Calling them franchises would have been better than licences in my opinion yes. But then ofcause you have the problem of giving one to all clubs.

(My apologies to Castleford fans for using your team as the example below – I am not implying you should not have a licence nor saying you are in any kind of financial trouble - I could have easily have used any club who has not won a title in the past 10 years [and further apologies if you have won a title, I just can’t remember it])

The fact is the loss of Bradford would be a bigger loss for the sport than the loss of Castleford for the simple reason of their recent achievements. For your fan who is a long time fan of Rugby League they may not see this but the RFL has to look at potential fans too – a club with the recent success of Bradford being in the lower leagues (or non existant) is far worse than a club of Castleford being in the lower leagues. To use the example of Rangers who many people on this thread have used as an example – I used to have a passing interest in the SPL to see how the title was going to run – weather to Rangers or Celtic – now I have no interest in it at all, and I’m sure I’m not the only one – how much will the SPL lose as a result of TV money when however many people stop tuning in, how much of that money was used by the “smaller” clubs?. Now RL has more than 2 clubs but the point remains that the loss of a Bradford a “big club” is harder to bear than the loss of Castleford a “little club” since people outside the sport know the name.

Does this fact incurage reckless spending to win cups – yes it does to some extent (hence why we have a salary cap). But considering that the people who did spend recklessly at the Bulls have lost everything they “invested” in the club and no longer have any dealing with it it’s probably not as much as an incentive as people think.

So what would you do then – give a franchise to the “big clubs” but not the “little clubs”, that could work – but you would have even more up in arms than the current system (which I agree is a complete shambles).

What will really happen is what has happened – the RFL will do all it can to save the successful clubs and be a little less desperate to save the unsuccessful one (though claims that they would turn away and let them go bust without help seem a little harsh). Is this “fair” – no, not at all, but who ever said that life is “fair”. I can’t think of one other area of life that is “fair” – why should sport be any different?

For better or worse, we've moved our elite competition to Sky Sports. To say that we have took it away from the masses, however, is a little hysterical. People with more than a passing interest in sport nowadays will have a subscription to Sky Sports. If they still choose not to watch RL, then that's down to their indifference, not the act of "selling our soul".

And before people start crying poverty, and saying they can't afford to watch the rugby anymore; if you really can't afford the fifty quid or so a month to watch what you claim is a sport you are passionate about, then watching rugby is probably the least of your problems.

or go the pub

Sounds like a plan. Mine's a pint!

You are wrong.

AFAIK the Championship clubs only received SKY money during one of the seasons when SKY broadcast their games. This was not a share of the SL cash.