Rugby league journalists tackle the burning questions

Warriors correspondent Phil Wilkinson is joined by the BBC's Dave Woods, The Sun's Gary Garter, The Mirror's Gareth Walker, League Express' Matt Shaw and freelance reporter John Davison.

How do you think the season will look when it returns – and if you were in charge, what would you do differently?

Phil Wilkinson (Wigantoday): Expect it to return behind closed doors, probably in August, with a congested schedule which runs until the end of November.

Hopes of getting crowds back in from October seem optimistic at this stage, but the situation with the coronavirus pandemic is fluid, hopefully the nation is in a much better position by then.

If the testing protocols are the same in August as they are for the football players in training now, it’s difficult to imagine the Championship and League One restarting, given the costs involved.

Even if they do, with the competition so heavily compromised, promotion and relegation would seem unfair.

If they get back playing, I’d like to see Super League move back towards a 14-team competition; much rather a fairer league with more teams – London, Toulouse maybe? – then the loop matches they pad the season with now just to generate extra money.

If the only argument against expanding the season is the central money has to be sliced between 13, rather than 11 (Toronto don’t get central funding), it’s pretty weak.

I also wouldn’t be shocked to see the Challenge Cup Final moved away from Wembley.

Dave Woods (BBC): I suspect matches will be higher scoring affairs, just because of an inevitable lowering of conditioning and an increase number of matches and therefore fatigue.

I think Brian McDermott’s idea of 60 minutes matches is a good one, for the fitness reasons he suggest, but also for matches behind closed doors where there’s no atmosphere or sense of occasion. Eighty minute games in those conditions may struggle to retain interest on TV.

Gary Carter (The Sun): I think Super League will return in a Magic style format, only with three games at a venue in the north west and three at a venue in Yorkshire on a Saturday and Sunday. If I was in charge (perish that thought) I’d have to tell clubs, ‘Sorry, no promotion or relegation this year as the competition is too compromised.’ Having Catalans, Toronto and Toulouse having to spend the rest of the season away from home is, for me, too big a disadvantage to call a competition fair.

I’d also cut six fixtures from Super League and make the play-offs straight semi-finals and final.

Gareth Walker (Mirror): It has to be a shortened season, so losing the loop fixtures makes sense. I’m not in favour of any rule changes for a season that has already started – it would further damage its integrity. I’m a big supporter of promotion and relegation generally, but can’t see any way that relegation would be fair in a truncated season – and promotion will rest with the Championship club’s ability to get back onto the field given the financial implications they will face. That decision has to be made by the RFL from a whole-game viewpoint.

Matt Shaw (League Express): We can’t have relegation. Covid-19 has put and will continue to put pressure on clubs financially.

By removing relegation you ensure one less burden for a club. Personally, I think Super League should be a 14-team competition. So, if I were in charge I would abolish relegation for the 2020 and 2021 seasons and promote one club both years from the Championship, which gets you to 14. Everyone wins, other than the fact the central distribution is split two more ways.

With regards to the current season. I think the play-offs will be scrapped.

If the top two go straight to a Grand Final, that saves you three weeks worth of play-off games. Importantly, clubs don’t budget for income from play-off games, whereas they do for loop fixtures, so it makes more sense to scrap the play-offs, even though it won’t be popular with supporters.

John Davidson (freelance): I think it will be behind closed doors, maybe at a centralised two or three venues for financial and safety reasons. With Catalans and Toronto unlikely to be able to play at home, and with a full season probably out of reach, I can see no promotion and relegation this season. It wouldn’t be far otherwise.

Should the salary cap be reduced?

Phil Wilkinson (Wigantoday): Absolutely not. Yorkshire has for years tried to shake its tag as being prudent with cash, but all six clubs wanting the wage ceiling to come down are from the White Rose county.

If they want to spend, say, £1.8m next year, they’re free to, but it would be unfair to change the 2021 limit now when clubs have been making plans expecting it to be £2.1m.

Supporters suggest it would send out a message that they are getting their house in order; I think it’d make Super League look like it is a competition going backwards, and only make it more difficult to attract - and retain - quality players.

On a wider point, I’ve no issue with financial measures to stop clubs going bust, but I’d love to see a player challenge the legalities of a salary cap in court.

Dave Woods (BBC): I’d keep the salary cap the same for 2021. The real issue will be the salary cap and its relevance from 2022, when the new TV deal, hopefully, will be in place and we’ll have a better idea of where the sport is at financially.

Gary Carter (The Sun): In a word, no. A limit is an upper limit, not a lower one, you don’t have to spend up to it. Salford reached the Grand Final last season on a cap of £1.7 million, so it can be done.

Gareth Walker (Mirror): No. If you can’t afford to spend the full salary cap in 2021, don’t spend it. Salford showed by reaching last year’s Grand Final that it’s not a necessity to challenge for trophies, if you have smart coaches, recruitment and administrators. And Super League will need star names like Greg Inglis more than ever before in 2021 as the sport looks to regroup.

Matt Shaw (League Express): I understand the argument for reducing it, but I don’t think I would. If clubs were obliged to spend the full salary cap, I would completely agree with the proposal. But they aren’t obliged. There will be inevitable financial repercussions moving forward and clubs might not be able to spend as much as they have been doing. That’s absolutely fine. But if you can’t spend it, don’t spend it. I don’t think clubs who can spend it should be prevented from doing so. The counter-argument to that is the competition won’t be on an even playing field, with some clubs spending significantly more than others. But it didn’t stop Salford, the smallest spenders in the league, making the Grand Final last year, and only four clubs have won the Grand Final anyway.

John Davidson (freelance): Probably only half of the clubs spend the full cap anyway, so I don’t think it should be reduced.

We have a fairly even playing field now, so cutting it further wouldn’t be great.

Also, you would need to give clubs at least 18 months notice if you wanted to cut it. Clubs are recruiting now, and have recruited now, on the basis of the £2.1 million for 2021 and some players will be on long-term deals which would then have to be changed if the cap was cut.

Do you think Super League should go back under the RFL umbrella, and do you think it will?

Phil Wilkinson (Wigantoday): To some degree. I think a lot of good came from the split, not least Nigel Wood's exit, a Super League reboot and a greater focal point on the top-tier.

But some of the RFL’s content and social media output - promoting Championship matches – is better than Super League’s, and given the finances, can the sport afford to have two separate teams of executives – and separate offices?

Dave Woods (BBC): I think there will be a coming together of Super League and the RFL, but with a dedicated officer or department under the umbrella of the RFL working specifically for the Super League clubs. At the moment there are too many areas of duplication, too many areas of conflict and too much money being wasted that the game can’t afford to waste.

Gary Carter (The Sun): In two words (ok, maybe three) yes and yes. It’s clear the Government said to the RFL when negotiating the loan that it has to look at costs. Well, to the layman, having two teams doing pretty much the same thing provides plenty of scope to cut costs. More and more clubs feel as though it is the way to go, with new arrangements on certain things, which is understood on both sides. No doubt the Super League body has made positive changes and done things that were needed but given the extreme change of circumstances in recent weeks, it may just be a case of needs must.

Gareth Walker (Mirror): It’s a complicated issue. Some of the need for change in 2018 remains, but the sport now has financial issues because of the coronavirus pandemic that need to be addressed. And the RFL has rightly been praised - right across the sport - for the leadership its shown in recent months. Working out whether rugby league in this country can still afford to split administrative resources to the same extent is going to be crucial.

Matt Shaw (League Express): I do, but there needs to be some questions asked here. The sport, like many other industries, has to cut its cloth now. There is a lot of duplication across Super League and the RFL, so it’s an obvious place to save money.

However, the decision to realign isn’t something clubs have decided on as a consequence of Covid-19. For many clubs, they have been concerned with how the split has played out and also by the cost that has come with it. There had been unofficial talks between clubs a few months ago about potentially realigning, though it’s important to note it’s not unanimous, Wigan and Warrington remain in support of Super League being its own executive body.

While a sensible move, it’s also seen as an opportunity to realign and try and avoid scrutiny, I absolutely believe that. But in reality, a lot of money has been spent and you have to ask what the return on investment has been. What have the clubs and the competition to show for the millions spent? You could argue it was a way to put pressure on Nigel Wood and Brian Barwick at the RFL. If that was the thinking, it was a success, as both left the RFL. But was it worth all that money? I’d say not. They wanted more control over TV negotiations but if they realign, the RFL will lead that anyway, so that would prove fruitless.

I think it’s a matter of when, not if, that realignment takes place.

John Davidson (freelance): It’s hard to say. There has been some positives to come out of the split, and it wasn’t working before with the RFL in complete charge. The real issue is now is the financial pressure to keep running two governing bodies, duplicate executives and three offices at the moment. I can see them coming back together as a cost-cutting measure.