In an age where franchising has brought us the Celtic, Bradford, Wakefield, and (pre Koucash) Salford debacles and to lesser extents the catastrophic overtrading at London, Cas, and HKR, and when a third choice Kiwi is wearing the England number 6 shirt, I don't think this is one of your stronger arguments to be honest.



Do you seriously expect people to pay £16-18 to watch other Clubs reserves and kids, week in week out? Come on, think about that one. Once the novelty of having an Adrian Morley or Lee Briers in your shirt has worn off for the sycophants, the rest of us have found something else to do on Sundays instead.

Your idea also assumes those outside of SL will maintain their current structure and commitment, sufficient to give a sound platform for the SL Clubs to send their kids. Judging from the damage in the Championship Clubs have faced since franchising, I'd give you 5 years until those same clubs were on a par with Wigan St Pats or Leigh Miners. The structure will at worse fall apart and at best be akin to Conference rugby and slowly the development pathway from community clubs to Super League (and back again) then has a huge gap in it.

There's a happy medium somewhere between franchise and P&R - and I think the 3/8 system is probably the best of a bad bunch because it provides a series of smaller 'manageable' (for want of a better word) gaps rather than one huge one.

Those same chairmen voted for the no sponsorship money deal with Stobart.

Or had you forgotten?

Yes Bullseye, I actually do. If, for example, if we looked at the "middle" table we would have using this years results, we would have:

Wakefield Wildcats
Castleford Tigers
London Broncos
Salford City Reds
Featherstone
Sheffield
Halifax
Leigh

I think that Halifax would have a better chance of finishing in the top 4 of that league than they did finishing top of the Championship.

Compared to the Widnes, Oldham, Oldham, Halifax, Halifax, PSG, Workington, Leigh Wakefield debacles, and the catastrophic trading at pretty much every single club we had, the dire state of many clubs youth development systems, Wakefield fielding a side of 15 overseas players to avoid relegation, Hull KR getting pretty close to those figures, the -poor state of facilities and infrastructure throughout the game pre-franchising it looks a lot stronger.


no, i dont. The kids wouldnt be another clubs kids, they would be the lower league clubs kids. Those kids wouldnt be affiliated to any SL side until they were put forward for the draft. Take Zak Hardaker as an example, comes up through youth rugby, goes to Fev. Plays for Fev as a Fev player aged 18 and 19. Then goes forward for the draft, is drafted by Leeds. Plays for Leeds as a Leeds player. If he needs some lower league game time, or can't get in the Leeds side, he plays for Fev and he can only play for Fev. He wouldnt be playing for Fev because it is near Leeds or because they have an agreement with Fev, but because he came through at Fev. The same would apply to say Richard Whiting.

Clubs outside SL would be properly recompensed for doing so, they would also have access to 'free' players in the example shown above to complement their existing squads.


that gap isnt the biggest problem the game faces. It is the biggest problem a few championship clubs face in being SL clubs, but it isnt the biggest problem the game faces. The biggest problem the game faces is lack of money, and that is evident in a huge number of areas of the game. It shows in youth development, marketing, expansion, facilities, playing strength, the player-pool and pretty much every area. The focus of the game should be on tackling the lack of money, then tackling the areas where lack of funds have damaged the game. Then we can look at that gap because that issue will be so much easier to solve.

The clubs are just as much to blame on that front, given how some have cheapened the product so drastically through an inability to market and a reliance on cut-price deals.

You can't charge Third Division prices to attract Second Division crowds and then expect Premier League returns.

I wouldn't argue with much of that other than if someone has a terminal illness, telling him to stop smoking and excersize a bit more isn't really going to do much. Syaing 'yeah this is bad, but that was baderer!' isn't really a basis for sustainable improvement.

The problem as you rightly state is cash in the game, or lack of. Strangling the middle tier (Championship) wont help that one bit.

The collective turnover of Championship Clubs (at an approximate guess) is in the region of £7m per annum perhaps? Give or take 20%?

Kill that middle third and that money is pretty much lost because its income generally from your more traditional (nee parochial) sources. If my Club went under of ended upon a par with Miners or Easts then I'm not suddenly going to spend that cash watching Salford or Saints just as if Leeds went wonky you wouldn't be spending your cash at Odsal or your flatcaps arn't going to go the Wheldon Road.

The game doesn't have enough players as it is and loses to many adult players who don't make the SL grade; how does removing a huge chunk of its development pathway (foodchain) help that? Slimming down to what is available is simply reaching for the lowest denominator - if we're doing that lets have £100k per club and operate a £400k salary cap - and wait for the game to die a painful death.

The Championhip Clubs are just as vital to the game and its pathway as the Community Clubs and the Super League clubs. The game simply isn't strong enough to cull them.

To all the ones saying the RFL brought in a zero sponsorship cash deal, get your facts right. There were two deals on the table.

THE SL CHAIRMEN VOTED FOR THE STOBART DEAL.

Also we are not Australia and people in this country like to watch competitive sport with something to aim for. Even RU have promotion and relegation.

A bit of wishful thinking I think..

SL clubs are full-time and build their sides on a figure approaching £2 million. Championship clubs are part-time, training after work and built under a cap of around £600k. As long as this remains the case they might as well be playing in different dimensions. The possibility of a shock 'giant-killing' remains in a one off cup game, though in practice it is very rare even then, but in a league situation, hell will freeze over before one of the SL clubs fails to make the top four in that league.

not all the super league chairman voted for the stobart deal actually.. it was 9 to 5 in favour

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/9050409/Hull-FC-and-Hull-Kingston-Rovers-both-voted-against-the-Stobart-Super-League-sponsorship-deal.html[/url

Thank god I support a team that got it right the deal was

Hats of to Ian Lenegan, it is about time someone said enough is enough. The way the RFL has been going it was only a matter of time until this happened.

All that has happened in the last 12 months is the RFL have undone all the good choices they have made in the previous 10 years. Despite it not being popular the licencing system has been successful. It has made the league stronger, protected teams in and out super league from over spending to gain/avoid relegation. Most importantly it has increased the number of good young players in the league. The stadia has also improved directly because of licencing, despite what Blake Solly says.

Everything has not been perfect but that does not mean you change everything. If the licencing costs too much stream line it. What is the point in Wigan, Leeds, Warrington, Hull applying for a licence every 4 years, they are always going to make the grade. Tony Smith hit the nail on the head when he said you should have a licence system but when team breaks the rules i.e. go bust, they should be kicked out.