That is true, but bad management can also be exacerbated by relegation. As it was in the case of Leeds United.

Only if you think you are immune from relegation , as Leeds did

That is true and something we are trying to change. Franchising is a part of that. Feeder or partnership arrangements would be another.

There is a limit to the amount the RFL can do. You really need to start looking for other villains, the RFL arent where you need to be looking.

And you were against the Dual Reg system aswell. If Leigh dont want to have an arrangement with Wigan they dont have to. There are 13 other clubs in SL, or they can choose not to have an arrangement with anyone.

Why they wouldnt want an arrangment with anyone I dont know. All the feeder system would be used for is to give a higher level to the best youngsters, and cut out wastage. It seems ludicrous that back office operations and performance management are to you the measure of independence.

In all circumstances relegation exacerbates the problems of bad management.

It didn't do Huddersfield any harm in 2002

You think?

You think it did them no harm at all?

And wasnt it promotion that caused them the problems they suffered in the three years prior to 2002?

No , it was being stuck at the bottom of a league for 3 years without dropping down , it decimated their fan base

but that only happened because they were promoted

this myth you are perpetuating that it was only relegation that caused the giants growth is nonsense.

Whilst not getting into your "debate" consider the following based on how it works here in the North Sydney example:

Norths are still a proud club and are a foundation club of Rugby League in Australia. At present, they cannot play in first grade (the top flight of competition out here) but still exist with funding from a League's club and sponsors. At present they are attempting to re-enter into the top flight again as the Central Coast Bears. If they do, they'll play in the NRL but also have their reserve grade as the North Sydney Bears, whilst having juniors on the Central Coast AND North Sydney.

The pros for Souths in this feeder arrangement are that they save a large amount of money, by not having to fund their own reserves and having a large first grade squad which has to fall into the salary cap. So they have less players on their payroll, they also don't have to pay for the coach, assistants, trainers, physios, masseurs, backroom staff and managers. As you can see, the first grade team gets to make lots of savings.

What Norths get out of it is a better team on game day, making them more competitive than they were before such feeder club arrangement. Just look at their results from 2001-2004. To give you an idea of the calibre of player you may have joining your reserve grade side, in a game in 2005 against Canterbury, Melbourne Storm send back 6 players, including Scott Hill and Adam Blair. Billy Slater even joined us for one game in 2006. They also share knowledge and have access on occasion to the facilities at Redfern. In fact as we speak, some of the Norths players have summer contracts and are training full time to try and get a first grade contract. The Rabbitohs have sent back players like Craig Wing, David Peachey and David Kidwell.

It wasn't their growth , it was their salvation

Why does it have to be our closest rivals? If the choice was that or going bust or descending into nothingness, then yeah.

I seriously don't see what the issue is. If it's that you don't want a partnership with a rival club, then don't have one with a rival club! It's not difficult! When lower league fans argue about this, they always say they don't want to be [insert rivals]'s feeder, or how would we feel if we were [insert rivals]'s feeder club?

If Hull were in the lower leagues, I wouldn't really care less if we were, say, Castleford's feeder club. If it benefited us I'd welcome it.

I don't see what the issue is that people are having other than "small man syndrome".
Is it being called a "feeder" club? That can always be changed to "partnership".
Is it the fact that they're getting "unwanted players"? They don't seem to have a problem signing them to contracts, or taking on dual reg players, so why does it matter if they're "on loan"?

The fact that they're a feeder club doesn't but an end to your ambitions. You can always go independent again. It's just a partnership that benefits both parties at a particular time. You wouldn't be "someone's b*tch". If the SL club don't give enough in the partnership, the CC team can end the deal at the end of the season and go with someone else, or go it alone. And vice versa.

So do you think it would be worth trying here for clubs that are willing to enter an agreement?

And do you think that SL clubs should be allowed to create their own feeder club should there not be enough clubs willing?

I reckon a club such as Blackpool could have benefited from this.

Couldn't care less if they try it or not , as long as my club doesn't become one , I can just about live with the dual reg situation although that can have significant impact on the leagues

Anything that reduces the credibility of the Championships as a stand alone ' worth winning in it's own right competition ' will just further damage a competition on it's knees right now , so I expect the RFL to announce it as from next season

So yes it might just happen , then I can start watching Miners and Easts instead