Quote: Hopie "
Less than 4 years, two complete licensing processes and another license issued mid process. Yet four clubs have hit a financial crisis. If the new system hasn't changed things for the better what is the justification for the change? how many clubs went to the wall in the preceding four seasons? '"
Which 4 clubs? I can only think of 3 - Crusaders, Bradford & Wakefield. And if you think Bradford & Wakefield's financial crises were to do with franchising you're kidding yourself. Their problems stemmed from well before 2009.
Quote: Hopie "Changing the system means it's impossible to know what would have happened under the old system. With no relegation or promotion results are less important and no doubt the last three years would have been different. The team going up and down would have been decided on the pitch (and minimum criteria being met).
The new system led to a ridiculous expansion of the league and the play-offs and a devaluing of the game on the field, it hasn't solved more problems than it's added and should never have been brought in. Time to give up on a failed experiment. I hope that 2015 will see a real shake up in the structure of the game as a whole.'"
A ridiculous expansion? What does franchising have to do with the size of the league? They are two different aspects. The clubs vote on the size of the league seperate from any franchising decisions. Also a reduction of the league means a reduction in games and a reduction in income for the clubs, which is probably why they voted to expand the league for 2009.
A failed experiment? After 3 years? Seriously? Thats like a team giving up on the season after losing their first game. It's daft and makes no sense whatsoever. The previous system, which has seen a league of varying sizes over the years, has been in place for a century. Yet you somehow think all the ills of the game and problems faced by clubs have suddenly appeared in, and because of, the last 3 years. That is a very strange logic you seem to be using.