Because it is more logical that a French team plays in a French league and English teams play in an English league, rather than a French team playing in an English league (which you keep referring to it as).


The RFL could use whatever method they like to pick their teams. You asked how you could work P&R into a European league. This is how. Your worst English teams are replaced by the best outside that league. You can do the same in France and Wales. As long clubs in these federations have a set number of clubs in this league then they can pick (or use whatever system to pick) the clubs to fill the slots.

And the rest of your questions there are silly. If there is an independent body to oversee the league (which is what I said) then they would have to confirm with them (the independent body) to see if the new club meets criteria. It's up to the RFL (and the independent body to confirm) who their clubs are. Same for FFR13 and WRL.


How is a French team pandering to the flatcappers? They didn't want them in, can't be promoted and can't be relegated. Do you agree with Toulouse being in the Championship?


Isn't this a game-wide decision? Wouldn't Championship clubs get a vote (with less weighting) like before? I'm pretty sure that's what happened when licensing came to be.
And the RFL do govern the SL. The RFL decided the franchises. They administer rule changes. They administer discipline. SLE is not a governing body like you seem to think it is. It used to be, but it integrated with the RFL in 2002.


Just because you're trying to do something right, doesn't mean you are doing something right. Sometimes it is actually best to leave it to the lap of the Gods. After all, isn't a lot of sport to do with luck, etc?


Fair point. But it works for both systems.


Why would it be ridiculous and pointless? It pleases everyone and makes logical sense. If you had a Western conference, an Eastern conference and a Southern conference, then the Southern conference could be franchised, and the other two could be P&R.

We got rid of P&R because it couldn't be sustained at the moment (which I agree with). That won't always be the case. Just because you don't like P&R doesn't mean it's wrong.

Unfortunatley it is the case , I have asked several times to several different posters , What is the answer to the problems that have resulted in the ending of P and R ? , the reason given by all for the removal is the financial gap between SL and the Championship

So the answer is ?

Simple , somehow there has to be found a way to increase the income streams of the lower tier clubs to close the gap

The reason nobody will answer the question is because the posters like the RFL havent a clue how to achieve this

Or which is more likely , the posters and the RFL know what the answer is , but they dont want the Championship clubs to find more income because it then weakens thier main concern which is SL , basically the RFL and the SL clubs dont want the gap to close , they want the gap to grow bigger

So what the RFL do is pay ' lip service ' to the Championships with daft idea's like the inclusion of Toulouse and sponsorship deals that dont provide any income for some clubs

Because realistically it is impossible.

That's not the truth, just the propaganda to keep P+R out of the system, it is in the interest of every SL club to keep licenses in the short term, no one in RL seems to think any further ahead that that

What is the truth then?

:3myn507hnot as a precursor to promotion. Both would be equally invalid.

:3myn507hThis independent body doesnt and will never exist. Why do we want an independent body running the league when you have specifically said that this independent body wont be run in the best interests of the clubs, anyway? Do you not think that the way the RFL run the their part of it should be decided in conjunction with the FFR13 run theirs?

His is nonsense, how can we have at least 3 different clubs, ruled by 4 different organisations, playing to 3 different sets of rules in the same league? And why are we so desperate for it?

:3myn507hNo, it was an idea that benefited no-one bar Toulouse, and they would have been better served going a different way about it.

:3myn507hNo, the devolved some power back, but not all. And if you think that they wouldnt simply breakaway again, completely, as they did in '96 if we tried to impose an independent body who werent going to act in their best interests to run them, then you're crazy

:3myn507h
you do know how ridiculous what you have just put is dont you?

No its wrong because its wrong. The negatives are plain to see. one and a half years of stability and we have already forgotten the damage it caused

If P&R is SO WRONG!!!!!!!!

Why is it STILL being used in the Championship, Amateur Leagues and an awful lot of other sports?

Count the Chp clubs who've gone bust in the last 3 years.
Count the SL ones.

More juniors, better crowds, more competition, we'll keep it as it is I think.

I think there is a lot of narrow minded people on this thread.

The Superleague is not the be all and end all of rugby,don't get me wrong i am all for expansion but we should not do it at the expense of the lower league clubs.

I'm not sure what the solution is but i think the RFL could do a better job.

It's easier to stay afloat when you're getting £1m from SKY every year.

What get's me is that SL clubs were so scared of going out of business due to relegation that they pulled up the drawbridge and ring-fenced all the money for themselves. With the pit of cash that they received every year, did they think to put abit aside for a rainy day? Did they invest in their own infrastructure to make themselves more sustainable? No, they pished it all away on playing contracts and now they can't survive without the SKY money. Great examples being set by the so-called elite of our game.

Remind me, of all the clubs that have played in Super League, how many have disappeared from the face of the RL world? Oldham fans still have a club to support, as do Workington fans, and Gateshead, and Sheffield. Widnes are still going strong, Leigh weren't even close to going out of business, Halifax have a club that is doing pretty well at the moment. Huddersfield bounced back, as did Castleford and Salford. That leaves Paris. Whose idea was it to put them in again?

So the Championship clubs are already a lost cause in your opinion , they
cannot increase their income , maybe you should apply for a job at the RFL

The strength of the Championship clubs lies in their communities and collectively , what they lack is the ability to market themselves in both area's , this is what the RFL should be concentrating on , not gimmicks like a French club and the Blackpool 9 's

Out of the 14 clubs awarded franchises, 13 of those club are in existence
one disappeared after ONE year, excellent system isnt it?

I have posted several reason why P+R is a possibility and have seen nothing to suggest that franchising will benefit the game as a whole in this thread
franchises should go as soon as possible, if not by 2012 then 2015 at the latest

That's because franchising is not meant to benefit the game as a whole. It's designed on the premise that so long as SL clubs are doing ok then who cares about the rest. Which is how some of the people on here like it - so long as their own club is secure in the system of course.

No, not at all. But it is clearly impossible for a bunch of smaller part time teams to increase their income to match much larger, full time clubs playing in a more prestigious league. You have not suggested any ideas that could lead to this, and neither has anyone else. If there was such a way, everyone would be rich. In professional sport, teams in a lower league are always going to have less money than teams in a higher league and to suggest that this is unfair in some way is just stupidity.

That's one of the worst posts I've ever read.

Refute it then!
It may not be entirely accurate but at least it contatins an opinion that is relevent to the debate, you and smokey are the same in this thread, just posting rubbish to try and annoy people
try posting FACTS and pointing out WHY the arguments for promotion and relegation are wrong

Well come on then oh wise one, tell me who franchising benefits apart from those who are already in possession of one ?

While you're at it, can you tell me why a new and completely separate business was simply allowed to buy one from a business that had gone bust and why that available franchise spot was not subject to a competitive process ?

It benefits everyone. It benefits lower league clubs with ambition because they don't have to spend above their means to get into and stay in Super League. It also benefits the smaller lower league clubs because they don't have to play a full-time relegated team and get blasted. It benefits the community game because with extra stability clubs are able to invest more time and money on grassroots rather than spending all their money on Australians to try and avoid relegation. It benefits players and their families because livelihoods are not constantly at risk, and similarly off-field staff both on the football and administrative side of things are able to properly do their job without the prospect of losing it if the team happens to have a bad year.

I cannot understand how you could possibly believe that the only reason people would like 'franchising' is because their club could be artificially suspended in the top league. Nobody would want that, most fans would rather be relegated than be embarrassed and finish bottom every year. And your second point does not even deserve a response, you are the second Championship fan to try and turn this into a Crusaders-bashing exercise when that has no relevance to anything in this thread and to be honest it just makes you look spiteful and your argument, not that you really had one, look weak and pathetic.

I'm not trying to annoy anyone, unless you find someone disagreeing with you annoying. I've used facts and realistic ideas all along, it is the pro-P&R brigade that have been spouting such nonsense as we should somehow make the revenue streams between SL and the Championship equal and then not providing any ideas as to how this could be done. However, for the benefit of anyone who has been unable to understand or whatever, I will list what I think the pros and cons of the scrapping automatic P&R were, and then people can dispute them.

Pros:
A full time club is not forced to participate in a part-time league that it is clearly too strong for
Championship clubs with ambition are given time to grow their business to a level where they can compete rather than overspending for one year in the hope that they win the league, and then overspending again to try and stay in the league
The Championship is a much stronger and more competitive all-round league without the relegated team dominating every year
Super League clubs are able to grow businesses and put community structures, marketing initiatives etc in place without the possibility of everything being lost because of one poor year on the field
Super Leauge clubs are able to be much more progressive with youth development, and can bring junior players through and give them time to develop with much less risk
Similarly import numbers are cut, especially the number of low-quality imports signed simply so clubs can avoid relegation
Super League is a more competitive league as all teams have the chance to grow and get out of the rut of having to avoid relegation every year. No longer such a status quo with the league table.
Increased playing standards in both Super League and Championship
Focus of the media, television etc is on the top of the league rather than constantly looking at the worst teams at the bottom
Job stability for players, coaches and off-field staff

Cons:
Automatic P&R was 'exciting'

I find it annoying when people dont back up their arguments, the majority of anti P+R posts are "its impossible", "it wouldnt work" etc and no one has countered the points I raised in this thread


I havnt suggested they be "equal" but there should be some movement of money down the divisions, I have suggested ways to reduce the gap between the divisions but some clubs have shown that it was unneccesary to do so, I do beleive that it would be better to reduce the gap


We already established that the National League was not an entirely part time league, the number of full time clubs was increasing before the door was closed, the problem of franchising is that the money is cut off from the lower division and it is harder for them to grow - clubs "overspend" in the Super league and have massive debts but that is part of sport


well Leigh, Widnes, Workington, Halifax, Oldham all shot back up didnt they? That just doesnt add up with your other arguments anyway, surely the relegated club would go under anyway


once again this is based on assumption that we should allow poorly managed teams in Super league, ones who would fold at a reduction in income, and forget the clubs that have been relegated and continued such things, Cas have the best school kids in the country and they have been relegated, twice!


The rules are bringing that down anyway, exemptions mean that most clubs in superleague are not meeting the spirit of the overseas quota rules, the brave new franchise in Wrexham has a large collection of Australians and barely any local players, not chasing results? youth development over results? not under franchising


results matter, finishing bottom without relegation is bad for business and set Huddersfield back several years, once relegated they have never looked back and have reached the CC final and playoffs


really? on what basis do you measure this? in my opinion the standards have fallen recently but even if that were true you are basing that on 18months - that is the typical attitude, taking credit for something that hasnt been influenced by the change - its the same players for the most part, the new young players were developed in acadamies of clubs facing relegation


What media? where is the attention when the issue has been concluded at the top


the worst players still get sacked,the worst coaches get sacked, off field staff still get sacked, people move between clubs all the time - when a team was relegated this was the same

Not only are you a really poor imitation of Smokey, you really do have a major chip on your shoulder about the Celtic thing don't you. I'm picturing a Fawlty Towers-equse episode with John Cleese whispering 'don't mention the C-word' whilst you sit dithering in the corner.

You have taken a minor element of an arguement and magnified it to an extent where you really are somewhere between delusional and obsessive about the matter.

Nobody has turned it into a (Celtic) Crusaders bashing excersize, they (we) have used them as a pi55 poor example of franchising and the gaping holes within it. If or when Wakefield/Quins/Salford/whoever implode folk use them too.

Until then, Celtic are the first and only current example and you really do need to get over it.

The number of full time clubs in NL1/NFP as it was called was increasing but this was because a club being relegated would decide to stay FT because initially the NFP was completely PT and being FT virtually assured immediate promotion (so the overspend was deemed worth it). Some of the incumbent clubs in the NL1/NFP that wanted promotion started to go FT in the hope of overhauling the relegated club each season (and overspent in the process). This resulted in clubs that narrowly missed gaining promotion taking a large financial hit and going into decline (happened to Hull KR, Widnes, Dewsbury, Whitehaven, Wakefield, Featherstone, Leigh, Hunslet). Once the yearly shot at immediate elevation was removed clubs started to fall back into being PT operations as this is sustainable for them and the motivation to overspend for a one year rush at glory (and risk meltdown) was removed and stability and steady growth was now the way to achieve (though over a longer time scale) a place in the top tier.

Workington, Oldham and Halifax all had just gone under when relegated (or had come very close to doing so). All three were in financial turmoil. Workington and Oldham did go under (Oldham were liquidated) and Halifax just about kept going but due to their finances being shot only avoided relegation to the third tier by winning a playoff game. Widnes & Leigh were competing for promotion against other clubs living beyond their means to be FT but lost out in playoff games.

You are right about the need to distribute the money (by which I take it you mean SKY and sponsor money) downwards through the leagues to help fill the gulf in finances. The only problems are that 1)the SL clubs (during any licence period) would be unlikely to give up some of their money to allow the Co-op league clubs to get closer to them (particularly those in danger of losing their licence) and 2) there would be nothing to stop clubs wasting the money on playing personnel rather than using it to improve their own infrastructure. The clubs would have to be forced to spend any money filtering down on those aspects of club infrastructure that are judged in terms of licencing applications. This way the clubs below SL would become better organisations and be more self sustaining rather than becoming reliant on handouts filtering down.

What such ways? I haven't seen any of the points you have made, maybe I missed them.

As the poster above me says, those clubs that went full time were not viable, they only did it because they were forced to do so to try and compete (unsuccessfully) with the relegated club. If they could have seriously sustained being full time, then they would surely still be, as it would give them a massie advantage in terms of obtaining a license.
As the poster above me says, Workington, Oldham, Halifax and Widnes all have gone under since being relegated. Leigh were never really a SL club to start with were they, when an established SL club was relegated they dominated every time.
It's nothing to do with being poorly managed, a massive reduction in income is obviously going to mean a reduction in the club's development off-field. Cas having the best schools has nothing to do with anything, it is a RL area, it has a strong amateur background, so does Oldham, it's nothing to do with the pro club.
Were or were there not every year clubs singing absolute nobodies to avoid relegation? Look at the squads from the time - Cas in 2006 were forced to sign the likes of Deon Bird, Ben Roarty, Gray Viane, Paul Franze and even Brad Davis to try and survive, it was only when they were relegated and the theat of relegation was removed that they were able to give game time to the likes of Westerman and Owen. Wakefield used to have about 13 overseas players and they had no other option because otherwise they would have been relegated and probably gone bust. They are far stronger as a club now. Crusaders are a new club trying to establish themselves in a new area, they were badly run last year and can in no way be used as a reflection of the system as a whole. There are still a lot more British players at the club than last year, but that's not an issue that is at all relevant to this thread, if you want to start one about the Crusaders then I'll be happy to discuss them there.

Exactly, it is bad for business. That's incentive enough not to finish bottom, and if clubs did persistently finish bottom like Huddersfield did then they would be relegated anyway under the new system. Huddersfield's resurgence was also as much to do with a change in management style and the appointment of Tony Smith as being relegated, and they were only in such a state anyway because they had been promoted automatically before they were ready.
Standards are clearly going to improve when there are not a bunch of teams crammed full of journeymen trying to avoid relegation. Every team is now aiming towards the top, rather than looking over their shoulder and hoping to avoid the bottom. I agree that standards slipped last year, but that was probably as a result of the expansion from 12 to 14 teams. The new players were obviously developed in academies, but they were not given as much of a chance in the first team. I'm not trying to deny that clubs facing relegation ran academy systems (although there wasn't as much focus on them as now).

Eddie and Stevo, it's not a big issue but I'm a lot happier not having to suffer through tedious 'relegation dogfights' each season.

Agreed, but when a club was relegated the entire business went into meltdown. It wasn't a case of the worst players and staff being cut, all players and staff were at risk whether they personally deserved it or not, which is wrong.

You've still not given any arguments for promotion and relegation. I can't really think of any.

What are you talking about? I dismissed your post because it was a meaningless dig with no relevance at all to the thead or any of the points made. If you want to discuss the issue at hand then go ahead, if you'd prefer to go on another bizarre rant then start a new thread or go to the Sin Bin or something.

You want to read the posts in full instead of the bits that touch a nerve.