Similarily just stating you want the lower tiers to become ' Vibrant and worth winning ' wont happen unless you actually have a realistic plan of how you are going to achieve it

But it seems words are all the governing body are any good at , and unfortunatly that seems enough for far too many followers ( fans and club administrators ) of RL

It use to be funny listening to the excuses for why these clubs were failing whilst in a protected environment like a liscenced league, now im tired of listening to them.

I'll stick to the amateures for now and see were the pro game goes in the next couple of years

Indeed. How any jobs survived the Crusaders debacle is beyond me, but in this day and age, skillful excuse making is valued more highly than taking responsibility.

How about a move to Cambridge? I know a few people there who like watching the game and they reckon it'd take off

London need to stay in London, even if it's in the Lower divisions.

There is a lot more to it than that. Cas have been relegated twice from SL and there attendances held. I know relegation battles do give the season some meaning as opposed to this year. However I feel this is far more a protest stay away and little to do with the season being over though of course that is a factor.

RL In the uk is not big enough for franchising. If we had 12 clubs drawing 12000 each at £25 a head I would give franchising a chance, we don't so end it now

Sad thing was, not even 1400 there. Obviously had to count all the ST's to inflate the gate a bit. As they are entitled to do.

Looking around, I would have estimated 300 or so Bulls, 4-500 or so Broncos.

The Bulls fans who had already made the decision to go down for Friday, will , in the main, made the changes necessary to go to the match Saturday, with a few grumbles.

I'm not sure how many London fans will have stayed away over this but it looked like the London support was down, compared with the similar (300) numbers Bulls brought to Orient last year.

Keep licensing, make it much more clear. With the very first round of licenceing Boots 'n' All did a segment each week on a club who had a bid entered and they did their own gradings using the guidelines. Last time I dont recall anything of the such.

The RFL also need to grow some balls and throw out teams who do not make the grade. An obvious example imo is the clubs like Wakey, Bulls, Salford shouldn't be in because of the financial difficulties they have had since the last lot of licencing. Also Cas, Wakey, HKR off the top of my head for old stadiums.

It's a shame but we can all almost predict the clubs that will be selected and I very much doubt that any of the current SL clubs wont be in it.

I would agree at throwing out teams who aren't good enough if there is a club ready to replace them. If SL is 14 teams (and all it can realistically be reduced to is back down to 12, which I wouldn't favour anyway) then licensing's job is to pick the 14 best clubs. I also think the licensing period should be 5 years not 3.
I don't see why a club that goes into administration should be relegated, plus if you get rid of Cas, Wakey and Hull KR that's 6 clubs gone, who replaces them and why?

The problem with licenceing is the lack of transparency in the process, which leads to the supporters (including me) to think that there's an element of fiddle in it. A few years back in soccer the League of Wales threw out their then champions (Rhyl) because they didn't reach the required standard - could anyone, even in their wildest dreams, see that happening in RL?

I think the easiest option would be to stay at 14 with P&R coming at the end of 2014. Agree with the comment above about taking away the element of fiddle. Well said.

you could have P & R with a help to the team promoted that they can't be relegated until third season so they can build from within. If they finish bottom in year 1 or 2 then the next team above them who hasn't been promoted in the last 2 years gets relegated. This would help as no new team coming up would be competitive in it's first year and would still struggle in year 2. It gives them time to build a squad with transfers and from their own academy.

I agree with that, I know the RFL release a summary along with a grade but I think it needs to be much more detailed with a relatively detailed report and a grade in each of the key areas (facilities, finances, youth, on-field performance etc) along with with the overall grade plus areas where each club needs to improve, and if they've improved on areas from last licensing round.