In my view and some people I know within the sports employ, there is nothing inherently wrong with franchising: BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has got to be more transparent, not an invisible panel who present the results and some of the details and information related to it, but an open assessment of the criteria and the grading of each clubs submission and make that public.

That should be a condition of the application that you consent to having the assessment published.

Then, at that stage, there is nothing to argue about - at least everyone knows why one club is selected above any other, as it is based on opinion and people's assessment too, you could also include a clause that said by submitting an application you waive the right to challenge the decision legally and the panel decision is final.

That way you protect the process, but also allow people to see why and how decisions are made in a transparent way.

(Only my opinion, but the furore each time seems to be over perceived dodgy deals or if's and ands, at least this way if you agree or not, it is transparent.)

this might sound daft , but here goes p&r yes . but make the team thats promoted wait one more season in nl to give them time to recruit a team, and have a chance in sl as sergia would say simples

Not quite. When does the relegated team drop down a division?

champions of nl in 2nd year of franchise go up after 3rd year .bottom sl club at end of year 3 see ya .then 1 up 1 down every year

How about top of NL gets 10 points, 2nd 8 ppoints and 3rd 6 points.
Most points after either 2 or 3 seasons eligible for promotion and for SL use the opposite with all teams accruing points for their finishing position, with the bottom club receiving 15 points.
At the end of 2 or 3 seasons the team with most points relegated.
At least then you will be relegated or promoted based on sporting performance and not politics.
If there needs to be some added controlls put in place, ie ground capacity etc then fair enough.