I'm not ok with P&R based only on team performance, no. That only works when there is a far smaller gap between leagues.
Am I ok with the RFL helping out a new club with the potential Crusaders had, in an expansion area, yes. In the same way you think the RFL should run and provide financial assistance to London Broncos.


No I haven't, I was meaning if there had been no licensing and under a normal P&R system, with an expansion of SL the top 2 NL teams would have been promoted at the end of the 2008 season. Crusaders were the 2nd best NL team.
So the argument that licensing was either designed purely to admit Crusaders, that somehow Widnes or Fev would have been in SL if it weren't for licensing or that licensing led to Crusaders problems is just wrong.

Do you honestly think that SL was expanded for it's own sake ?
Sorry, but that just isn't the case.
The Crusaders were without doubt fast tracked into the top flight and as time as proved this was a mistake, although had thier progression been more patient, they would have come in as a much stronger team and this would have no doubt increased theeir value to the competition.
I may well be a luddite, but if only we could revet to a meaningful P/R system where the bottom club is reklegated and the3 top team promoted, there would certainly be less bad feeling between the clubs and thier supporters.
I fully realise that the gulf between the top 2 divisions in now too wide for this to happen, but thats life...............

No. There might be less bad feeling between [isome[/i clubs and [isome[/i supporters. And remember that the majority of SL club chairmen supported franchising or it would never have happened.

Yes I do. For 2 reasons - that it stopped clubs having to play the same team 3 or 4 times whilst retaining the same number of games. And because the decision was made several years before -
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document"
"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs"
That's a statement by the RFL's lawyer in 2008, showing that the decision to expand to 14 clubs was not only made 3 years earlier but also by the clubs themselves.

It wouldn't have mattered if Crusaders were given more time, without a financial backer they would still have folded, in the same way that a lot of heartland clubs rely upon their financial backer to fund their losses.

I too want P&R, because it's the best way. But it's only the best way when clubs are relatively equal off-the field and there isn't as big a gap between the leagues. When we have that situation I'd be perfectly happy to revert back to P&R.

Fair comment, I yeild to your superior knowledge but this does coincide with the formation of the Crusaders, so perhaps there was a different agenda ?

Btw, IF the Bulls dont get through this, although I think they probably will, would you advocate Halifax taking their place ?

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