is it time for a bigger superleague?

[wiganrldeanh]

i thikn so. if we are to become bigger then we must increase the amount of teams in superleague. the biggest reason for this is for teams like halifax who didnt have such a bad following until they dropped into nl1 and lost their decent players, money and fans.

[Wizard_Millward]

Doing this though, would probably mean we had to abolish relegation so every team in the league had the finances to compete. I don't think it would be such a bad idea though, look at the NRL, they have a competetion where anyone can beat anyone on there day and the lower clubs still compete because they're never to far away from the play-off places and also for pride.

[wiganrldeanh]

exactly. it isnt that bad about havin g no relegation. the only problem with that is that there will be no body fighting to stay in the league.

[botica]

You gotta have promotion and relegation! What would be the point of being the best in lg 1? Nothing to play for at the top there, they would lose funds fans and any good players that came their way. It would be suicide. A few weeks ago it would have been fine though!!! But serious lads keep it real. I agree add the extra teams so you don;t have to play certain teams three times, but keep the drop zone.

[robjoenz]

...should we call it Super-Duper League or MegaLeague?

I'm for expansion, maybe see how NL1 sides do in the next few years. I reckon bring in Cas or Whitehaven (whoever fails to gain promotion this year) along with Widnes if they go down this year. This will expand SL back to Cumbria as well as allow a team with a decent RL heritage and fanbase have it's place back in SL.

[wiganrldeanh]

robjoenz posted:
...should we call it Super-Duper League or MegaLeague?

how about super-duper-mega league

(reminds me of american sports)

[GeoffN]

The main reason the club chairmen keep voting against it is that the Sky money is a fixed amount, shared amongst however many teams are in SL...so the more teams, the less cash each team gets. That's why we have those silly extra games at the end of the season, instead of each team playing all the others twice...they want the gate revenue from the extra games despite not having enough teams to make a sensible fixture list.
Having said that, at least we've now got away from the big difference in fixtures between finishing 6th or 7th.

[mike binder]

im lead to beleive that talks between sl ,sky and the clubs are well advanced about uping the number of teams to 14 just need to sort out the finances :conf: i mthink widnes nknow that they are not going down,and the clubs akll know a little more than they are letting on .They have just signed 2 more players from aus im sure something is going on and they know thet are safe,this would also confirm the fact that apart from the fans no 1 at wigan feared going down

[thegimble]

It would stop the nonsense of playing Saints, Leeds 3 times a season. Either they expand and bring in 3 more teams or they just play 2 a season and bring one of the old competitions back.

Its a farce playing the top 2, 3 times a season when other play Leigh 3 times a season. Get a side from Wales in and Tigers back and whoever finishes 2nd bottom should stay up. If we end up with odd number of teams then we do a bye week as they do in the NRL the present fixtur style is a farce.

We should play everyone 2 a season in the league no more.

[mike binder]

thegimble posted:
It would stop the nonsense of playing Saints, Leeds 3 times a season. Either they expand and bring in 3 more teams or they just play 2 a season and bring one of the old competitions back.

Its a farce playing the top 2, 3 times a season when other play Leigh 3 times a season. Get a side from Wales in and Tigers back and whoever finishes 2nd bottom should stay up. If we end up with odd number of teams then we do a bye week as they do in the NRL the present fixtur style is a farce.

We should play everyone 2 a season in the league no more.

dont beleive im saying this but i totaly agree with you gamble