Having a license system is not the problem. Its the clowns running the sport that are the problem.

In my eyes (again I am using this to support what I already thought) this looks like more evidence the league needs to be reduced and the sky money shared out 10/12 ways rather than 14.

Looking forward it would be good to have a larger league with more teams but at the moment we are losing too much quality. There are still 4/5 teams in the league that struggle to stay in business and operate well under the salary cap. Then at the same time the top teams are not allowed to pay their players the money required to stop them going to the RFU and NRL.

The current league does not provide elite teams or a competitive completion.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the franchise system as it is. The problems arise when it isn't implememented and monitored properly. I mean, weren't Bradford granted a "B" Grade less than 12 months ago? Surely a black hole in there finances to the tune of £1 million would have pretty visible when their books were looked at?

why ?

Have you a bladder problem ?

How do you attract investment if you aren't going to win anything or you won't be allowed into SL.
The drawbridge only effects a few clubs add those to the 14 and expand in France and you have your 2 x 10 whilst the next tier prove their capabilities to expand to 2 x 12. 1 up/down annually.
Dalton knows where the Vikings would be without the SL guarantee they were given.
Franchising is killing our sport at the roots, whilst only being of relevance to a few clubs as the top clubs will always be top clubs.
Over the last 50 years the downs of the Wigans, Leeds, Saints, Wire etc have been few and far between, whilst the history of the Cas, Wakey, Hudds, HKR, Salford's hasn't been greatly different to the Fax, Fev, Leigh, Oldham's of the world.
Its time to be inclusive not exclusive, it's time for unity not division - we have a very real threat from the RFU and we won't tackle it if we are weak.

2 leagues of 10 wont help anyone. Firstly it would mean less games which in turn leads to less income. The players would not willingly take less money because they would be playing less games either, so you would end up with teams paying out the same amount of money yet receiving much less. I don't see how that can work, please explain.

It doesn't have to mean less games, it could mean you play each team three times instead of two. Those games would hopefully be more competitive, more attractive to audiences and hopefully attract bigger attendances because it's likely that the best supported teams will generally be within the top 10.

The more serious issue would be what happened to the teams in the lower league. That League would need a good television deal to provide adequate funding, because in order to be successful it would need to be much closer to Super League level than the Championship currently is.

I'd seriously doubt that a 'two tier Super League' would be sustainable with both league's being under the guise of 'Super League'. Sky would only care about the highest league and that's where all the money would go.

I don't think anyone on these forums would know the ins and outs of such a decision and how feasible it would be so it's all hypothetical.

If you look at the 3 teams that screwed up in the last couple of years.

Crusaders - Mr Moss took everyone for a ride including Wrexham fc. He was only intrested in the money and selling the ground for a nice payday.

Wakefield - old Ted towards the end was clueless no cash and was running the club like a semi pro team. Look at the change since the new guy has come in.

Bradford - Again short term planning for this guy. 2 years on the bounce they have sold cheap season tickets. They sold a large amount but how many go each week. The ones that do go are then handing the cash saved into the burger vans etc which are not run by the club. He has no cash to support the club & no idea how to get extra cash in.

If we were to go back to P&R no doubt we would have a couple of teams who would be yo-yoing inbetween leagues and at least one of them going belly up as they would be paying full time cash but playing in front of a 4,000 people each week. Do Leigh, Fax or Fev have backers who could support this? (maybe fev with probiz coming on board)

Its not the SC or the RFL, its the clubs managing outside of their finances

The SC prevents excessive expenditure-It holds wealthy clubs back such as Wigan and Wire rather than hinders less wealthy clubs. They should be the ones complaining about it

How on earth is the supposition (which is nonsense) that franchising is killing non-sl heartland sides responsible for Bradfords problems.

Some on here will look for any excuse-The answer is in the mirror, Bulls Board

Of course it is the Bulls BOD fault, the RFL criticism is only relevant to the fairly recent awarding of a licence to a club with serious financial problems

The situation with the licencing issue is that it was supposed to stop things like this happening , but it seems it doesnt