That would be unfair and would still have elements of franchising involved, if you have P&R it should be the same rules for everyone.

Unfortunately, the RFL are incapable of doing that, just for example say Wigan finish bottom of SL and Keighley win the Championship - the RFL would do anything they can to make sure Wigan stay up.

If the Championship was full time, had a higher salary cap and could produce a higher quality of players on a more consistent basis then P&R could work again but until then the American/NRL style of franchising is really the only viable option and not the selective P&R lottery the RFL are running now.

I think 3 year licensing is positive, becuase it stops short term gambling and financial idiocy (or should - Crusaders, London, Wakey, Bradford) I resent the fact that you can actually benefit in some instances from the club going in to administration and newco being debt free, particularly if you dont own your own ground, it is unfair - so that should be an automatic out - but like Widnes you can make your case to come back.

I think it would be better if franchising and grading was much more simple and transparent and incorporated an aggregate grading for league position over the years.

I think the "Conference" idea is the way forward but I would suggest two conferences based on the previous year's league positions: 1st, 3rd, 5th etc in one conference, 2nd, 4th, 6th etc in the other. This would make each conference roughly of equal strength and the numbers would be flexible enough to allow new "franchises" (local or in development areas) whenever they were deemed ready without necessarily needing to chop an established club to make way for them-unless a club is perennially failing.

How about 12 teams. I up, 1 down. You come up regardless of facilities, subject only to a minimum capacity. Everyone deserves their place in the sun.

I'd go with that one.