Now, now, I didn't say that or even imply it.


Nope, I didn't say or imply that. I can see how franchising could work but not in it's current format or with the current league structure. IMHO, of course




Now you really are being silly

Quote ="SmokeyTA"to pose the hypothetical scenario i did. If is a conjunction which introduces a conditional clause. Here is an explanation of a conditional clause for you. It will explain why i used the word IF to introduce the hypothetical scenario en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_clause'" That was really interesting, thank you. I've provided a link that might help you: [urlhttp://www.primaryresources.co.uk/english/pdfs/PC_cap.pdf[/url

Quote ="SmokeyTA"to pose the hypothetical scenario i did. If is a conjunction which introduces a conditional clause. Here is an explanation of a conditional clause for you. It will explain why i used the word IF to introduce the hypothetical scenario en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_clause'" That was really interesting, thank you. I've provided a link that might help you: [urlhttp://www.primaryresources.co.uk/english/pdfs/PC_cap.pdf[/url

In my opinion we would need two league of twelve with p & r with both league being fully professional and also the only way to boost the crowds would be to have an even league e.g. always thinking your teams has a chance to win e.g. same applies in aus.

Also I don’t see the point in having overseas player with a franchise system

Hmm, is it River Thames, or river Thames?

quality?

Its clear the debate left you behind a long time ago, starbugs deliberate confusion tactic doesn't hide the fact you lost the argument as well as you think.

Is it just me, or does that sentence make sense? I don't understand what you're trying to say.



I'll have a quick look in Wiki

I suspect it's just you. The sentence in question is written in pretty clear English, logically constructed, grammatically coherent, etc.

Maybe it is me then!



It's the last bit that does not seem to sit right "doesn't hide the fact you lost the argument as well as you think".

I somehow expected to read "worse than you think" but I will bow to your superior knowledge.

Don't mess with the non producing twins Dreamer.
They live in a nice world, the real one is a place they never visit.

TB seems fair minded but t'other one usually just bangs on and on and on and on ...... until he gets the last word.

Just to put things in Rl a little bit in perspective....

Premier League clubs lost £361m last year despite record £2.3bn income. Only five Premier League clubs made a profit in 2010-11. Man City made the biggest ever loss by a football team in the country.

Basically you just need to add a digit or two to directly compare the state of finances in football to RL. But of course all the problems in RL are to do with an unsustainable structure, franchising etc....

But wasn't franchising brought in to bring 'financial stability'?

For Championship clubs, yes.

Really?

So criteria that apply to clubs already in, or wanting to get into, super league allow Bradford to fail so now apply to championship clubs?

How does that apply to champs clubs outside of Halifax, who havent applied for super league, therefore dont follow the criteria but are still more financially stable than some super league clubs.

You'll have to try harder than that.

I do not understand a word of this post. I'm pretty sure Halifax did apply to Super League, and I'm not sure what Bradford have to do with anything?

The licensing system means that Championship clubs don't have to spend over-the-odds to gamble on on-field success should they wish to be promoted, and avoids situations like the ones seen at Doncaster and Widnes. It means Championship clubs such as Sheffield are able to concentrate on building a sustainable club rather than merely a team, and allows them to work towards promotion in the right way when they are ready.

I'm still laughing at that

Championship clubs have to win the NRC or get to the GF. Leigh nearly went bust last year trying to do this. How did this happen if the current system prevented clubs from spening over the odds on on field success?

You are correct, it doesn't prevent clubs from overspending. It provides a better structure to avoid overspending and removes the salary arms race aspect of Promotion, but it doesn't stop clubs from overspending. No system could do that. However idiot proof they made any system, I fear they would underestimate the stupidity of some club chairmen.

Leigh nearly went bust last year, not because they overspent, but because their major backer's companies went in to administration due to unpaid debts to them (the chairman's companies not the club). It did, however, prove the perils of relying on a sugar daddy... One of the reasons given for not giving 'Fax a SL licence... ie they didn't have one!

Franchising was not brought in “just” to help aid the transition of Championship clubs to SL. The RL may see this as an ideal, but the SL chairmen are only concerned with themselves (and some may say rightly so). If the roles were reversed, I’m sure the Championship chairmen would be the same.

The major reason it was brought in was to help the SL clubs themselves:-
It gave longer term security for them to attract sponsors and invest in the infrastructure of the club.
It supposedly allowed them to wean off the reliance on expensive overseas imports whilst bringing through home grown talent.
It allowed them to extract themselves from the expensive cycle of chasing success with the knowledge they had a three year safety net and even then, if they could pass an exercise in showing they were suitable, they were still in.

The demise of Crusaders and the meltdowns at Bradford and Wakefield, the debt at Hull KR and the reliance of many of The SL clubs on a Sugar daddy perhaps illustrates how fragile SL actually is and why SL chairmen thought they need more security.

I would suggest that “helping” Championship clubs was the least of the reasons franchising was brought in. It is about making SL clubs stronger.

I’ve always thought that RL should have a divisional structure where the transition from one to the other is possible. However, at the moment it seems that the glass ceiling above the Championship is getting higher and harder to breach.

As an illustration: Castleford were demoted and bounced straight back up, would they be able to do that now?

Demotion from SL was always considered tough, but now it’s thought of as a death sentence.

I can see the point in franchising but I would prefer a two division SL.

I think everyone would, but that isn't possible at present. We barely have enough strong clubs for one division.

I don’t agree.

SL1 would be a 10 team elite division playing higher intensity rugby week in week out with a higher salary cap to make sure they can retain the best young talent. There would be an emphasis on reducing the reliance on overseas players but the higher salary cap would allow teams to buy a few genuine “stars”. Anyone going into admin or cheating the cap is relegated to SL2.

TV money from the “dropped” teams goes to the lower divisions.

SL2 would be for those teams ready for, getting ready for and expansion sides. 12/14 teams.

P&R between SL1 and 2 and between SL2 and the Championship.

Promoted sides are given a years grace in the higher division.

TV coverage would be mainly SL1 but SL2 shown also.

Here’s the hard bit - A good negotiator at the RFL who can sell the “vision” to Sky and make sure they get the money and TV coverage needed. It would become more of a possibility were there to be a credible challenge to Sky for broadcast rights from another network.

Above all we would need a desire to make this work, but I firmly believe that SL clubs are onto such a good thing with franchising that they would have to be dragged kicking and screaming along. That’s not an insult, just the way it is.

One can dream.

That would cause the exact same problems that were faced last time we had P&R. Clubs like Leigh and Featherstone pretending that they are good enough doesn't mean that they are anywhere near good enough to compete. This fad idea of a two-tier SL needs to stop, the only thing it would achieve at the moment would be needlessly dragging down the standards of four of the current SL sides who would effectively be relegated to the Championship. When we have 20 full-time teams at the level of a Castleford or Wakefield, then we can consider bringing back P&R. Until then, it would be a backwards step.

Also, the idea of a promoted team being given a year's exemption from relegation is far, far more 'unfair' than any concept of licensing. The fact that you felt the need to add that stipulation shows that you are aware of the problems caused by P&R, so I'm not sure why you are arguing in its favour?