I'm not so sure.



This is from Aaron Bower on twitter