Imo, this discussion points quite clearly towards establishing an independent licensing body, to which the RFL publicly gives transparent goals to.

The RFL has to openly state what it wants, the Licensing Body is accountable to getting as close to this as it can. Complaints about goals should be aimed at one body, complaints about efficiency/competence goes to the other, rather than the confusion and distancing afforded to the RFL in keeping both aspects closed off.

Public, transparent decisions would be fairer for clubs to perform against, the RFL could be pinned down more easily as to what it is after. There could be a transparent system based on a whole range of things, performance financially and on the field; development in the local area; strategic locations; facilities and so on - just like with current licensing but constantly transparent. If the RFL wants to change the goalposts, all of the clubs and the public can see it happening.

As Smokey says, there is that wish I think pretty much all of us have: which is to judge them against our own standards (to be compared with RFL aims) and to judge them against their own aims (to compare actual outcomes with RFL aims), which I think could benefit from a clear separation of the two.

There's no need for the RFL to take day to day control though - it just needs to be reported to (and do some further investigations to ensure they aren't being fed BS by clubs). This way licensing could be done over shorter periods this way, to give a more rationalised threat each year to clubs on the basis of financial performance (etc) and not just shooting ourselves in the foot if a good 'club' is let down one year by an underperforming 'squad'.

As for the idea that the RFL may only set absolute aims, there's no need for that. They can have strategic aims for say, a Welsh team, London team, French team, teams with unique/nonoverlapping support areas or junior setups etc just by providing a clear and open bias towards these in a system - if clubs can meet the open criteria they have an edge over the heartland clubs (that have less potential) but are very clear on how they stand overall against them.

In terms of cost effectiveness, I'm not sure it is that likely - but that's how I think I'd like to see how the Pro/Semi-Pro leagues are structured. Independently.

On the latter point, the 700k was lent against the Crusader's ground as security. The RFL either get the money back or they get the ground.

Don't know why people insist on comparing 2 completely different sports... it's much harder to score a goal in football than a try in rugby that's why there are more upsets in football...

How often do football teams beat teams 13-0 in football? But 13 tries to 0 isn't unheard of even within the same league! Keep teams out and score a counter attack goal is a strategy that often works in football can't imagine that happening in RL.

My point was given Featherstone a relegation free year I don't think theyd be too far off bearing in mind they already managed to beat a SL team with their lower wages and regularly playing lower level opposition.

Fair point. But unless we go to a closed shop and acknowledge it, it is hardly outrageous to expect a transparent mechanism for deciding which clubs are included in SL. Licensing actually does poke its nose into the running of clubs, but then, crucially, fails in its primary purpose to provide an open, fair and meaningful framework for structuring the competition - in extremis it all just has to be made up as we go along.
Licensing doesn't have a system for dealing with failures. It needs one, so everybody knows where they stand. If one isn't introduced, we've moved to franchising and everyone will realise that, even if it isn't openly acknowledged. That'd be pointless and embarrassing, IMO. Better to just admit what it is and either ape the Aussie system or have the bottom club have to apply for re-election. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, have some form of P&R.
Even from an RFL perspective that has to be attractive. I think they thought they were getting the power to sort poop out, but actually they were just taking responsibility for some pretty intractable problems and making themselves a blame magnet.

It is transparent or as transparent as it can be. The information some want isn’t the RFL’s information to share. Similarly it isn’t a box ticking exercise, there is an element of judgement in it. What is the point, the benefit, of the RFL saying ‘ we thought club X was better in this respect’? People would just moan, cry conspiracy, accuse them of lying. Christ Starbug still accuses them of being in cahoots to break the law even though the UKBA have stated this inst the case. Imagine what would be said if the they came out and said something negative about a club?

Licensing does have a plan to deal with failures, It has dealt with 4. 3 of those 4 ‘failures’ Bradford, Wakefield, Salford, left the clubs in a much much much improved position. What it doesn’t do is constrain itself with rules which it has to follow blindly. That’s what some people don’t like. The fact that X doesn’t lead to Y, that Bust doesn’t equal kicked out. What has been done is to give time and space to deal with a fluid situation, one which they have only a modicum of control over.

As for being a blame magnet T’was ever thus. The RFL have been blamed for all the games ills since moses got his first gumshield, I don’t see it changing whatever happens. We literally have people blaming the RFL, and having a pop at them, for being on course to set the 2nd best attendance levels in the history of the game. They are always going to be to blame.

No, it most certainly doesn't do that!

The thing is though, that even with unwritten rules, people will work them out eventually and react to the incentives that exist. A lack of rules has consequences - a plus is that gives you the flexibility to make what you regard to be common sense choices. It does though leave the system anchorless and open to charges of inconsistency. A lack of rules will tend also to lead to a lack of compliance - for the small clubs there is no point and for the big ones there is no need. This puts the RFL in a very weak position.

So anyway, we've reached an agreement - the current system is not constrained by rules.
If we're going to retain it, all I ask is that we do so honestly, and not imply rigour where there is none:

'Super League is a RFL invitational tournament...'

Fudge! Fudge! Incomplete! Fibs!

*** Failure to establish above statement with evidence alert ***

See rlHERErl.

It was already a qualified statement. We are 'on course' to, not we are doing or already have done. Talk to me at the end of the season.

Happy to help!

I've never personally been that comfortable with a central body determining much when it comes to how a club chooses to spend money. If a club has spare cash to pay superstars, great. For me, the best a central body can do is ensure there's a landscape whereby bankrupting yourself isn't the only way to compete. Beyond that, if a club bankrupts itself anyway, well...

You can achieve that landscape simply by limiting the number of players in a squad that can be paid over, say 50k a year, and cap the squad size in total to say 30. The amount the 'star 13' actually get paid is the club's problem. Keep the central body out after that. Don't even link to turnover.

This is why I think it works...say the limit is 13 players, for example.

First up, you need a strong setup behind the scenes because you'll certainly need plenty good players outside your 13 to get you through a full season. At sub-50k these will more than likely have to be academy graduates, eager to prove themselves to get in a top 13, not Aussie has-beens.

It's impossible for a club to hoover up all the talent and stick it on the bench.

It won't lead to massive wage inflation, because with only 13 star berths available in each side, there'll be plenty talent competing hard on the fringes looking for one of those berths...in others words, excess supply. Even if you're a poorer club, once Leeds, Wigan etc. are 'full' there's plenty good players looking for a job.

Works for me anyhow.

in Argentinian football they have P+R but its based on a 3 season average it was to stop the big clubs getting relegated if they have one bad season last season River Plate were close to getting relegated and winning the league in the same season i know its got nothing to do with this just thought i would mention it

The RFL should just be upfront and call it as it is, closed shop with the existing clubs having a license. If new clubs want in and are viable then the comp expands or a club is replaced if they go bust and can no longer service the license.

Explain ' Viable ' , ' Bust ' and ' No longer service the licence ' in RFL terms?

Not that old chestnut again.

It should be fairly clear that the RFL have neither the ground nor the money. The problem is that the Crusaders secured other debts against the ground. If the ground was sold, it would not pay off all the debts secured against it.

More games played, more teams.



It was secured against the ground. To my knowledge no money has been paid back. You would expect some kind of announcement if it had been.

Come on Mr hedgehog the rfl are still owd £700k or they still own a large part of the wrexham ground.
Thers no way would they write off that kind of money