The problem is you can never prove 100% where growth in revenue is going to come from. Crusaders were always going to be a bankrolled club and so the assurances of Leighton Samuel were pivotal. In the same way you have to assume other owners will continue to bankroll their clubs eg Hudgell, Davy, Moran, O'Connor etc. The fact Samuel walked away was the main problem, as it would be at plenty of other clubs.
The point with the other clubs like Bradford and Wakefield is that even if their finances/plans etc were weak, were they one of the top 14 clubs in the country? I'd say they both were and that there wasn't a ready alternative.

I'd agree though that the licensing should have been stronger and much much more transparent. With very detailed grading on each club in different areas published on the RFL website, along with key areas that must be improved by the next licence period.

Licensing should have driven the number of teams in the competition, rather than the other way around.

Stating you're going to have a 14 team comp means that you are going to take the best 14 bids, rather than excluding ones that weren't off sufficient quality.

Oh and btw, I trust you've got some figures on how much the RFL have supposedly "put into" Bradford and Wakefield? AFAIW, the RFL have advanced both clubs money they were entitled to. Big difference.

Were Bradford entitled to having their ground bought for them and then having their squad ring-fenced when Wakey weren't?
What about the money that Crusaders received as a "Loan"?
Also does exspansion mean you atuomatically get a franchise irrespective of attendances and consistent bottem 3 finishes?

All 3 situations were very different and required different responses. What about the money Crusaders received as a loan? As I understand it the loan was secured on the ground and so I've no reason to suspect its in doubt.
Bradford's ground was under threat, Wakefields wasn't. Why would the RFL move to secure Wakefields ground when it didnt need securing? In what way did the RFL ring-fence Bradford's squad?


I'm not sure which club you're referring to here. Over the 3 years of the first licence period (2009-2011) a total of 6 clubs finished in the bottom 3 places in a season. None of them finished in the bottom 3 every year:
Celtic/Crusaders = twice (14th & 14th)
Salford = twice (13th & 12th)
Harlequins = twice (12th & 13th)
Catalans = once (14th)
Wakefield = once (13th)
Hull FC = once (12th)

Of those clubs their average league position over those 3 years is:
Celtic/Crusaders = 12th
Salford = 12th
Harlequins = 12th
Wakefield = 10th
Catalans = 9th
Hull FC = 9th

Their average crowds were:
Harlequins = 3,271
Celtic/Crusaders = 3,820
Salford = 4,399
Wakefield = 6,055
Catalans = 7,717
Hull FC = 12,753

From that I can't particularly choose one as under performing more than the others. I see 3 clubs struggling severely (Quins, Celtic & Salford) another struggling moderately (Wakefield) and 2 strong clubs that obviously had a bizarrely poor season (Hull & Catalans). So I'm unsure which club automatically got a licence.

Him-When Wakey were struggling ££££ wise and Admin came calling the RFL did not act to help them keep their players and many were picked off yet when it happened at the Bulls the RFL intervened so that they were not forced to either sell or release players their squad remained in tact and they bought their ground so not prefferential treatment no??
Also it's obvious the Club i'm reffering to is London other teams have had their applications turned down Widnes included when they offered much more to SL and had the ££ to back it up so again is that a balanced Franchise system?
Finally re-Crusaders the RFL lost money on that Franchise did they not or have i got that wrong?

The heartlands continue to be the only places worth perservering withLeeds-like-coasting[/i through the regular season.
One sided perpetual whipping boy games is not conducive to any credible game. Screw Sky or BT for more investment and get a wealthy for god's sake [inon-Stobart-like[/i sponsor...hmmmm

It's all irrelevant really as RU continues to make great strides in its efforts to make the game 'faster and more entertaining' especially when the Southern hemisphere refs hopefully take control of more international matches;thus ignoring the tedious repeated technical scrum offences/resulting penalty goals.

Ironically one day, before we know it, these scrums will become less and less important in the game's continued efforts to successfully expand on the international scene and perhaps they might also even consider reducing the points for kicks; drop kicks ....and reducing the number of forwards on the field to 6

Sometimes, there's just no point presenting facts to people when they persist in "knowing" something that isn't true to be so.

Let's assume these rumours are true. Why? What's his motives?

Isn't it part of his master plan to have leeds plodding along, engineering 5th places finishes then having an easier run to the grand final ( ) This certainly blows that out of the order.

So what are GH's evil, self serving reasons for this change?

When doing what he does best (deriding the super league competition) jeff has posted on a few occasions in the past he favoured a 12 team league, a top 5 playoff system and p&R, which is what the new structure could entail. He will find a new angle to troll from if it get's instigated,

Did the RFL buy Odsal?
Did the RFL get the money back they loaned Crusaders?
Did wakeys squad get picked off whereas the Bulls' didn't?
Have London deserved a Franchise over Widnes ,Fax and Fev?
How did the Bulls get a franchise in a system that was promoted as seperating the weak from the strong and whilst they clearly couldn't deliver what they promised?
Feel free to present these facts AG proving how well this Franchise system worked and that the above events never took place?

Wakefield's time in Administration lasted a couple of weeks whereas Bradford's was about a month. Big difference in terms of costs needing paying including wages. Bradford's ground was under threat, Wakefield's wasn't. Bradford's administration was mid-season, Wakefield's was pre-season.
The 2 situations were different, as was Crusaders, I don't know why differing circumstances would require a like-for-like response. So no, I don't believe there was preferential treatment. I believe there was treatment appropriate to the situation.


Yet London have never finished bottom of the table. Why is Steve O'Connor's money worth more than David Hughes? So it was the years before the first franchise round that's the problem?
In that case in the 10 seasons before 2009 (the first franchise year) London only finished in the bottom 3 twice. An average position of 8th.

Compared to Widnes with a SL average position of 10th and finishing in the bottom 3 twice.


I have no idea, as I understand it the loan was secured on the stadium. I'm not sure how the RFL would lose out on that and I've not heard anything to say they have.

Him-Whether pre-season or during the Season both Clubs were under threat yet only one had -Their ground bought and their squad protecetd to complete the season.
Wakey's ground may not have been under threat but the Club as an entity was so what's worse?
I've no problem with the RFL stepping in and helping but surely it has to be same amount of aid for ANY club in trouble?
The level of outside interest in both Clubs was known was it not?
When Widnes were refused a franchise they were told that theer were doubts over their ££££ so Steve Oconner wrote a cheque to the RFL to cover their costs for the first season to show his commitment but was turned down.
Since that time Wakey ,Crusaders and Bradford have hit ££££ trouble yet retained their licences how is that system fair?
As for London fair play mate i got their finishing positions in SL wrong but i'will say they don't have their own ground have low attendances and in the last 3 yrs have gone backwards so i doubt their franchise award.
I'll support ANY system wher the game thrives but i dont think this Franchise system how its been policed has worked and i doubt the actions taken by the RFL for different Clubs under this system.

But there was obviously more willing and available options to take over Wakefield, since the administration and takeover took only a couple of weeks. Did their players even need paying during that time? I assume they're paid monthly like other employees. No-one protected Bradford's players other than Bradford.
Again, why would the RFL buy Wakefields ground? It wasn't under threat and not owned by them in the first place so how would that have helped? Their stadium was not under threat. Bradford's was and they needed that sorting.
The pre-season, mid-season issue is also a bigger issue than you are implying.


Why? Simplistically speaking, if Wakefield required £100k to keep going and Bradford required £300k, should both only receive £100k? Or should the RFL "overpay" Wakefield and give them both £300k? A club should receive the level and scope of help it needs depending on the situation, anything else is just daft.


Yes. Which is why it took only 2 weeks for a takeover of Wakefield and a month for a takeover of Bradford.
Should the RFL have refused to help Bradford based on Wakefields administration? What if Bradford's had come first? Shoud they then have bought Wakefields ground even though it didnt need buying and wouldn't really help Wakefield?


Right, so why does that make them more deserving of a licence for 2009 than London? Who didn't go bust in the licence period?


Crusaders haven't retained their licence. They withdrew from the process. There isn't a mechanism for removal of a club mid-licence period, nor should there be otherwise it defeats the point of a licence period. A licence should only be given/revoked at the licence decision round. Wakefield were awarded another licence in the last round. Rightly in my opinion, unless you think they aren't one of the 14 top clubs in the country. Bradford haven't reached that point yet (of another licence round) and it seems unlikely there will be another round, however if there were I would be happy for Bradford to receive a licence as quite categorically one of the 12/14 top clubs.

I'm still not sure how Wakefield, Bradford and Salford going bust and being allowed to stay in SL fits into the "expansion gets you a licence" argument. Since the only "expansion" club to go bust under licensing no longer has a licence and those protected by licensing are heartland clubs.


I don't doubt in the slightest their first licence, it was thoroughly deserved as one of the top 14 clubs. The second is more debatable but given the withdrawal of Crusaders had let Widnes in there wasn't a strong club banging down the door for replacing London.
I agree totally that they've gone backwards and appear shambolic on and off the pitch. But so have Salford, Cas and Bradford since the last licence decision. I think that is far more down to club mis-management, often historic mis-management finally coming home to roost.


I think this system has worked ok, but could be far better. More detailed summaries for a start. Going into detail on various issues including playing strength, academy systems, community work, financial strength/stability and stadium issues. Plus goals to be completed by the next licence round.

The problem is that some people view the licensing system as a process of weeding out teams who are financially weak, pointing the finger when teams subsequently hit money problems. But that wasn't quite the case: it was intended to choose the 14 teams which best fitted a bunch of criteria. Under pretty much any measurement of things, the Bulls were one of the top 14 when the last licences were passed around. So were London who were and are more financially stable with the confirmed backing of their owner for the licence period.

I've still not seen any posts displaying love and affection for GH relative to his divine wisdom and key support for the latest structural changes to SL, the return of P&R and the termination of the shambolic licensing experiment.

However, I am seeing criticism of these changes in a "Who voted for this? The same chairmen that have run their clubs into the ground with chaotic mis-management, short-sighted, shooting oneself in the foot, appeasement of irrelevant Championship clubs" kind of way... a critique which remains curiously devoid of any reference to GH himself and his supportive and enthusiastic role in all these proposed SL changes.

Hmmm...

Indeed