You're right, despite it making absolutely no sense whatsoever, the RFL are going to adopt a system of putting weak clubs in the top division ahead of stronger ones. Get them out and let's have Mark Rowley in charge.
We are talking about encouraging a situation in which clubs can develop and compete realistically. Every sport needs good and appropriate administration for it to be successful. Your bizarre rant has nothing to do with anything and I don't really know why I bothered replying.

Who is Mark Rowley

I don't know why you bothered either

1. Any sport which allows the decisions for competition placings to be decided behind closed doors in a boardroom instead of on the pitch has lost all legitimacy as a sport.

2. It is not up to the governing body to 'protect' clubs from themselves, nor should they try - this argument is nonsense. Sport is business - clubs need to only spend what they have. The salary cap (properly enforced) can ensure this, as a protective measure & promote a healthy & entertaining competition.

3. Investment and promotion of the Championship will ensure the long term health of the game. But with no chance of promotion, investment (other than by along term fan done good) becomes nigh on impossible.

4. And no, before the kids start, I don't support a Championship team

Allan Rowley's alter-ego

I really do find it bizarre that people really do think that regarding what is on the field of play is secondary or tertiary to everything else.

In fact the ONLY thing that prevents the game being played anywhere is something that can be called a "ball".

It really is that simple.

The GAME is the key to everything else not the other way round.

Soccer, boxing, american football, tennis..or all raquet sports. In fact, I can't think of any sport that doesn't have an element of it's competition membership decided off the field of play.
In our sport, the NCL has been doing it since it started.

Especially so considering no one has given the impression that's what they think.

You mean ' minimum standards ' , but the thing is , our sport then selectively ignores it's own ' minimum standards '

Some sports use "minimum standards" and those minimum standards will cover a range of different criteria in different sports. Some decide the ranking of their competitors behind closed doors. The point being, that in all sports there is more to it that what happens on the field of play.

Where and when do you feel our sport selectively ignored which minimum standards?

In American sport, this has always been part of the culture. But so is the unique & fantastic draft system, & the university sport scholarship scheme which underpins it. Unfortunately, no such culture exists in Europe, or ever will.

Tennis? Boxing? As individual sports, no such rules exist. You are simply good enough to reach the level of professionalism, or not. How you do on the court/ring determines your next opponent, not your business plan.

PS Pardon the ignorance, but what is the NCL?

Yet according to White Rose Red, all those american sports have no legitimicy as sports.

Tell me how the top 100 rankings are decided in boxing and tennis then?
How did Lennox Lewis win his first heavy weight belt?

National Conference League - the next step up in standards, although not necessarily playing standards, in amateur RL.

Not at all Richie. As I clearly stated, I am a big fan of the American system. But it does not exist here. And never will. And the system in the US does not prevent other teams from progressing, as is the case here.

And there is no closed door policy at all in boxing & tennis. Unless you know of some secret society the rest of us don't.

everyone knows the secret society which controls the top levels of boxing, its called HBO and Showtime.

nowhere in RL are competition placings decided behind closed doors in a boardroom. Bar disciplinary measures all points and placings are decided on the pitch. Like almost all sports RL doesnt decide which competition you play in solely on your playing performance.

if its not up to the RFL to protect clubs from themselves and they shouldnt try, then there is no need for the salary cap. Which doesnt protect clubs from themselves and never can as it has no relation to a clubs ability to spend that amount. It is simply an arbitrary figure

If they only thing we can sell the championships as is a place where you can get out of one season if you are lucky then there is no point in them.

nowhere in RL are competition placings decided behind closed doors in a boardroom. Bar disciplinary measures all points and placings are decided on the pitch. Like almost all sports RL doesnt decide which competition you play in solely on your playing performance.

This is a silly, pedantic response Smokey. You know exactly what is being referred too, you recognize exactly the point being made. Who is in the Superleague and who is not is clearly not decided on the pitch. Call it franchising or any other name, it still amounts to the same thing.

Do clubs need to live within their means? Yes. Do facilities need to comply to a minimum standard? Yes. Is the long term future of the game healthier for the ever widening financial gap between SL and the rest? No. Has copying the Aussie system improved the standard of SL & improved the international game as was claimed? No. Like football, is self interest helping the rich getting richer ultimately leading to narrowing competition & dominance of a small number of sides? Unfortunately, yes.

Agree entirely with League Fan on this point, rugby is the business.




I really do find it bizarre that people really do think that regarding what is on the field of play is secondary or tertiary to everything else.

In fact the ONLY thing that prevents the game being played anywhere is something that can be called a "ball".

It really is that simple.

The GAME is the key to everything else not the other way round.

You can always fight as long as you make them some cash, true enough!

So, how does a team join the NBA, NFL or MLB?

they are two hugely different things. But yes winning one game doesnt earn you promotion to SL as before. This is a good thing, it stops clubs which are too weak to compete in SL being in SL.

Who decides 'their means' are? Surely it should be left to the owners of the clubs to decide how much they can spend.
obviously. But that isnt a very ambitious or growth orientated judgement. RL needs to get away from simply scraping the minimum to pushing excellence.


explain your reasoning. If we had an SL the size of the NFL and the semi-pro game as nothing more than a feeder league wouldnt the game be healthier in spite of a much much wider gap between SL and the rest?

you are judging it far too early. We havent had one full cycle yet. We cant make a full judgement on franchising for at least another 12 years or so.

The game has always been dominated by a small number of clubs. Others have had limited success but some clubs are just bigger and more successful. Its the same in all sports.

unfortunately, whilst a noble sentiment it doesnt pay the bills

I didn't say there wasn't. The phrase you used was "competition placings" and both of those sports decide their placings by committee. Boxing even occasionally chooses it's champions without a match even having taken place i.e. Lennox Lewis's first title.

Well start at "Framing the Future" and then progress.

Oh that was totally ignored

Sorry about that

NEXT!!!!!

Ignored?

Castleford , Wakefield and Celtic all entered SL without passing the minimum standards required at the Time , unless you accept that the RFL reduced those minimum standards to allow those clubs to enter

So why bother having minimum standards if you aren't going to enforce them

They say rules are there to be broken , in RL the rules are designed to be broken , by the RFL

Which minimum standards didn't they meet?

Cas , seating

Wakey , covered area and seating

Celtic , capacity , despite claims that they had 10,000 on watching Bon Jovi or Brian Adams