Bulls under new ownership

Quote: Mild Rover "Because they failed utterly on the very criterion on which licensing is primarily based'"

On one of them. Regardless, that doesn’t automatically mean someone else is a better bet.

If someone, anyone, were proposing a realistic scenario where Fax, Fev, or Leigh would be bringing in 10k fans, with more room for growth, they had a comparable youth structure or were ready to put one in place, and if they were capable of even getting close to Bradford in the other criteria then I would be in favour of them being replaced.

Quote: Mild Rover "I didn't, the principles of licensing did. You're right though, perhaps it would be better if Bradford were given a place in SL for next season. And we can do that - we just have abandon those principles and find some new ones. Little bit embarrassing, but that's life. Trying to retain Bradford in SL (assuming, as always, a newco) and the principles of licensing, is doomed to failure. Do it quick and clean or let it wither away - either way it'd be over. Eventually it'll need replacing - why wait?'"

Ok, long story short. What is the principle of licensing?
Is it to have the best clubs in SL?
Is it to allow clubs to grow?
Is it to give more stability?

You still seem to be criticising the RFL for not following a rule you know didn’t exist.

Quote: Mild Rover "Tinkering it to death. The vote to change the rules so that entering administration was only a points deduction and a black mark was a major retreat. This would be surrender, however they try to dress it up. Folk aren't daft. Well not [ithat[/i daft anyway.'"

Im not sure why you seem to value this one criteria over and above everything else. Im not sure why you see this specific criteria as sacrosanct.

Quote: Mild Rover "Think about it like this. Licensing moved the emphasis from how the team performed each year to how the club performed over 3-year cycles.
Imagine under a system of P&R, straightforward 1 up, 1 down, a team gets relegated. But they say, 'actually we're not that bad, we just had a rubbish coach, but we've sacked and replaced him now and we'd to like to stay up'. The governing body thinks this team might indeed get better under their new coach, so they come up with an innovation - a play-off with the winner of the second division. This would likely provoke some scepticism, and if they claimed that the system hadn't in fact changed and they would still be standing by the principles of 1 up, 1 down the scepticism would become incredulity. The governing body have got stuck trying to avoid an unwanted outcome of its own rules, and still wanting people to believe that they are enforcing them in an equitable manner. They can't - they have to live with the outcome (a principled approach) or be honest about changing the rules (a pragmatic approach), it is one or t'other.'"

I think you are drawing a false analogy, based again on the fact that the RFL haven’t followed a rule you know didn’t exist. It didn’t exist this year, it didn’t exist last year. The RFL haven’t changed the rules. They are following the process they laid out. Maybe a different club would have lead to a different conclusion, I accept that, but this is the process they set down.

RLFANS.COM MERCHANDISE

RLFANS.COM SPONSORS & HELP