Maybe the "loose a years Sky money" sanction was put in place to deter pre-pack administration where the existing owners manage to buy back the operation sans debt. I this case an unconnected person - OK came to the rescue and was subject to the "fine" to keep the SL status. The other chairman then decided to pocket the windfall and also change the rules on entry to the "SL club" but I assume OK would have been involved in the decision on the new structure which was made recently - though the potential cut in the number of clubs has been trailed for some time.

Joe,you idiot

Not actually sure that losing competition money was ever actually put in place; losing points [4 being the previous highest IIRC] yes, but not losing money. That appears to have been a special, new punishment for us. Maybe the next club which has to go through what we did will get an even bigger 'fine', who knows with policy made up on the hoof. I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine that the next 'white knight' may well look at what happened in our case and say, "I don't think I'll bother, if that's all the 'help' we'll get".

I think the potential cut in numbers has indeed been on the cards a while, but certainly not they way that cut was going to be decided. In any case, whilst I've no idea how the club voted it was only 1 in 14, so a vote against would have been unlikely to have stopped it being passed.

You get the feeling that narrow minded self interest is the main driver for the clubs and most of them probably took the view - we will stay up so more money for us. Most of the comments seem to be supportive with only London expressing unease (cannot imagine why).

Perhaps the restructuring proposals are too timid and they should have gone for a regional super dopper league to raise the standard and intensity of the game's premier offering to pull in more national sponsorship/TV cash , but on the proviso that a % of the revenue went back into supporting the existing clubs

I think a regional [and smaller] 'super league' would definitely raise standards but would have the opposite effect on sponsorship and TV cash. Being, or trying to appear, a national competition is going to sell more Sky dishes and products in general than a York/Lancs league - however super duper.

Yorkshire (1st obviously!), Lancashire, Cumbria, London, Wales and the Basques - like the IPL in cricket, maybe Scotland and Ireland. I will change my login to the Northernradicalrelic - though the intellegence services might put me under watch

What makes you think we're not already being watched..............



[sizeI'll stick the word bomb in here to see if it elicits a response, if you don't hear from me for a while check the newspapers and give my MP a ring, if you don't mind, as I may be 'care of Guantanamo Bay'..[/size

Exactly.

Actually I didn't. I haven't read every post on this thread but none that I have read mention it. They are mostly accusations of cruelty & moral corruption against the obviously incompetent RFL. I read about it on the VT thread yesterday.

If OK was unaware of the discussions he hadn't done adequate research.

What ever was being discussed 12 months ago was obviously open ended, and certainly the idea of reducing to 12 clubs had been well trailed, but what hadn't been mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, was the idea of bringing back P&R on a bottom out basis [though I'd assume some clubs will be rightly excluded from that]. It is that aspect I disagree with.

I disagree with P&R in SL in principle though as there were numerous sages screaming for it as the saviour of RL there can be few complaints if the RL & chairmen voted for it. Presumably Sutcliffe lobbied on behalf of the Bulls.

I don't really think P&R is suitable for the top division and never will be when there are only part time teams in the division below. Whilst franchising has had quite a few problems as well, it has rid the game of the the problem of teams coming up a going down the following season - a situation which does no-one any good in my opinion.

Maybe we could split the difference and have a season of P&R and then consider them in situ for three seasons to allow the promoted club to get up to speed. A bit like now but instead of the licensing committee, you win your three year deal in SL by being fortunate enough to be the top team in the appropriate year. It must be a better idea than one up and one down every season.

The problem I see with that is everyone would throw their all at year 3 rather than build gradually which is the current intention. If there was no other criteria other than getting most points I cannot see how most teams could survive on crowds of 2,000. The present system is imperfect but I cannot come up with a better one.

That, sadly, seems to be the crux of the matter. Is there really a significantly better system? I've not heard or thought of anything for sure. Straight P&R certainly isn't the answer.

Going back to my previous suggestion which, incidentally, if you hadn't guessed I know has no chance whatever of being adopted, why not give an incentive for each year by totalling up the league points over the three seasons to decide which team is promoted? or maybe use the league positions over the three year period with a total of 3 [first in the league 3 times] being top mark?