im not sure that is the case. I mean it was a league of the same teams. Im not sure how it is harder to finish 4th now than before. Surely if you could coast to 4th last year, you could coast to 4th this year. Surely it is exactly the same?

Simply because you could finish 5th 6th even 7th or 8th in years gone by and have and still have a great shot of winning the title, hell we exposed the system! This year very good sides like Catalans and Warrington are probably going to miss out so of course its tougher.You can't coast anymore or you will miss out altogether on the playoffs.Is it just a coincidence we are likely to finish top in two games time when Mcdermott's Leeds couldn't finish top 2 once in his whole tenure before this year?

We had several seasons without P/R. That gave the likes of Wakey and HKR more than enough chance not to go run out and buy overseas at the first oppotunity and have teams filled with academy products and have things in order upon the return of P/R......however they haven't. Should we have kept the old system on the off chance those two sides might have eventually gotten their act together more on that issue? Let's not have P/R or a more interesting league on the off chance HKR might play a academy lad at 2nd row instead of signing some Aussie.....yeah sounds great.

As this season will ultimately end up being a top 4 play off series rather than a top 8 as in the past

I believe that finishing 1st has it's merits with the 4 home fixtures that you are rewarded with as those fixtures are against your closest rivals in the regular season league table

IF you win all of your your home games from first position in the league then you are almost certain of a semi final play off with the league points you have accumulated throughout the regular season

It's sudden death Footy from this point and I still believe that the side with the fittest squad of players will ultimately win the GF irrespective if they are drawn at home or away in the semis,It's just a case of reaching the last 4

I don't accept that. Whilst I accept some may argue Leeds might have coasted at some point. I cant accept that the teams around them did. Those sides aren't good enough to do so.

And I don't think it coincidence. We are simply better than we were in those years.

Those clubs did give more English lads a go. All clubs did. The number of English players went up and the number of overseas players went down during that period. It has since gone back up as clubs take short term panic decisions.

If you find a low quality league filled with antipodean players not good enough for the NRL 'interesting', the Queensland cup would welcome you and you will see all these superstars too.

Perhaps we will get to see quality players like andreas bauer or luke dyer again. Maybe if we are lucky the million pound match will see a team field 15 overseas players like the last one and again superstars like Korkidad and leo-latu can grace our game again.

And it could just as easily be argued that franchising produced a bunch of equally average English players who presumably commanded similar salaries as those from down under. The point about panic measures is questionable too; previously sides were happy to throw in youngsters not up to the task and stick with failing coaches rather than incur added cost. They've now had to sharpen their acts by making necessary improvements. As a paying spectator I know where my preference lies.

Except that's what did happen.

Chisholm will become the 11th non-British player fielded by Hull KR this season. In 2013 that number was 8 (assuming you count Rhys Lovegrove).

Wakefield had 7 non-British players in 2013. In 2015, they have used 10.

So the return of P&R has significantly increased the number of non-overseas players at those two clubs, because they're panicking about the loss of revenue that dropping out of SL would bring.

Take a look at what happened to clubs who got relegated when we did have P&R from Super League first time around. Workington, Halifax, Oldham for example. What happened to those clubs once they lost the golden goose of SL TV money? A full P&R system based on nothing but results on the field is not financially viable in British RL. The gap between the top tier and those below it in funding is so significant in percentage terms that relegated clubs are forced to slash budgets to the point where they almost cease to become viable SL clubs at any point in the future.

The whole idea of licencing was that it gave clubs time to sort their sh*t out. A period of stability where they could put systems in place to build and grow without having to worry about being stuck in relegation battles every year. Yet in typical RL style, we whinged and moaned about teams coasting and every minute not mattering and decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. So now we're stuck with a system that encourages teams to think short-term and protect their own position, because it's "more exciting". Not that you'd know, because attendances at grounds and viewing figures on Sky don't reflect the anticipated spike in interest that "Every Minute Matters" was intended to achieve.

Until RL in the UK stops taking the bloody short-term view and chasing some mythical group of "lost" fans who were never actually lost in the first place, it's never going to develop and grow because it doesn't encourage those clubs at the top of the pyramid to think beyond their league placing.

In what way have clubs "sharpened their acts"?

Are spectators really turning up at games specifically to watch the likes of Michael Sio and Dane Chisholm? Of course they aren't.

Clubs would probably generate more interest and excitement among their fans by blooding young prospects from their own Academy, but they're scared to. That doesn't make SL any more exciting, it just turns it into a low grade Queensland Cup style competition packed with players who can't get a gig in the NRL.

young players always need that introduction and they won't get it whilst those spaces are taken up by overseas players. How is a 19 year old English player supposed to he blooded learn and improve when his place is taken by a 25 year old Queensland cup player? The answer is they don't. They stagnate and never reach their potential.

Didn't really happen under the previous set up though, did it? The interest and excitement among supporters of those sides being battered, I mean. Compensated as they were by being able to view the struggles of youngsters often well out of their depths.




You're right to the extent that it doesn't make the game any more exciting. But neither does it render it less compelling. What it does, at least in my eyes, is go some way towards addressing the perception that clubs aren't doing all they might to improve overall performance. And if the number of inferior imports does give rise to serious concern then there are bound to be measures that can be taken to address this specific problem.

If Michael Sio and Dane chisholm are clubs doing everything to improve performance then we might as well give up on pro RL in his country.

The traditional way: he has to earn that place, taking advantage of whatever opportunities arise.

Incidentally, the prospects of that 19 year old are no more compromised by a (presumably average) 25 year old Queensland cup player than they are by an average 25 year old English player.

Not sure whether the misrepresentation is deliberate but this wasn't what I'd claimed.

But that didn't happen. Clubs couldn't take the risk on a 19 year old kid because it could be the difference that clubs survival and not. So those players never get that opportunity because squads are filled with average overseas players. Where as under franchising a club like Wakefield could go into the season with a young British player as back up hookers or even 3rd choice hookers, getting an opportunity as and when one arises through form or injury, they can invest the time and effort in a player than might not pay off this week. Or even this year, under P+R that risks the clubs existence, so he gets dumped behind a godinet mcshane and sio.

How is a 19 year old kid with no experience ever supposed get better than a 25 year old Queensland cup player if he is never given that chance?

Yes because Wakefield were clearly giving their youngsters thier opportunitys during the last 5 -10 years under the failed franchise system and the national side is bound to suffer for this fact considering the conveyor belt they have produced in that period.guttes.no seriously.

Yep we are absolutely fine without them. As our international trophy haul attests

Those numbers don't tell us how many YOUNG academy lads were playing instead?



So how long do with give the likes of Wakey "time to sort their sh*t out?". They had several seasons and entered this season poorly prepared. Do we keep the old system until Wakey sort themselves out? How long do we give them? 12 years, 15, 20? You make sound like franchising only went on for a year or two....it didn't and clubs only have themselves to blame if they didn't make the most of several seasons of security.

So the fact they now have more overseas players than they did under franchising, and are shipping in new players from overseas as we speak, is purely coincidence?

Go away and give your head a shake.

Without P&R London in all it's incarnations has produced a number of players now plying their trade in SL, off the top of my head - Sarginson, Clubb, LMS, McMeekin - & others who moved there to futher their careers, e.g Luke Gale.
Can you see that continuing to the same extent in the future under the current arrangements?
I can't.
& that is just one club.
The issue re Wakey & the Hull clubs is that there are too many clubs in the same locality.
But parochialism will ensure that unless a club is relegated & goes the (likely) way of London, Workington, Halifax that will never change.
Maurice Lindsay whether we like it or not when he called for mergers, but it won't happen in a controlled fashion if at all.

A licensing period was only 3 years. Nowhere near enough. But even then the fact that a club like Wakefield didn't get themselves sorted in 6 years isn't exactly surprising considering their position. Whatever system they were under they'd have struggled. The point is which system gave them the best chance of sorting themselves.

If they are still being mismanaged and they aren't up to SL standard then there is a mechanism to chuck them out.

The problem with licensing wasnt that it didn't work, it's that it wasn't implemented well enough by the RFL.
Licensing should have been at least a 5 year period (I'd favour a 10 year period), with in-depth investigations to analyse all the operations of each club and then provide targets for different aspects of each club (marketing, attendances, finances, on-field etc), reviewed half way through the licence period with then any club seriously under performing put on warning they could be chucked out at the end of the period.
Similarly, any Championship club wanting to be in SL can be put under the same spotlight with targets they have to reach to be considered for entry into SL.

That is the most ridiculous thing about the defences of P+R using for instance Wakefield or Bradford as examples. During franchising neither finished in a relegation position, and this year there is a very good chance that Wakefield could stumble back in to SL and do the whole shebang again next year in the same way

10 years? Might as well walk up to the owners of the Championship clubs and slap them in the face. Would giving Wakey 10 years help them and see them be forward thinking and plan straight away to improve things consistently.....or would they just do things per usual and scramble to make criteria at the last minute when threatened with the drop?

Widnes had a safety net of 3 years and they've done a good job of improving year upon year upon their return to SL whilst Wakey have just scrambled about as usual like a spotty teenage virgin trying to unhook a bra. Widnes will probably still find themselves in the bottom 4 but you don't see them scrambling about for quick fix players because they'll be confident they'll be successful in the Middle 8's. That any club could have had two periods of safety from licensing and still find themselves in such a mess come the first year of the new P/R is only really a story of their shoddines.

Leigh might have their questionable conduct on the pitch but in terms of being positive as a club and looking to the future and continually moving forward then they're miles ahead of Wakefield's 'just enough to get by' attitude......and I doubt Leigh would be like that of you told them "sorry lads, you've got to wait 10 years because Wakey MIGHT sort themselves out."

This hope/belief that if we kept giving them several more years that they'll come good is just wishful thinking that's not actually based on anything real. Reality is, pretty much every SL club is recruiting/promoting youth squad-wise pretty much the same way it did during franchising.

Might sound harsh but to move forward as a sport you often have to be ruthless and positive. Trying to be a continuous charity case for some of the continually failing bottom teams isn't going to help the sport long term, just help some of the poorer run teams get away with being run poorly for a little while longer.

oh yeah, the championship clubs with their history of doing thing the right way and building well. and yet, in 2 weeks time, Wakefield will be in exactly the same position as Widnes, on the same points and playing against the same teams. Seems scant reward for Widnes' efforts doesn't it.
In what way? Are Leigh hiding an academy somewhere? are there some secret young players they are saving? The difference between Leigh and Wakefield is Leigh play in a poorer quality league. Their attendances are terrible, they have next to no recent history of bringing players through and their squad is filled with players who were tried at SL level and found wanting. Are we really supposed to look at clubs as 'continually moving forward' because they discovered Michael Platt was a decent championship level player? Or because they were the last of Gareth Hocks last chance saloons?

except it demonstrably isn't.

What is positive about changing one failing team for another? In 21 games this year, Wakefield earned more points than Leigh did last time they were in SL. P+R keeps poor clubs poor, it stops them building and growing, it forces short-termism and it damages clubs.

You also made a pretty compelling argument against your own point here when you explained what Widnes have achieved. Widnes finished bottom their first year in SL. They wouldn't have been able to grow as YOU have said they had under P+R. Cas also finished bottom in franchising. And Les Catalans. All the good work there would have been destroyed. All that good long term work they have done which is paying off now wouldn't have happened.

Wakefield nor Bradford, nor London did though. P+R would not have gotten rid of them.

What reward did Leigh get for finishing top of their league last year and winning their GF?



Yeah I'm sure Leigh's attendances against Wigan and Leeds will be the same as when they played Batley and Hunslet. Didn't say Leigh had brought through a load of young players.....but then again neither have Wakefield (whose attendances are poor against bigger clubs than Hunslet and Batley). Don't get me wrong bringing through young players is important but being critical of a team not doing it when the likes of Wakey and HKR have failed to do so for several years also is daft. As for signing players tried and tested at SL level found wanting (along with the youth thing)........what Wakefield team have you been watching these last few years???



So which SL teams have altered their signing/youth philosophy in the last 12 months? Wakey have for a long time scrambled a team together, HKR have signed quite a few Southern Hemispheres players.....same as they're both doing now.



So you think the Leigh club is no different to the one that went down a decade ago? Another foolish argument thrown against them.



You do realise it's not automatic relegation for the team finishing 12th, so no P+R would not have gotten rid of them like you're trying to make it sound like a sure thing.