Quote: Hopie "That is somewhat speculative but only one could have been removed, what about the others? wasn't the franchising system and licensing process supposed to prevent failing clubs being in Super League? what does it do if it doesn't do that?'"
P+R wouldnt get rid of them either. Franchising isnt supposed to stop clubs failing, no system ever will do that, what it is supposed to do is give clubs the space to grow and improve, to re-prioritise so that clubs can concentrate on something other at the start of every season than looking to sign as many cheap Aussie Journeymen as they can, neglecting facilities, youth development, and commercial growth, just to avoid relegation and the intrinsic damage that causes.
Quote: Hopie "Less than 4 years, two complete licensing processes and another license issued mid process. Yet four clubs have hit a financial crisis. If the new system hasn't changed things for the better what is the justification for the change? how many clubs went to the wall in the preceding four seasons?'"
The Status quo doesnt need to not justify itself simply because 'thats how it is' a change needs to justify itself only as much as the status quo does. And London, Widnes, and Halifax all had severe financial issues in the four years prior to franchising, in a lot kinder financial climate.
Quote: Hopie "Changing the system means it's impossible to know what would have happened under the old system. With no relegation or promotion results are less important and no doubt the last three years would have been different. The team going up and down would have been decided on the pitch (and minimum criteria being met).
The new system led to a ridiculous expansion of the league and the play-offs and a devaluing of the game on the field, it hasn't solved more problems than it's added and should never have been brought in. Time to give up on a failed experiment. I hope that 2015 will see a real shake up in the structure of the game as a whole.'"
The clubs voted for an expansion of the league, twice, once in 2008 (before franchising was implemented) and again in 2010 (before the 2nd round of franchising) the size of the league is separate from the franchising process. If the clubs think that 14 is too many, they are able to vote for a reduction before the next round of franchises.
But lets look at the success of franchises if we are pointing out the negatives,
[listwe have more young british players and fewer overseas players (though not enough and too many respectively) playing than we did under P+R
we have seen Crusaders, Les Catalans and Castleford be given the space to improve from bottom one year, to top 8 the next (something which literally couldnt happen under P+R),
We have seen St Helens and Salford move from two dilapidated grounds which were massive drains on the clubs, to two brand new, top class facilities
We have seen work start at Craven Park to improve another dilapidated facility as well as Belle Vue
[/list
Not bad for 4 years, i dont really know what you were expecting.
And as for the promotion being based on winning a GF and minimum criteria being met, then that would simply be pointless as no club outside SL is near to meeting what the 'minimum criteria' would need to be. Some even in SL arent near to where the minimum criteria need to be.
