I did read the post in full and replied.
Nobody's touched any sort of nerve other than the fact that it's a bit stupid when people don't have any arguments and so try and turn the thread into some sort of points scoring match by having an unrelated dig at 'my' club.

Let me get this right.

You think that people with a different opinion to you 'don't have any arguements'?



You have also previously labelled them morons and clowns.

How on earth are you a forum moderator with an attitude like that?

Firstly I have not suggested that they Match SL clubs , I have suggested that the RFL are wasting money flying teams over the channel and that their only other idea seems to be for clubs to find a sugar daddy , as for how lower tier clubs can increase income , basically they need to concentrate on increasing their fan bases via localised marketing , most clubs dont have the funds to market themselves properly and if they were just given the money would probably spend it on playing contracts , that is why the RFL need to assist clubs rather than giving them the cash

There are other ways that clubs can look to make money , and they need to be non RL related , it requires clubs to work together , but the RFL actually discourage clubs from doing this , they dont want the clubs in the championship to get stronger , they operate a divide and conquer with them , how do I know this ? , I have been told so by several club chairmen

I was at the game....Obviously supporting Cardiff City......thought I'd got over it....

Then I come on here thinking it would be a football free zone and this thread shows up.

So you admit that the quarter of a million a year is being spent for Toulouses benifit , not for the British Championship clubs , and it would have been better for them to have followed the Catalans model to prepare them for entry to SL

It isnt being used between the amateur and semi pro leagues either is it. No one is relegated from the championship 1 to the conference, and no one is promoted

And again, you are ignoring the fact that the money used on Toulouse wasnt championship clubs money. Whilst it may not be the best use of money, that money wouldnt revert back to just being given the championship clubs. It was money earmarked for expansion, it was used for expansion. Bringing the Toulouse issue into it is nonsense flatcappery.

How best we develop french RL and the how we develop the championships are two completely seperate issues, the only reason someone would link them is an underlying agenda.

also, on one hand you are complaining the Championships dont have the money to market themselves, then also complaining at the RFL for trying to help find investors.

You are also saying the RFL need to help the clubs, not just give them cash, yet you have complained at them for being prepared, and offering to fund a Fulltime Chairman and Marketing managers wages, what more do you want? These are clubs you are arguing should have a right to join SL yet the cant even be trusted, by you, to spend their money wisely

Its easy to do when you have no interest in them - I propose a return to P+R, i think 12 teams in the top division is best, a reduction in the gap between SL and championship would be good and there were simple steps like changing the structure of the season and a better distribution of money that would help this

Cutting off the clubs has made it more difficult for them to continue full time and to improve their facilities without going into debt or relying on a rich backer. UNder P+R several clubs built up a team and a business that was ready to access SL, franchising has hindered this and the expansion of the game to 2 full time divisions, a long term ideal i think we should aim for. Investment was a requirement of some of the “failed” license applications. Where will this money come from now? Relegation spread money to the national league, the championship has been left to its own devices, they also took two of the best national league clubs away which made it harder for the other clubs to bridge the gap financially – the game will not expand by killing off the lower leagues or by reducing them to amateur status

So relegated sides don’t dominate the league, one of your reasons crossed out - again trying to dsicount the examples that go against your argument, widnes wnt bust chasing a franchise not P+R (if they had won the GF they woul dhave been in SL and guaranteed a franchise, thats how poorly the choices were made)

It is poor management to expect the same levels of income each year or become overly dependent on one source of income, a company will eventually hit hard times, crowds, overheads, salaries etc all change over time, relegation was one of those things that affected levels of income – franchising has not stopped that
And... Oops, you contradicted yourself, youth systems have nothing to do with the pro club but if the pro club is relegated than the youth systems disappear?

Point me to a super league club that hasn’t signed nobodies? It was nothing to do with relegation, it was to do with money and expanding the league has meant more were needed here, Wigan sent away a whole generation of english stars to sign foreigh players, this was when they were one of the top sides!
The RFL rules have reduced overseas players, this is a completely separate issue to relegation and franchises, you couldn’t sign foreign players now even if you were bottom in a P + R system

Again this change is due to the confederation trained rule, NOT franchises

You found them tedious, but the battle of wakefield was chosen by SKY to be shown, it brought media attention, as does a team winning a grand final to be promoted (see Blackpool FC) and it brings people into the game to watch

As the gap reduced this would be less of a problem, but again if a club is relegated then the club has not set out to do what it wants to do, people get sacked for this in the real world, sport cannot seperate itself from this – there are many other clubs who can pick up their services in the world - if a club was promoted for one year it could use te extra income to build its club and systems, that is the plan at Blackpool FC, and if they get relegated, so be it

Keep ignoring them, there is no further debate if you won’t engage in them
I see no reason to continue with franchises
Before franchises there were 12 clubs in SL
So eleven of those teams would have been in SL anyway, a further team would have been promoted (Salford, although admittedly the awarding of franchises skewed results in the National League)
The franchises system saved one team from relegation (Castleford) and awarded one team a franchise which it wouldn’t have got under the old system (Celtic)
So on one level franchises gave us Castleford and Celtic which we wouldn’t have under the old system, one of these failed (that’s 50% failure) and yet you feel it unfair to discuss this team? I wonder why
If you only allow the debate to dwell on the parts that support your argument then that is no debate is it?
Under P+R crowds grew steadily over many years, year on year, the level of play improved, better results in the ashes and a whitewash against New Zealand. We moved from the Wigan only era to the big 4 and pretty much all, if not every Super league team has reached the playoffs
Under franchises crowds per game have fallen, playing standards have fallen
The league is too big, 12 clubs should be enough, there aren’t enough players
There were too many clubs to fit in a 14 team Super league, there is a guaranteed spot in 2012 so that is still the case, three years or more is too long to keep them out, they should have a chance
Teams are not entitled to play in Super League, they can win the grand final and not be promoted but they should be allowed to access the Super League if they meet the minimum standards and are the best team in the national league
You don’t expand the game by placing clubs in areas you want the game to be played Paris, Gateshead, Bridgend, who is next?
you have to expand to areas where there is demand, if that means professional teams in existing RL towns then so be it, the aim is expansion in players and supporters It is NOT expansion to have clubs further apart, it is expansion to have more players and more fans no matter where they are, if you reduce the numbers in the heartlands then it is bad for the game


Here we reach the heart of your argument
This debate is bad because it mentions my club in a bad light
Relegation is bad because it would be bad for my club
I only mention clubs as examples, you are free to do the same but do not suggest that one club’s fate shows how every club would fare in the same situation, this is a debate about the game as a whole and not a personal digs or club banter thread
I have not seen why franchising is a good thing for THE GAME AS A WHOLE

If you read my posts properly you would have noticed that I have stated many times on this and other threads that only Widnes are anywhere near strong enough to join SL , and that my argument is the RFL's lack of understanding of what is now needed to help the clubs left outside SL

You say that the RFL are making money available for clubs to find ' investors ' , but in all honesty this shows their lack of understaning more than anything else , without a simple clear path up the ladder no major investor will put money into any championship club , so this ' search for a sugar daddy ' money is just a total waste

Would the arabs have bought Man City if they had to go through a licence process to get into the Champions league ?, ditto Roman Abramovich at Chelsea ? , by removing automatic promotion the RFL have removed the chance of any major investment at any heartland club ever again

As for trust in how to spend money , well lets face it , the SL clubs record on spending money isn't exactly very good either is it , also as I said , I am not suggesting there are lots of clubs in the lower tier that can make SL clubs

Championship clubs need localised marketing to help them get their local populations through the doors , that is the only thing that will secure their future , they also need to look at working together to market themselves and improve the match day atmosphere and experience , this would be better led by the RFL imo ,

If the money to have Toulouse is expansion money as you put it , then fine , but dont include it in the so called 100 grand per club that the RFL suggested is available in their pre season ' spin '

That is exactly WHY we have such a poor set up in GB and why the Aussies will always be so far ahad of us.

The game IS poorly managed and particularly by the clubs who are so blind they cannot see the wood for the trees.

This also applies to the games administrators in GB.

To be fair it has improved under Richard Lewis's watch but he has to fight the narrow minded , eff u jack I'm alright, my club and nothing else mentality of the clubs particularly soooooperdooooooper league clubs who have an arrogance beyond reproach!

Then we can all agree, P+R is and was a pointless and damaging exercise. And that it is a good thing it has gone



Well this is where the specialist marketeers and RFL expertise they are offering will help. To show and to explain to investors why the franchising system will make it easier for clubs to get promoted and stay promoted and build themselves to a sustainable level. Then the investors can target their money at the clubs infrastructure and make it more self-reliant, rather than blow all their money on average overseas players in one season on the hope of promotion

Yes. I see no reason why they wouldnt.

they are helping them with marketing.

you're right, our game and governing body definitely shouldn't be making things sound positive.

Why should the only options for discussion be a annual P&R, or franchising? The purpose behind franchising was to remove the annual threat of relegation, and the destabilising effect that had on SL clubs' ability to plan for the future. Removing annual relegation, and giving SL clubs some stability of tenure, was fine. However, Championship clubs can rightfully claim that there is too little opportunity to move up to SL, and that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

P&R occurring every World Cup cycle (every 4 years) would give clubs adequate security of tenure in a League (especially Super League). In effect, the clubs would be receiving 4 year franchises, and would be judged based upon a range of on and off-field criteria to stay in their league or move up/down. I'd suggest a 3 up/up to 3 down system, which promotes a club for each year (minus the final year of the cycle).. The RFL could decide upon the 3 promotion candidates after the 3rd year, giving them 1 year to prepare for SL, and the up to 3 clubs (depending on expansion taking place) to be relegated at the end of the 4th and final year of the cycle.

Not really no , I fundamentaly disagree with franchising , but as I dont make the rules , I have accepted that it is probably here to stay , therefore it comes down to making the best of the situation you find yourself in



Are you being serious



RFL , Expert , Marketing , if that is the case then where are all these investors who have taken over championship clubs in the last 18 months since the licences were awarded ? , the ' specialist marketeers ' that clubs have been employing tend to leave a few weeks into the job because they soon realise the futility of the job and the totally unrealistic targets set by the RFL are unatainable [ these targets have to be met for the relevant person to get the bonuses as part of the deal



Then you are more stupid than I thought , or are acting stupid again because you know you have no answer to the question , which you do all the time



No they are not , they are playing lip service only , and the clubs are not happy about it



Not by telling outright lies no they shouldn't , maybe you are used to being fed bull s h it and are happy to swallow it , I think you'll find most RL fans dont like it

How did relegation spread money to the National Leagues, other than through the marginally larger away support of the relegated team? Playing against a richer team and getting hammered does not bring money to anyone.
Relegated sides do dominate the league, Oldham, Workington and Leigh can hardly be classed as SL clubs, they were only there for one season, if you can't see the difference between them and Castleford then it's not really worth bothering. Halifax would have been relegated anyway under the new system. An established club with sound finances will always dominate the league. Your second statement is just completely backwards and bizarre.

It's not really poor management to invest a certain amount of money based on the level you are at. Unless you are suggesting that all clubs should have invested National League amounts in case they were relegated. Sports teams are not like other companies, but no other type of company has the chance of its business model unconditionally thrown out of the window for reasons beyong its control. And how has 'franchising' possibly not stopped this?

There was no contradiction at all. Surely you can see the differences between schools, the amateur game and actual club's youth set-ups? The first two exist all around the country, where there are no pro clubs. Cas being a strong RL area and having the best schools has nothing to do with the Tigers, it just means the majority of kids from Cas come from a RL background.
Do you honestly think Cas would have played the likes of Westerman and Owen in 2008, and as a result finished bottom? No, they would have signed more overseas players or journeymen to try and avoid being relegated. It's obviously going to follow that all clubs are now free to play more younger players, even if you want to ignore the examples I've provided it's still the case that fundamentally they are clearly more free to do so now.
Maybe for a one-off occasion (although that is the only example ever of any sort of decent attendance for a relegation match). The games were always shocking though, that Wakefield match was one of the worst of the season, do you really think that new fans would be most attracted to the sport by constantly watching the two worst teams?
This wouldn't be a problem at all if there wasn't such a gap, or if the Championship was a full time league, there would be no issue with P&R at all. But not everyone is responsible for a club being relegated, the coaches and players fair enough but they would lose their job under the current system. Off-field staff such as marketing and community staff can take no blame whatsoever and shouldn't have to suffer, if these are all established then one bad year under P&R would rip the heart out of a club, as it did to Castleford in 2004. Do you think Cas would have finished bottom in 2005 had they not been relegated? If not, what did relegating them actually achieve? It's different if the club is in a state like Halifax were, they would be relegated anyway under the new system.
You can't use Celtic's failure to evaluate the system as a whole though, they were a one off case because the league was expanding, as it turned out they would have been promoted via P&R anyway since they finished 2nd. That sort of situation won't occur again, because hopefully a team will never be promoted before it is ready. How have I only dwelled on one part of the argument, have we not been debating the merits of P&R?
Crowds have continued to grow, the average was brought down because Salford and Celtic were poorly supported teams. Test series results are circumstantial and I don't really care about them, although I don't see how you can say there have been better Ashes results when there hasn't been a series since P&R was scrapped. The big 4 is gone and the league is a lot more competitive now. Playing standards fell last year, but logically how could you attribute that to licensing? What factors of licensing could have contributed to this? It was more to do with a saturation of the player pool with 14 teams. The 14 teams thing is a different debate altogether really, I'm still unsure as to how many teams there should be in the league. No team is entitled to play in Super League, there's no guarantee that a promoted team would be stronger than the relegated one, in fact in reality the opposite was almost always true. Under the current system, if a club is strong enough it will be in. Your points about expansion aren't really anything to do with this debate, I agree that planting teams in locations was stupid and it hopefully won't happen again. Nobody is reducing heartland numbers, they are increasing year on year as they are nationwid.e
Lol, out of interest who do you think my club is? I watch Scorpions most times they are at home, and follow Catalans and Crusaders in Super League as they are expansion teams. It's quite funny that someone has tried to accuse me of club bias when I don't even support any club, nor did I even try to bring this into the equation, it was a Workington fan or someone so I'm not sure why you are trying to lecture me about this. You say don't use one club to reflect the situation, yet thats [iexactly [/iwhat you have done earlier in your post.

ahhh, so what you want is clubs, you say arent ready and cant survive in Super league to be promoted to super league. riiiiiiiiiggghhht

So what do you want then?

You have said money given to these clubs would be wasted, so we dont give them it.
You say they need help with marketing, so we do it.
You say they need more money to help with infrastructure and marketing, so we help them find it.

so tell us all, why wouldnt Abramovich or the City owners have invested in these clubs if they had to invest off the field before joining the CL?

when you have explained that, maybe you would like to explain the eye-watering amounts Chelsea have spent on training facilities, youth development etc, and why they wouldnt have done this had Uefa asked them to?

they are never happy. With the way the championships have been run previously, owners not being happy has become a sign for things being done correctly.

well it isnt outright lies is it? it is by your own description 'spin'. Frankly we should be disappointed if they werent doing it

Ill ignore your contradictions and where you point out obvious solutions to problems but dismiss them for no other reason than you want to (becasue they support my arguments)
there is no point me stating again about why there are more young english players in the league this year and last, you simply arent listening
you live in a different world to mine, clubs have contracts with their employees based on being in SL, and these change or are dissolved if the clubs are relegated the same as in any sport - it's the real world!
How will franchising reduce the gap beween the divisions? if it wont how is it good for the game?
if franchising has nothing to do with expansion then what is it for? we already had ruls to stop clubs overspending and to increase the numbers of english players
as i have stated, lots of things got better under P+R, what has franchising done and what will it realistically do that P+R could not?
No one says P+R is perfect but it is a lot better than the franchise system for the future of Rugby League

you stated in this thread that Crusaders are "your team" if they arent it makes no difference to my points, just that you are contradicting yourself AGAIN, you still had a hissy fit every time they are mentioned, they failed I cant change that, so did Gateshead and Paris, lessons need to be learned and if the RFL dont listen then we may waste more time money and opportunities

I'll post it all again so you can read and try again
Quote

Not really no , I fundamentaly disagree with franchising , but as I dont make the rules , I have accepted that it is probably here to stay , therefore it comes down to making the best of the situation you find yourself in





Are you being serious

RFL , Expert , Marketing , if that is the case then where are all these investors who have taken over championship clubs in the last 18 months since the licences were awarded ? , the ' specialist marketeers ' that clubs have been employing tend to leave a few weeks into the job because they soon realise the futility of the job and the totally unrealistic targets set by the RFL are unatainable [ these targets have to be met for the relevant person to get the bonuses as part of the deal





Then you are more stupid than I thought , or are acting stupid again because you know you have no answer to the question , which you do all the time




No they are not , they are playing lip service only , and the clubs are not happy about it




Not by telling outright lies no they shouldn't , maybe you are used to being fed bull s h it and are happy to swallow it , I think you'll find most RL fans dont like it

we can do this all day if you want,

or you can just admit you are wrong and couldnt answer the questions or address the points? whichever is easier for you

promotion should be a right for any team who wins the league, no argument about crowd size ,stadium capacity etc

this is one of the fundamentals of any competitions worth its salt.

try to explain the current system to anyone outside the rugby league bubble, and watch them lose interest in the game before your very eyes when you try to explain to them that

whoever finishes top of the league are not champions

the team who finishes eighth could be

the team that finishes bottom are not relegated

the team that finishes top of the league could (theoretically) be relegated

the team who wins the lower league does not get promoted

the team who finishes 5th or 6th in that division could be promoted

hope this clarifies how simple the whole process is. its a laughing stock if people cant understand how the system works we will not bring them through the turnstiles!

As much as i like your argument, i don't think that's why more people don't come to the games.

The financial gap between this countries main top flight leagues and it's lower divisions is IMO killing the concept of P&R. In the days before all the TV money went into the Super League, Premier League etc. clubs could rise through the lower leagues and be competitive. Now the gap between the top flight leagues is too big for that.

Now you can't just put any club into Super League without them being able to first show that they will be able to afford to be there. Under normal P&R it would be the last year of existence for a lot of clubs.



Off the top of my head I can think of more sports in this country that use playoffs to determine it's champions than those that use a straight league. If someone allows this to put them off from having an interest in RL rather than what they see on the pitch then I would say that they never really had any interest in the first place.



To many teams do make the playoffs but again anyone wanting to take an interest in the game shouldn't use that as the sole reason to be put off.



RL isn't the only sport where it doesn't happen. What's the big deal?



Just how likely is that to ever happen? The RFL won't have the nerve to do that.



Again RL isn't the only one who does that. Why should it assumed that because a club wins one league it is automatically good enough for the next one.



Will people drop all interest in football because Blackpool were promoted after finishing 6th?



If people can't understand how the system works than it is likely because they don't want to. What should bring people through the turnstiles is what happens on the pitch, not how the league stuctures are organised.

How much extra debt are you now in since you entered SL ?

It worked for you though didn't it

Once again it didn't happen for you until you got to SL did it , the East Hull masses didn't want to know you when you were in NL 1 , and maybe you are right about people through the turnstiles , but I guarantee you would not have got the financial investment that paid for your promotion if you had been relying on getting a franchise rather than just winning the league

i am not saying for a minute that the team who wins the national league/championship will be good enough to survive in the league above, the fact is they probably wont. however i believe they have earned the right to try their luck.

the salary cap in the championship/national league is far too low and in effect makes it almost impossible to run a full time operation outside of superleague.

however if you are going to promote a team this should be based on what the club has achieved under its financial restraints.

if you cant put a decent team on the field in the lower division you wont be able to in superleague.

also on the point of other sports doing the same things as RL ?
are any of these sports as successful as football, or are they minority sports?

Simple but its the post of the century!

Just need to change 'the team who finishes 5th or 6th in that division could be promoted' to 'the team who finishes 5th or 6th in that division could be promoted at the expense of the team finishing top if it beats them in a one off game'

That's what i can't leave behind. No matter how much i hear about the merits of franchising i just can't ignore this "old fashioned" sporting characteristic - [ujust rewards for winning[/u.