I very mch doubt p&r ever had anything to do with believing that the lower division club must be stronger than the top division club, certainly not in the SL era.

I'm not sure you've understood my point tbh. I'm not saying anything about what people believe.

No, promotion was a reward for finishing top of the second tier and an opportunity for the promoted club to ply it's trade at a higher level.
Being the sport of RL, this is not enough and we will soon have perpetual qualification for the top end of the Championship and lower end of Super League.

But once again, will the team in last in SL actually be spending that 1,825,000

As some late season signings by Saints has shown. Even the top side has not been spending up to the cap limit.

Harlequins RL/London Broncos spent to the cap 2008-09-10-11-12 and managed to finish 9th, 11th, 13th, 12th & 12th........
......teams that don't have the luxury of academy set ups such as wigan/saints (or the draw of playing for a "name"icon_wink.gif inevitably end up paying more to attract players.

BTW, to spend to the cap and stay "liquid" a club needs to turn over about 4.2 million......so in reality and without a sugar daddy, that's an average attendance of about 9/10k a game.......

Then why do you think the Championships only matter if the prize is promotion to Super League?

The inherent flaw in P+R wasn’t the assumption that the top team of the championship was better than the bottom of SL. The inherent flaw in P+R was the instability and short-termism it encouraged and in some cases forced on clubs.

P+R puts ‘not being relegated’ over and above everything else. It becomes the one and only focus. Youth development, improving facilities, improving marketing any kind of long term planning becomes unnecessary and also a lot more difficult. Any investment is then made against a back drop of the possibility of relegation and the huge drop in profile, sponsorship, and funding that entails. That instability permeates every aspect of those clubs affected by it. In a league like ours where it takes an absolute catastrophe for a big club to fall down, it exacerbates the gap between the haves and have –nots. What type of player is going to sign for a club near the bottom of SL when there is a decent chance that his contract might just disappear? How much extra would you want to sign for a club that may get relegated and cancel your contract as opposed to a Leeds or Wigan or Saints who really aren’t going to? Which youngsters are going to stick with yo-yo clubs or those scraping to survive in the top flight, who can’t really afford to take a risk on you when the big boys are playing in the big games and can pay you the big bucks?

The inherent flaw in P+R is the insidious destructive chaotic force that is relegation.

Don't understand what is wrong with a simple one up one down or two up two down. In fact we should've stuck with franchising but increase the number of teams in SL to 16. One of the main benefits from franchising was the increase of young British players breaking into first team. I also think next year attendences will get even worse next year.

The problem with 1up, 1 down is exactly as Smokey has just said. It almost forces lower end SL clubs into short termism. For example, in recent years you'd have had Catalans, Salford and Widnes all relegated under that system. That would have been disastrous in my opinion, and other teams like Cas would certainly have not been able to take chances on bringing young lads through their system, they'd have been looking much more at short term signings to ensure they didn't finish in a relegation place.

I just don't think relegation works in such a small league with such a big gap between the leagues.

I think it works relatively well (or could be made to work) in a bigger league. An 18/20 team SL with 2 up, 2 down.
How you get to that position is another matter.

The new system may mean that nobody gets relegated (or promoted) but, it will ensure that 1/3rd to a half of the top flight will "protect" themselves with short term signings. Indeed, these may be the only types of signings that they can make, just as it was pre franchising/ licensing.
It may well be published somewhere but, are there any safeguards in place to prevent the championship clubs "chasing the rainbow" and over stretching themselves.

Promotion and relegation has been "the elephant in the room" for a number of years and in typical RL style, we have "solved" the problem with a balmy concept that IMO will reduce the numbers of fans watching our game but, at least the big clubs will be happy !

You say that as though it's an either or situation. There's nothing incorrect in what I said, nor anything that precludes what you said, you've just used my post as a springboard to voice an unrelated point.

Well as I alluded to earlier, the teams coming up may not be any better able to compete than the teams going down who they are replacing. Finishing top of the Championship isn't the same as being better than the bottom of SL, and if that isn't the case, why should the two teams swap places?

But the flip side of that is that while Catalans, Salford and Widnes have been protected, other clubs have had their route to the top flight blocked. Why are those teams any more deserving than Championship teams if they aren't actually performing up to standard?

Not really. I said that the inherent flaw in P+R isnt the assumption that the top championship team is better than the bottom SL side (which was your assertion) because i dont believe it is.

The assumption that the top championship side is better than the bottom SL side would be way down the list of flaws in P+R should such an assumption exist.

In fact i would argue that even the most fervent supporters of P+R would accept that in a lot of cases, if not the majority of cases the opposite is true.

That depends on where and how and why you set the standard for them to reach. If not finishing bottom is the only standard to reach then yes they failed to meet that standard. But is that standard the right standard to drive RL forward to growth and prosperity.

In the cases you mention, not finishing bottom wasn’t the standard set for those clubs. Other things relating to more long terms drivers of growth like facilities and youth development were.

It is worth noting that Crusaders have been the only club to finish bottom twice (and lets remember it was the most ambitious of our franchises), and all the clubs to finish bottom also got to the play-offs or are there now.

2 seasons ago cas finished joint bottom with Widnes, only points difference above them, do you think we would have seen Adam Milner, Daz Clarke, Holmes, Massey etc get the games they did under the threat of relegation?