This is a fair question. The licensing system has flaws - as does any system - but it's important to note that there were signs that it was partially responsible for some significant improvements :

- There are several new stadia in RL which certainly would not have come about (at least at this time), had it not been for the licensing system.

- Similarly, the renewed focus on youth development which is producing a good number of increasingly well-trained and prepared players can, I think, be traced in part to licensing.

- One could even argue that the system has succeeded in protecting championship clubs from the sort of optimistic suicide expenditure which used to be commonplace, even if it hasn't wholly prevented SL clubs from losing control of their own budgets.

As in any walk of life, organisations and individuals will only comply with a set of rules if they think those rules are here to stay. If there's a chance they might be changed or disapplied, then there will be widespread avoidance. That, I think, is why there's no real progress on new stadia in Castleford and Wakefield, for example.

I'm not averse to addressing issues which crop up - there's a good case in point for a change to the youth age-group system which seems to have been rather royally screwed up in the last year or two - but the licensing system was designed to provide all clubs with a very clear understanding of what was required to participate as a minimum, while protecting overly-excitable boards from rolling a dice with the existence of their club. That sort of stability provides the ability for ambitious and well-managed clubs to plan and build, rather than guess and gamble.

This set of new proposals would throw that stability out of the water, and reintroduce the gambling, self-destruction and wishful-thinking of the previous era, without any real gains in terms of facilities or player development. It's crackers. I genuinely think the person who thought this up should be denied access to any decision-making position within the game.

I don't think "a handful of Championship clubs" have had any great influence on this.

More the lack of competition top to bottom and the financial position of the SL.

I haven't seen it asked (Sorry if I missed it) so here goes.
Does the new ideas (especially option 3) mean the club tie ups have to be thrown in the bin.
How can a comp that will suddenly involve all 24 teams allow for 2/3 of those teams to share a playing pool?[

When push came to shove it turned out to be simply 'incumbency' though. Clearly those outside are no longer going to buy into that - they may have suspected before, but now they know.

So either SL effectively breaks away again or introduces a real possibilty of movement between different levels of the pro game. Neither is an easy choice, but it can't be put off any longer. The prentence is damaging and no longer tenable anyway.

Where has this ‘lack of competition from top to bottom’ myth come from? Since 2009 and the advent of franchising we have had 4 different grand finalists, and 3 different league leaders in 4 years. We have seen Hudds, Hull KR and Les Catalans finish top 4. We have seen 3 different teams finish bottom in those 4 years and 12 out of 15 clubs reach the play-offs.

For RL that’s pretty bloody competitive.

If they really want this mid season elite split at least do it in a sensible(ish) manor, this is my earlier idea drawn up

Two teams of 10

East League/West League
Based on the current highest 20 teams

West league

Warrington
Wigan
Saints
Salford
Widnes
Huddersfield
Catalans
Leigh
Halifax
Sheffield

East League

Leeds
Bradford
FC
KR
Castleford
Wakefield
London
Featherstone
Batley
Dewsbury

Play each other once.
9 games

Top 4 from each then go into playoff LEAGUE of 8 teams

Currently that would be

Wigan
Huddersfield
Warrington
Catalans
Leeds
Bradford
FC
KR

Points NOT carried over. Play each other home and away top 4 in semi final.
Magic weekend fixtures as 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4
Games played 15+original 9 = 24 league matches 1 or 2 extra for semi/finalists
plus CC games
leaves time to fit in international fixtures in which most rep players will be in top league teams.

Bottom 12

Saints
Salford
Widnes
Leigh
Halifax
Sheffield
Castleford
Wakefield
London
Featherstone
Batley
Dewsbury

Play each other twice top 4 Championship trophy
Bottom relegated if there is anyone ready to take their place.

9 original games plus 22 league games, magic weekend = 32 games plus championship playoff and CC games
Extra games for extra revenue.
-------

Beauty of the idea is everyone is included top and bottom clubs playing each other.
Beginning of the season has to be intense to make sure you're in the top 4 but because of the lower teams also gives a chance with early season form not always being great.
Everyone has something to play for.

Money for first season is equally distributed which means some of the big boys have to take a hit.
2nd season money is distributed incrementally based on league positions.
------------

Personally i'd rather just a straight 2 leagues of 10 with a 2 up 2 down end of season. Just can't see the money coming in to support it.

I agree. In terms of who could win the league, we actually have a genuine choice this year where it would be hard to back a clear favourite from Wigan, Leeds and Warrington, while an outside chance run by Catalans and Huddersfield couldn't be ruled out. In any previous year, Saints would be in the mix too. To have 6 teams all with a very realistic prospect of winning the trophy is remarkably competitive compared to most competitions in most professional sports.

That's why I see this as a tail-wagging-dog exercise. The focus is not on what's best for the clubs at the top, or on how to add even more clubs to those potential champions. Instead it's on offering an easier ride to those at the bottom.

However, I also agree with "Mild Rover" when he says that the primary determinant of licensing turned out to be incumbency. I certainly think that the RFL should have grasped the nettle and booted out a club in the last licensing round in order to drive home the message that the criteria were to be enforced. However, that's an argument to enforce the licesing system, not an argument to abolish it in favour of something dreamed up by Nigel Wood after he'd had too many magic mushrooms in his pie.

The problem with licensing is the snap-shot nature of it. I said right from the very beginning the 3 year time-frame was pointless and counter-productive. Why look at how that club is doing at one point in one year and then again at another point in three years time? An awful lot can happen, positive and negative in the intervening period.

The structure the game should go for is the most obvious and simple one. The clubs in SL are in there until the f@ck it up, the clubs outside SL are outside SL until they can make a pretty convincing argument that they wont f@ck it up.

Right now, Salford, London and Cas are f’cking it up. Put them on a warning and tell that by mid-season next year, you have to make a pretty convincing argument to stay in SL. Tell Hull KR they have a few issues to sort out if they aren’t to fall in to this group, and Wakefield need to have a stadium by when they said they would or they fall in to this position.

Tell clubs outside SL that they need to come and show a plan where they are going to get 10k a week, get x amount from sponsors, have a decent quality facility and generally how they aren’t going to f’ck it up if they are promoted.

If that means we drop 5 clubs and promote 0, so be it. We will find a league structure which works with 9 sides. If it means we drop 0 and promote, Fax, Fev, Toulouse and Sheffield, so be it. We will find a league structure that works with 18 sides.

Roy Haggerty and Smokey - you do know we are in a reccession don't you ?

Meh ?

I'm with Tony Smith on this one.

A complete, radical overhaul of the system to the short-termist automatic P&R format will just encourage those clubs in danger to do what they were doing before. Pack their teams with journeymen, sod youth development and regard second from bottom as a successful season.

Whoever gets relegated will have to shed a large chunk of their playing squad, who will just get picked up by the promoted side who find themselves with four months to assemble a full-time squad good enough to finish second from bottom.

It's too early to write franchising off as a failure.

The global recession might be the reason the RFL haven't kicked someone out of SL. There is no money in the game.

Im not sure that its all that relevant to what i put.

Totally agree. To prove this point my club Castleford Tigers will forget all about moving to a new stadium. They will tart-up Wheldon Road a little bit and spend what little we have on a team to see us get out of the bottom 4 in SL.