Of course it's related to franchising. Franchising is unfair. It prevents teams qualifying to play in the top flight by their efforts on the field. This is clear. So why do we have it? The claim was that the absence of P&R would put a stop to teams over reaching themselves financially in order to gain admitance to or remain in the top division. What's happened at Wakey, Crusaders, London and now in spades at what was one of the Leagues' top clubs Bradford proves that this claim is what many of us thought it was in the first place - hogwash.

It's a far fairer system. It takes the whole club into account over a number of years rather than simply on-field performance in 1 year.
No it wasn't. It was claimed it would help clubs to stop over reaching themselves financially. It has. If, with licensing & a salary cap, clubs are still spending more than they bring in - who's fault is that?
Yes let's look at what happened. Wakey's owner went bust due to his investments outside RL, Crusaders owner buggered off, Bradford -we don't know the full picture yet. Please describe how licensing was to blame for these things.
London haven't gone into admin under licensing, that was under P&R, so well done for successfully sh|tting all over your own argument.

Which one ?

None of Bradford, Wakey, or Crusaders went bust trying to gain promotion or avoid relegation, so I'm not sure why you think their plight has any relevance at all to franchising. They could just as easily have made the same mistakes without franchising being in place.

London's problem is low crowds, and again has nothing whatsoever to do with franchising.

You may well feel that franchising is unfair, but using the recent crop of financial issues as some kind of proof of failure is way wide of the mark.

Both. Now that [iwas[/i a fiasco from start to finish.

I seem to remember myself and others stating as such at the time , but would you all listen ?

Are you Kosh in disguise.
How can a franchise system wich is open to interpretation be fairer than promoting the strongest "team" from the division below (ie the club that finishes top)
Remind me where Widnes fiinished in the championship prior to being promoted and compare this to where Featherstone have finished over the last few seasons !!!!
The current system may have been brought in for good reason, although IMHO, it was to allow Crusaders to queue jump. However, how can a club in administration be deemed stronger than a club which is not ?

You mean selective abuse

And too protect the Catalans and London

Quite ridiculous isn't it

Why would it protect London? They've never finished bottom with or without p/r

I dont think finishing bottom is relevent in the modern world of franchising ?

Because like the Catalans if they did finish bottom , their very existence would be brought into question under a P and R system

Dont act stupid , it just makes you look stupider than you already are