Re the first point, it's not about reserve team players having options in terms of finding a club to move on to and play in their first team. It's more that academy team players (restricted by age) don't all reach their full potential by the time they become ineligible to play for said academy team. This means that they may not be able to find a club who will take them on to continue their development. A reserve team has no such restrictions.

Around 5,000 for Fax crowds in SL sounds about right, but we never had any real success to build on that. The close proximity of clubs in West Yorkshire does mean that winning teams will attract the spectators.

London and Toulouse aren't really attractive home fixtures for Fax. You're right about Toronto though for this season, as a) it's a new club, and b) they'll be one of the two teams that everyone wants to beat. Leigh and Fev will be the other "attractive" home games for Fax. The Toulouse game could potentially have some interest, but that would depend on league positions at the time (it's the second to last game of the season).

If an away side bring 250 (at best) to a game at the Shay, and if those away fans all pay top dollar for tickets £20, then that's £5,000 in ticket revenue........now let's say that Halifax have 14 home games over the course of the season, so that's £70,000 all in, for away fan ticket revenue. Now, let's say that each away fan buys 2 Pints and a pie.....let's call that a round tenner, so £105,000 in income from away fans all season. Now, let us say that Halifax average 1,500 HOME fans a game, drinking 2 pints and eating a pie for a total cost of £25 a pop, because a ST is cheaper than an away day ticket.....1,500 fans x £25 is £37,500 a game and £525,000 all season.
£525,000 (Home fans) and £105,000 (Away fans) is £630,000.......

Now....lets replace one of those nice local sides and their 250 fans with a big bad nasty French outfit with no fans at all.......what is the impact on the £630,000 of match day income from fans expressed as a percentage? £7,500 in revenue GONE...or just over 1%.......SKY TV give you more than that a season for the right not to show your matches.

[list[/list:u

Which, roughly translated, means that, "we'll wait and see if Toronto and/or Toulouse are anywhere.near good enough, before making a decision".
Anyone who thinks the expansion is just about increasing SL numbers is badly mistaken, the top flight will only be increased to accommodate Toronto, Toulouse and possibly London.
The only side issue is whether the game sticks with promotion and relegation and whether there is any kind of return to franchising/ licensing.

What a way to run a business. Absolute farce.

I agree and I also don't agree.

Not making the decision well in advance is a poor effort, however, it won't really make any difference, it is possible that a team "might" get relegated so you have to play to escape the million pound game scenario really. So in essense what difference does it make, only maybe to contracts if there is "actually" no relegation this year?

How are clubs supposed to plan ahead? If there is no relegation, then clubs may choose to invest in facilities, give younger players a chance, sign players to longer contracts etc. As it is, the teams likely to be at the bottom end must focus only on the short term.

Correct. It's a terrible way to run a business. Appalling.

It's a tough question but the only two options really in terms of sport is promotion and relegation (like Football have, one up one down so everyone knows the score. You finish last you're down. None of this Middle 8's rubbish). Or go a closed shop with proper franchising. Like the NRL/NFL and even some of the Twenty20 Cricket Leagues.

Problem is. You'll get people moaning about relegation as clubs can't plan for the future or livelihoods are at stake (if you perform consistently poor in your job would it be the same as the employees as a relegated club in terms of job loss?) or in terms of a 'closed shop' those that miss out will inevitably complain about not having a chance! There are some teams out there who have no potential, will not ever be an SL team and would complain that their team couldn't get into SL.

Stinks a bit of ‘let’s see who is heading for the middle 8s and then make the decision’. The suspicion being that there’ll be more impetus to do away with relegation if one or two of the wealthier and more powerful clubs are struggling mid-season.

If they’ve run out of time and don’t want rush it, keep things as they are and plan for 2020 ahead of 2019. That’d be transparent, reasonable and fair.

Agreed, what I'm saying is that it's unacceptable not to have it set out before the season starts, as it absolutely will impact decisions taken by teams towards the bottom of the table. FWIW, I'd advocate a hybrid structure, where some teams are protected if their off field performance warrants it (hitting criteria in terms of crowds, profit, running an academy etc), but there is still a route into SL via on field success.

I've been giving this more thought and have come up with a marketing slogan for the unprotected SL teams:

[iThere to fall when others fail[/i

That'll help them enter a upward cycle of self-improvement, I'm sure. Who wouldn't want to see their team subjected to that kind of indignity, after all?

Crowds, profit and a successful academy are their own rewards for goodness sake!

Tbf, if you're on a wind-up, it's quite a good one.



More realistically, you could achieve the same aim by having a re-election system like the Football League used to.

It seems very clear that, if there is no criteria set well in advance, "we" have to be playing the "wait and see" game and if none of the expansion clubs are doing sufficiently well ie, competing at the top end of the Championship, the decision to expand SL will de deferred for another 12 months.
As stated previously, there is no way that the plan to increase SL to 14 clubs, is for any other reason than to include Toronto + 1.
It's not as though Sky have offered a whole extra wedge of cash to facilitate the change (ie to give them some additional TV games), in fact the opposite is true and the current Sky monies will need to be spread across more clubs and I dont see too many of the SL CEO's voting for reduced TV income ??