I'm not saying that off field criteria such as ground capacity etc shouldn't count towards promotion, but the main qualification should be on the pitch. Crusaders' owner buggered off - what a recommendation! What about Celtic Crusders owner? Pulled the rug. And the RFL condoning their fielding of ineligible players -all under the franchise. Wakey have been bust twice whilst in SL. But still allowed a licence even with the slum that is now Belle Vue. As for London they may have avoided administration but only by the skin of their teeth. And if anyone can convince me that their crowds or their perfomances on the pitch justify them a place in SL I'll stand the York drop.
There is no way that anyone in their right mind can justify the franchising system. Particularly after they were going let Crusaders continue and nodded through the Bulls licence. The whole thing is a joke. I predicted when it was instituted that there'd be bankruptcies and I've been proved correct. Time to abandon a policy described by fans of many other sports as "bizarrre"
I'm a Fev fan and hope we'll get in eventually. But I reckon for starters drop the Bulls and let 'Fax in. They've got the ground, they've got the record and given a year or so they could be pulling fans from the Bradford area just like the Bulls did when they dropped out of SL.

Why are these relevant to franchising? surely the Crusaders and Celtic owners could have done the same under P+R or didnt happen. and now have a great new stadium on the way after years and years of struggling. They have never finished bottom, surely that is the only criteria for you?
clubs went bust under P+R, Crusaders werent guaranteed to be relegated even under P+R and would have been promoted under P+R And replace it with what? one which spent thirty years being proved not to work?
Or they could not be able to survive on their terrible (by SL standards) crowds, struggle to put together a competitive side, get hammered all season, lose all their money, go bankrupt, get relegated and the whole pointless, counterproductive idiocy can start all over again

Smokey, your posts with regards the Celtic fiasco are quire ridiculous, the RFL funded them through the NL s via community development grants, they were advised by the RFL how to circumvent Visa regulations, they were a joke in the lower leagues and lasted exactly how long we said they would

You cant pretend all you want it didnt happen, but it did , and every time you post to the contrary you look more and more stupid

You can carry on making up things, and to be fair, you have been corrected so many times it is out right lying, but the only people it convinces are the people who have already made the same idiotic circular conclusion as you already.

You are ok with the RFL ' helping out ' an expansion club with ' potential ' ?

By allowing, encouraging, helping, paying them to Cheat the salary cap and Visa regulations of the country?

Incredible

Nothing I have posted on the Crusaders fiasco has been made up, it happened, the RFL ploughed hundreds of thousands of pounds through Mr Samuels company to finance the Celtic Crusaders, they advised them how to circumvent the Visa rules, the Crusaders lasted 1 year, 1 season, as we all suggested, it was a complete joke, as is your defence of it

I suppose you have evidence of this? No? What a surprise!

Personally told to me by RFL employees and former Celtic players

Are they the same RFL employees who told you Leigh were banned from running an academy?

Where they the same players who told you the UKBA never reported to the RFL and the RFL never acted on the UKBA's report?

Any of these players or employees made any kind of public comment on these or are they just secrets only you get told in confidence to spread on RL forums when it is convenient for your argument?

What's the difference between the RFL financially assisting Crusaders and the RFL financially assisting London, as you have advocated? Is it because one affected Championship clubs and the other only affects SL clubs?

Why the hypocritical stance?

Do you think Licensing was to blame for Crusaders problems?

No they are not, it was Bill Appleton and Lee Crooks who tried to explain the academy minimum wages excuse back in 2004/5

No they havent made any public comment, probably because that would be incredibly stupid, but you wouldnt understand that, you being either incredibly stupid or incredibly nieve, or both