Quote ="wrencat1873"This cuts both ways. The flip side of the argument is that Sky may want to reduce their sponsorship next time around as they may be paying for "an inferior product". It really isn't the responsibility of a sports broadcaster to improve the sport although, in truth, most major sports would be stuffed without Sky and their peers. The way things are going we may end up with 2 leagues of 10, with only the top flight being of decent quality and if people like Peacock keep banging on about lack of intensity and a gulf within SL etc, perhaps SKY would be right to offer less money next ">time.'" If what I believe to be correct is true, that the Sky contract stipulates a [iminimum[/i 12 clubs in SL then the idea of 20 even in two divisions is a non-starter. Why would Sky fund a div 2 which, as a part time time league, would be the equivalent of what we have now.

Quote ="wrencat1873"This cuts both ways. The flip side of the argument is that Sky may want to reduce their sponsorship next time around as they may be paying for "an inferior product". It really isn't the responsibility of a sports broadcaster to improve the sport although, in truth, most major sports would be stuffed without Sky and their peers. The way things are going we may end up with 2 leagues of 10, with only the top flight being of decent quality and if people like Peacock keep banging on about lack of intensity and a gulf within SL etc, perhaps SKY would be right to offer less money next ">time.'" If what I believe to be correct is true, that the Sky contract stipulates a [iminimum[/i 12 clubs in SL then the idea of 20 even in two divisions is a non-starter. Why would Sky fund a div 2 which, as a part time time league, would be the equivalent of what we have now.

Quote ="wrencat1873"This cuts both ways. The flip side of the argument is that Sky may want to reduce their sponsorship next time around as they may be paying for "an inferior product". It really isn't the responsibility of a sports broadcaster to improve the sport although, in truth, most major sports would be stuffed without Sky and their ">peers.'" Its not, but they will want the best products to sell to the public and if they're cheap about things, they're going to lose one. TV money in sport, SKY in particular in our case, is so intertwined in our existance, that we shouldn't/can't shy away from the fact that we'll practically live and die by it. It will serve them no purpose to lose superleague as a viable draw for the public. What we need won't be a king's ransom to sky and if we paired that with a better approach to sponsorship, we may find ourselves in a less perilous situation. I'd also like donations from wealthy backers for star players to count outside the cap, meaning it continues to protect financially challenged clubs from over reaching and bankrupting themselves, but at the same time allows Star players (both english and antipodean) to work in the SL thanks to the likes of Dr Koukash, who'll be more likely attracted by the chance to buy success, rather than fund a team to be another also ran.

Quote ="wrencat1873"This cuts both ways. The flip side of the argument is that Sky may want to reduce their sponsorship next time around as they may be paying for "an inferior product". It really isn't the responsibility of a sports broadcaster to improve the sport although, in truth, most major sports would be stuffed without Sky and their ">peers.'" Its not, but they will want the best products to sell to the public and if they're cheap about things, they're going to lose one. TV money in sport, SKY in particular in our case, is so intertwined in our existance, that we shouldn't/can't shy away from the fact that we'll practically live and die by it. It will serve them no purpose to lose superleague as a viable draw for the public. What we need won't be a king's ransom to sky and if we paired that with a better approach to sponsorship, we may find ourselves in a less perilous situation. I'd also like donations from wealthy backers for star players to count outside the cap, meaning it continues to protect financially challenged clubs from over reaching and bankrupting themselves, but at the same time allows Star players (both english and antipodean) to work in the SL thanks to the likes of Dr Koukash, who'll be more likely attracted by the chance to buy success, rather than fund a team to be another also ran.

Quote ="Bulliac"If what I believe to be correct is true, that the Sky contract stipulates a [iminimum[/i 12 clubs in SL then the idea of 20 even in two divisions is a non-starter. Why would Sky fund a div 2 which, as a part time time league, would be the equivalent of what we have ">now.'" That is exactly the point, maybe they wont fund two leagues of ten clubs, which could lead to the axe falling on 2 or more SL clubs in 2015. It's strange that only a few years ago the league was expanded form 12 to 14 clubs and now, certain parties want it cut back to 10 clubs, it's no wonder some of the clubs are struggling to promote themselves effectively.

Quote ="Bulliac"If what I believe to be correct is true, that the Sky contract stipulates a [iminimum[/i 12 clubs in SL then the idea of 20 even in two divisions is a non-starter. Why would Sky fund a div 2 which, as a part time time league, would be the equivalent of what we have ">now.'" That is exactly the point, maybe they wont fund two leagues of ten clubs, which could lead to the axe falling on 2 or more SL clubs in 2015. It's strange that only a few years ago the league was expanded form 12 to 14 clubs and now, certain parties want it cut back to 10 clubs, it's no wonder some of the clubs are struggling to promote themselves effectively.

Seems a bit like there are lots of folk all jockeying for their little pet scheme to be accepted as the 'way forward' for SL. All it's really doing is creating lots of rumours with the attendant uncertainty, all of which helps no-one, to be honest.



Much as we all want the the RFL to run the league it seems that any changes to SL, or to be precise - major changes, are going to have to be run past our 'broadcast partner' for approval anyway. I think we need to wait until more concrete proposals are set out - from people higher up the chain, if they ever are.

I don't see how cutting two teams, with the reduction of the leagues fan base and smaller opportunities for young players to make it into the league that will go with it, can be a good thing.