No. No they don't. There is not and never has been p&r between the semi-pro and pro competitions. Name the last winner of minor counties championship to be promoted to the county championship? Or the last team to finish bottom of the county championship to be relegated to the minor counties championship. Never happened and never will. The last two counties to join the county championship from the semi-pro minor counties championship (Durham 1992 and, if memory serves, Glamorgan in 1926) did so not on the basis of p&r but on the basis of bidding for place in the pro league on the basis of their overall club strength (not the result of a year in a different semi-pro comp) - ie a franchise.

The fact that the professional competition, the county championship, has grown large enough to be split into two divisions is an irrelevance when talking about promotion and relegation between the championships and SL in rugby league - because the argument is for promotions and relegation between two separate comps, one pro and one semi pro, not within the one pro comp split into divisions (Unless you're arguing that there should be promotion and relegation within SL - and you're not putting forward that, are you? Because that would be stupid)

And it's worth noting that even within the professional competition, division and P&R only exist within one comp (the least lucrative)I am only aware of three sports that have introduced P&R between separate pro and semi pro comps

If we end up with enough full time professional clubs in Super League to split it into divisions, I'd be fine with promotion and relegation within SL. But that still wouldn't address the issue of promotion and relegation between different professional and semi-professional comps.

The problem is some fans of semi-pro clubs in the semi-pro comp like to pretend that their clubs are professional, not semi pro, and that we have one professional competition of three divisions. Which just isn't based on any sort of reality.

And I still maintain that P&R between two different comps of completely different standards and characters - whether the semi-pro and pro comps, or the amateur and semi-pro comps - is madness

I'm sorry you're both wrong and too stupid to understand either the English language when written down, or recognise basic facts. Happy now?

Pro-team in RL made a loss of £2.5m and has debts of £9m

Semi-pro team in RL made a profit of £20,000 and has net assets of £12,000.

Teebs, you're right - there's no way a semi-pro club can compete with those staggering numbers.

I'm pleased but not surprised that your new club management has learnt to manage its finances better than the old club management did in SL (though let's face it they could hardly do worse).

Not sure of its relevance though.

Or are you joining the apples and oranges brigade and comparing two entirely different clubs, not the experience of your own?

In which case, I'm still not sure of the relevance.

We should be trying to sustain as many FT SL clubs as possible and somehow create a pathway into the top flight for the best teams in the CC.
If we take out 4 current SL cklubs, as has been muted by many on here, plus some in the media, we instantly reduce the pool of quality players competeitng
at the highest level in the sport.
Although this may push up level of competition by a small amount, I think we are kidding ourselves about just how much improvement there would be.
There are 16 teams in the NRL and nobody is calling for a reduction over there.
A smaller league would end up like the old scottish premier league with far too many repeat fixtures and the teams at the bottom of the league would quickly become the new Widnes or London.
The situation comes back to clubs living within their means and to use the Scottish Premier League as the example again, there is no guarantee of financial success.

The way forward is to add teams to SL as they meet SL criteria and eventually thre may be sufficient number to create two divisions of SL.
Any fixture imbalance is taken care of with the play offs

Does anyone know what it costs to run an academy system?
Is it feasible for the RFL to provide ring fenced funding for all Championship clubs to run academy teams as a way of closing the gap in playing standards between SL and Championship? Are there sufficient coaches of a high enough quality to make a difference?
You'd still get players wanting to play at the highest standard they could and the best ones would move upwards (for suitable compensation of course) but if any club promoted to SL already had the coaching and systems in place to produce their own players it might ease the jump. At the moment it seems any club going up needs 2-3 years just to set up and start to see the benefit of those systems and any club going down has to reduce their development efforts due to cost.

Now you need to read my post again, Gusset stain. The caveat of semi pro was dragged in by you for your own ends. FT clubs outside SL ceased when p&r was withdrawn, prior to that Salford, Hudds, HKR, Cas and Widnes had been FT in the second tier - no investor would support a FT club without promotion by results.

We need to increase FT clubs, 12-14 clubs playing a sport at a decent level means the death of that sport.

Cricket certainly has P&R - ask any Yorkshire supporter. IMO it was the introduction of P&R among other things that made our international side more competitive.

is that the Hudds whose ome year stay in NL1 saw them run away with the comp, and the NL clubs subsequently cut the Salary cap to £150k and demand an end to parachute payments?

The Cas who had to argue for the SC to be doubled, so we could keep an FT squad, and walked away with the comp on both our one year visits?

The Widnes who couldn't stay full time in their second year except by spending money the just didn't have, gambling the existence of the club o
80 min of football in the hope that they'd be able to soend the 2008 SL money covering the 2007 NL1 wages? Lost the gamble and then killed the club the day after the GF?

The HKR who were FT for one year, and would have been no more capable of maintaining it than Cas would have been or Widnes were?

The fact one-year visitors and clubs leaving the semi-pro comp
have managed to be FT for a brief period doesn't alter the nature of the comp as a semi pro one - a salary cap of £150k (or £300k if you prove you can afford it) clearly shows its a semi pro comp.

For full time professional rugby league you need serious money from TV: and no broadcaster has yet proved willing to rovide that.

Which is exactly why only sports awash with TV money (football) or stupid corporate money on top of silly TV money (RU) can maintain the romantic, and recent, invention of P&R between different pro and semi-pro comps.

And why other sports (cricket) have mever even tried experimenting with it.

But feel free to carry on ignoring facts and pretending that apples and oranges are the same thing. I'll carry on hoping no-one in authority listens to you and sacrifices more clubs on the alter of a delusion, following Workington, Oldham, Halifax, Widnes and others.

Another one who either can't or won't read or recognise facts?

2 points in response

May or may not be truewithin a fully pro league ( and one which is only one of the pro clubs' main competitions) is in any way relevant to the merits or otherwise of P&R between two different, semi pro and fully pro competitions.

The comparable relationship in cricket to SL and the championships is that between the County Championship and the Minor Counties Championship. The is not, never has been and, I suspect, never will be P&R between cricket's pro and semi pro comps.

So we agree, make two FT divisions and have p&r between them.

Except there aren't enough full time clubs for two full time divisions. And it doesn't adress the alleged problems caused by no P&R between pro & semi pro comps - just moves the position of alleged closed door.

But yes, if SL grows to a size where it can be split into divisions, I'd be happy. Fans of semi-pro clubs (and others) would still be complaining. And I'd still oppose ateempts to drag the sport backwards.

I'll tell you what facts I can recognise, the Champiionship clubs are in the state they're in as far as standards of play go because despite all the promises in 1995 the SL clubs cut them adrift. And then refused them access to the elite league. What we have today - only 3 -4 clubs SL really competitive is the result.
I reckon that Fev, Fax, Batley or Leigh could, even part time give a good account of themselves against the lower end of SL. Return to some form of P&R with caveats as far as ground facilities etc if you like, but the main qualification must be "what happens on the field of play" as the High Court has it in the London Welsh case. If we do that there may be some rough times ahead for the promoted clubs, and a bit of turbulence, but eventually we'll have a robust well supported game with regular movements between two divisions. That is the only way forward, disaster is looming for Bradford, and it's rumoured for Salford and Cas, possilbly others. Why? Because at this point in the season their fans have no reason to part with their hard earned to watch their team get hammered by the top teams week in week out. And games against lower opposition are totally meaningless. Plus how long can teams like Fev or Fax be expected to maintain teams at the top of their division? How long can the fans of these teams be expected to fork out for meaningless cricket scores like 69 -0 against Hunslet. And yet if they do fall from grace and another team takes over at the top, they'll have to get the qualifying results all over again. Plus the farce last year of Widnes going through the motions, and Wakey expecting to be dropped only to be told at the last knockings they were in because Crusaders, who'd signed players for the next season were dropping out should be avoided at all costs.

errm. wow. just wow.

but you accept that there's no such thing in cricket as promotion and relegation between the Minor Counties Championship (semi pro) and the County Championship (pro)?