The money split is key to what will happen, I favoured the two full time tens but anything is an upgrade to what we have
£400000 to the second tier would allow a £800000-1000000 spend for a FT squad, making the three eights am interesting comp for promotion

You raise a good point - with a sport that is played at professional levels in more than one country, I guess a draft system would never work. I must admit I never thought of this. Good point.

Re homesickness - Players do get homesick. If they didn't then London Broncos wouldn't struggle to attract players. 3/4 hours down the M1 or M40, yet they won't do it. It is a problem that has existed for years - not just recently when they've struggled in the league positions.

Also, you see players leaving a club in Yorkshire because they want to play near home in Lancashire. I guess it is their preference, so I can't fault it...but does highlight the point I made in my post - the fact SL will shrink will probably solve this issue.

Your right, kick both clubs out. Kick all the smaller clubs out apart from the big 5. Then the 'big clubs' can do a smokey and play with themselves.

The list of clubs that have lost as much or more than us in recent years is pretty long, given the size of the league.

Our business model isn't sustainable without board subsidy - how could it be? Our competitors of a similar size are similarly unsustainable and subsidised, and being uncompetitive on the pitch is not a path to sustainability off it. It is just the nature of SL. Cutting the Sky cash pie into fewer bigger pieces might help, but eventually and understandably, the richer clubs will start pushing for a cap rise and we'll be back to square one. So SL can retain some of its best players, they'll claim (with some justification), but also undoubtedly to retain their competitive advantage.
From a purely business pov we might well be better off as a community club with a part-time playing staff in the Championship - but it isn't purely business. Which is fortunate, or your fixture list would be distinctly lacking in variety!

I didnt say kick them out. Your chippiness is boring.

my argument was specific to the effects of P+R on HKR. HKR didnt benefit from P+R, they had to over-spend to get up, over-spend to stay up, bring in expensive short-term overseas players to pad out the squad, neglect youth development to pay for it, then have to play catch up with youth development

As are your 25000 posts a day.... That's life

Brilliant........

Cheers

Without it we'd still be in the Championship though. Being in SL is the bigger issue than P&R. It isn't like we suddenly started breaking even when they got rid of it. We lose money because that is what the majority of SL clubs do. Our losses are actually slightly less than the mean average.
P&R does encourage a degree of short-termism, especially given that relegation is generally viewed as catastrophic rather than an opportunity to rebuild. Franchising was showing some [ivery[/i equivocal signs of reducing that, but they didn't have the stomach to stick with it when hard decisions were required, so here we are.

With P&R back I can see a club like hkr stopping spending on Jnr's and pumping all its money into continually signing players to ensure safety. If we went down it would likely see our jnr development dry up anyway so nothing lost.

P+R allowing HKR to massively overspend (and they do, relative to most SL clubs HKR’s balance sheet is one of the worst, a mean average is pretty misleading, especially when you consider that 3 clubs regularly make pretty hefty profits, there are some who make small losses, Salford and St’s will have some exceptional costs, and London lose loads)on overseas players, put themselves behind the 8 ball in terms of youth development and HKR still getting in to SL, is if anything an argument against P+R

You have to have 8 club-trained players in your top 25 earners though, so you'd risk having really poor depth. There's a balance - there's no point pumping loads of cash in to producing talent just to see it poached, so you need a decent first team too, but without a good pipeline or cash to pay fees you're always going to be scrabbling about to make up numbers.

Well, for you obviously.

The fact that a minority of clubs make 'hefty profits' actually makes our position relative to the mean better, within the loss making majority. Our losses are not in any way exceptional, and a mean average could only be considered misleading in this instance if we were a long way from the median, which I don't believe we are.
We had one season in SL under the P&R system, so it is difficult to judge its impact on us - at worst is cost us a year of 'building' bottom up. But making that leap, there was a pretty compelling case for a bit of top down anyway.
Whether SL would have been better off without us - well, we came up in place of Cas, who you once presented as the example we should follow, but you now seem to think are cack, but they're long back irrespective. Once we stabilised we've gone 7th, 4th, 7th, 7th, 10th, (currently) 6th. Middling, I think it is fair to say. We've so far avoided the all too common ignominy of going bust, and a few players have started come through our youth structures. Our problems apply widely throughout SL. P&R won't solve them, but it didn't cause most of them either. Clubs that are arguably too big for the competition, but not numerous enough to form their own, and a widespread willingness amongst others to run losses is what makes most clubs unsustainable - not subtle adjustments to strategy brought about by league structuring.

Do you mean like Huddersfield who were relegated in 2001 but bounced back much stronger in 2002 ?

Admitted they knew they were ' gone ' very early, but the examples you couldnt find are actually there ,if you genuinely want to find them