The crux of the problem, IMO.

Granting a licence to a Championship club on the basis that it's the "best" (on and off the field) club in the Championship without considering whether it is more suitable for SL than any of the current SL clubs is a nonsense.

All licence applications should be submitted at the same time and judged on the same criteria. If an existing Championship club is one of the top 14 (or however many clubs are required in SL) applicants, they're in. If not, they miss out.

But then we’re back to the old chestnut of comparing apples & oranges.

There would have to be some ‘weighting’ of the process, otherwise the incumbent clubs will win hands down.

In the current climate of pandering to the big money backers, promote the team with the wealthiest backer/ biggest bank balance.
Our game is becoming less and less like a sport its just down to cash.
Whatever happened to the top team winning the league and the bottom team getting relegated, plus the top team from Div 1 getting promoted.
I know that the situation is far from straight forward but the game is disappearing up its own


It seems strange to have a salary cap sysetem that still means clubs are going into admin, or that a wealthy backer can distort by adding a disproportionate
lump of cash.

I don't think they have. Anyone post a link?

I'm sure they haven't.

It depends if circumstamces change. They certainly did for Celtic. They certainly would if Hughes walked away from London.

That is a big part of the problem. The other part is the fact we have dated it 2015. If a club isn’t capable of being an SL club, we shouldn’t be waiting until 2015 to kick them out. If a championship club is capable of being an SL club, why are we waiting until 2015 to asses that. If they are ready now, it is a waste of time waiting 3 years for what seems to be no reason.

That one is a distinct possibility and who could blame the guy.
Most of us would like to see a strong London club and for sure the grass roots are spreading down there but, at the moment, The Broncos games on sky are embarrasnig when there are so many empty seats.
When you talk to the Broncos fans, many are displaced northerners, so how do they go about attracting new fans ?

As has been agreed on here many times, they need to move home to somewhere in the East of London and get as far away as possible from the rara crowd.

Bingo. If we were talking about the team which won the comp then I think the original assertion has merit in being discussed, however Widnes' promotion hasn't been the same as what normally happens. That means you can be in danger of using (what is effectively) an exception rather than a representative sample.

Perhaps the best way of establishing 20 "super league teams" would be to abandon relagation and keep promoting the top Championship team until we have a top league of 20 teams.
At this point there could be a split into 2 divisions with a one up one down promotion.
Yes, this would mean a decreasing pot of money for the top tier but, eventually there would be enough teams for a SL1 and SL2.

Haven't they said that will possibly be the case though? Sure they made the point that if certain clubs (Cas/Wakey..I'm looking at you!) hadn't started fulfilling promises with regards to new stadiums that they could be chucked out before the end of the licensing period?

Ok, so we have decreased the pot of money available to the top clubs and given it to the lower clubs, we have an SL 1 and SL2 with SL2 operating at a high level than the championship is, and SL1 operating at a lower level than SL currently is. We have two pro leagues, SL1 with a lower SC than it currently has and SL2 has a higher one.

Then what?

Are we expecting Sky to want to pay more for a lower quality SL1 and higher quality SL2 than they pay for SL now so we can build back up? Because that clearly is never going to happen, we have seen how much value there is in second tier RL.

Its closer to where it should be, but not quite there.

There shouldn’t be a licence period, there should be a licence which is constantly being reviewed, and an open application process where clubs can apply when they are ready.

With respect to sky, all they want is something to fill a tv slot 3/4 times a week. Remember they are a TV company and not a sporting body (despite their undue influence in the sporting calendar)
A gradual increase in numbers could work out and if each promoted club was then runnig a good quality, effective, junior set up then, in the long term, the numbers of better quality players would increase.
Also there would then be 2 full time divisions allowing for promotion and relegation which would actually make for interesting games all season.
Personally, I think divisions of 10 are too small, with 12 teams being my prefered number but, due to greed and a perceived improvement in quality, there seems to be a clamour towards 10 team divisions.

Fair enough question....I suppose that depends on what the expectations are for the sport as a whole.

The gap between SL and the Championship is only going to widen even further with the current format (it's showing already - lower Championship crowds and sponsorship revenue = less investment = cheaper product; people are fast losing faith and interest whether we like it or not) whilst a good chunk of the current SL are punching above their weight financially.

The cream will always rise to the top whether Sky are involved or not; to expect Wakey, Cas, HKR, Widnes, Hax, Fev, Leigh, Salford (for example) to step up to the income levels Leeds and Wigan can generate will never happen and (aside from boom/bust sugar daddy investment) never has.

So do we look at making the top 20 clubs more even, competitive, and sustainable - each finding their own level in a top middle or bottom bracket but with the reasonable prospect of progressing from one to the the other (but runs the risk of losing some of the better players to big bucks in Union), or do we have 3 or 4 strong clubs thats entertaining for Sky viewing with the rest making up the numbers and wondering when the Revenue will knock on the door?

To close the gap there needs to be pcloser parity in income and if the 14 elite clubs start off with a substantial handout in sponsorship cash then, obviously they should be stronger than the clubs who dont receive the same.
As a sport we have just about taken away the opportunity for the championship clubs to play in the top flight and then we bemoan the fact that their supporter numbers are dropping off and that the competition is not as attractive as it once was. Its laughable.
Since the formation of SL there has been little thought or care as to the welfare of the game lower down the Rugby League ladder.
Indeed the top few clubs in SL are trying to reduce the league so that they can enjoy a larger slice of SL cake.
This is where we need a strong and transparent governing body that does what is right for the sport as a whole and not just look after the lucky ones.

I think that's only taking into account half of what the licensing is for. The gulf between Championship + SL is forever widening, especially in terms of financial costs, and giving teams a "definite" time span of which they can be in super league will enable them to offer longer term contracts and attract players in the confidence that they will still be in super league.

But they dont have a definite time span, under either rule they would have the possibility of being removed if they fell below whats needed.

The only difference from the time standpoint would be that clubs would be in SL in perpetuity unless they fell below what is needed under my idea, meaning that they could offer even longer contracts and give even more confidence they will still be in SL>

Why should widness put up any competition this year at all? I mean they have 3 years so what's the rush? Let them play a year absorb the sky money then buy some players for season 2 be a slightly better side then buy in more players for season 3.

I was under the impression that the 3 years system was to give teams moving up time to build and not have to borrow to their eyeballs to survive season by season. Surely the whole Widness argument is nonsense they don't need to be competitive until their 3rd season.

Fell below whats needed OFF THE FIELD. That's the key point. In reality the only clubs that will get kicked out mid-license are existing super league clubs that haven't met promises they made to get a renewal. You'd like to think that the threat of kicking clubs out mid-license is only for this round, because if clubs are still needing to be making promises next time then they shouldn't get another chance.

To come up from the championship, your club must be in tip top shape off the pitch (mainly in terms of stadium + finances). Therefore you are practically guaranteed 3 yrs in Super League regardless of your on field performance.

After the next round, I think a rule needs to be brought in that administration leads to license being rescinded. As punishing to a club as that would be, it's a sign that the club doesn't deserve to be in Super League if it's not run properly. Widnes made a sizeable profit in the championship, so it can be done. The relegated club would then have to start from scratch in the championship and hopefully build up to applying for a license again in 3 years time.

And thats how it should be. But my point is there is no need to, and no benefit from, assessing the licences every three years, why only take a snapshot at that moment? it should be being done constantly. The three year timespan is entirely arbitrary.

If we are promoting a club we should be sure they can add something to it. So they should be guaranteed a licence as long as they are doing that.

What would be gain by that? sure any club which goes into administration needs to be looked at very very carefully but we shouldnt lock ourselves into rules which would be self-defeating. Take Bradford as an example, imagine they go into administration, Chris Caisley announces he is taking control again and he has got Ken Morrison on board. Morrison announces he wants to build a huge new depot in Bradford and as a sweetener for the council he will rebuild Odsal as a new superstadium and guarantee Bradford spend the SC for the next 10 years(i know, im being very fanciful here). Whats the point in relegating Bradford, seeing them lose Bateman, Kopczak, Whitehead, Donaldson, et al, along with Burgess and some of the others in their youth sides, and asking them to spend three years in the championship, promoting them again, It would take them 5/6 years in SL so 9 years in total just to get back to where they are now. What would we gain out of it?

Because as I said earlier, you need more than a seasons security because clubs from the championship find it very hard to build a super league side in a few months. The financial gulf between the CC + SL means that teams who could get relegated again after 1 yr can't offer long term contracts to players, and player in turn are less likely to come because of the lack of job security.



Maybe I was being harsh, but in a league where there is no relegation, if you can't afford to spend up to the full cap, then you shouldn't be doing. I realise it's much easier said than done, especially for clubs like Bradford who have had so much success. The Chairman of a club like Bradford would get slaughtered for coming out and stating they couldn't afford to pay up to the cap, but that's some of the sacrifices teams will have to make.

Licenses were brought in to enable clubs to build from scratch, relying on their academies more whilst being safe in the knowledge that they will be able to build on that whilst being in Super League. Allowing clubs to overspend so regularly and then being surprised when they go into admin shouldn't be the way forward.

I personally feel that if you go into Admin you should have your license rescinded. I think the penalties for actions like that should be that severe. It would force clubs + their owners to live within their means, and encourage them to actually try and invest in facilities and youth development rather than signing overpaid journeymen.

But that already happens, any club can have its licence revoked at any time durig their three years. Thats as it is now. Im not talking about changing that. Im saying that the review after 3 years is pointless, they should be reviewed every year, not to look for reasons to kick them out but to look at where they can improve. Lets be realistic, if a club is in danger of losing its licence its not going to come as a surprise to anyone.

I dont disagree that we should be harsh. We certainly should be. I just think handcuffing ourselves with such a rule really wouldnt be beneficial. I think we certainly should err on the side of a club which goes into admin losing its licence and it being a difficult effort for a new owner to keep a side in super league i just cant see a benefit in forcing ourselves to relegate them. I would have rescinded Wakefields licence for instance, and from none of the speculated takeover plans at Bradford would fill me with confidence so it is likely they would lose it.

Betts and Cullen were the wrong people to bring the club into SL with. Real potential at Widnes so no problem there.

Results on the field should play a part, afterall Halifax have finished in the top 3 in SL more often than some current SL teams have in the past 15 years.