Smarter than most Kiwis then if that's what they really do, though I doubt it. I think your ego has just swelled so that you now talk for a whole nation
Government intervention happens all the time in varying ways and when disasters that could seriously affect the nation happen they don't just sit there and say "meh they deserved it", if possible they try to find a way to keep that important business or industry going.

You are clearly hard of thinking. The RFL and their assistants have been dire.

If you took time to get hold of license criteria you would know what is being assessed. I have, why don't you?

The RFL + KPMG in July 2012 gave a club a green light yet by Sept - Dec 2012 had given advances of 500k + and then tried to cover this cock up by buying the stadium Some posters on here see at best incompetence. You appear to think it is all hunky dory...as I said..we differ.

The. RFL, it has to be remembered didn't lose money because of Bradford. So none of the games money was wasted.

And I think your analogy highlights a big difference in how we see the game. I don't see the clubs as the Asda, tesco sainsburys fighting for dominance and the little corner shop being left behind. I see the game as the Tesco, and football and cricket and RU as you asdas, waitrose and sainsburys. I don't think it's logical to think we should treat our superstores as we do our tesco expresses

The leeds united thing was 100% luck.....swear to whatever god you worship!

As for the "made up figures"....break even for a SL club is around about 5 million......3.5 or so needed from the club itself. The Ian L figure at Quins in 2008 was about a tenner a ticket with another tenner residual, so there's 2.6 with another 0.9 needed from other commercial activity (sponsors/corporates).
My figures aren't 100% Accurate, but they are a lot closer than those peddled by the RFL and Bradford regarding the iconic bulls over the last couple of years.

As for trolling....I disagree with you I am a troll. I disagree with you and mention Union I am a union troll. What happens when I agree with you and we are both wrong about Bradford and Union?
Tell you what, if the price of knowing Union is bigger and that the RFL have given Bradford more help than is warranted is being called a troll, WHERE MY FUCKING BRIDGE!

But you do make up figures AND facts and try and pass them off as true. You've been caught out doing it many times.

You revel in the Bulls trouble, adding nothing to the debate but instead dance around going "I told you so" like a child.

You're a troll, pure and simple and while you were amusing for awhile you're now just becoming boring.

Incentives tend to be industry wide, or open at least.

Bailouts and taking a stake, direct or indirect, do distort the system. They're controversial and messy - especially when the company goes under anyway. If we have clubs that are too big to fail that raises some troubling issues.

Smokey makes an I interesting point that we should behave more as a collective and less as competitors. There is a good case for that. The RFL could have got the Bulls assets and lease for less than they paid for just the lease. The problem being that it would have been more difficult for them to walk away from the debts than it was for an independent owner.
If we did go for a collective approach, we'd need greater collective ownership and direction. Otherwise Leeds and Wigan will fear ending up like Germany in the euro crisis, which'd create all sorts of complications and resentments, as they'd understandably want greater control. Could we really run the sport from the centre, as one big club? It is still a competition, so there'd be a deal of natural tension between club 'committees' still - you'd need [isome[/i local control.

There would, there always will be. But we can limit that friction. If the league was run as a whole, then Bradfords success contributes to the success of every other club. It becomes in Leeds best interests for Bradford to be successful because they would contribute more to the pot as it were. Similarly clubs who don’t get in, don’t not get in because their face doesn’t fit, or because of bias, or because Nigel Wood hates them. They don’t get in because they cannot convince those in there they will help create a bigger pie, rather than just taking a slice of whats there.

Similarly London. Which is an even better example. Why should London get any special treatment, why is London good for all of us? Well under the new proposed structure for a lot of clubs London isn’t good. They have to go on the ‘new road’, travel to somewhere further than next parish, and they are competition. If we look at the game as a whole however, the potential benefits of a successful London are exponential. If we get London right, it would be a huge fillip to the game. If a large part of your turnover however comes from a central pie. A working London becomes very very very good for you.

Most sports are moving this way. For some reason our game seems intent on following Europeean football in to a devil take the hindmost approach, which it is wedded to through tradition, which is slowly hollowing out that game, which just isn’t going to work for us. At some stage, we need to realise our product is the game.

This has been happening somewhat in Australia, Newscorp along with the NRL purchased the franchises for a few clubs, eventually the ownership of the clubs reverts to a local entity, but with the NRL keep a share of the club.

Not sure where they are up to with it, last I heard they were letting go of the clubs and letting them stand on their own.

Simple, rational, as fair and as transparent as is possible. I like it. An election/re-election system. Which has the advantage over central control of not locking out benefactors.
It'd be political, but it'd be nakedly, openly political. There'd be bitterness from time to time, but the accusation would have to be one of irrationality, not dishonesty.
The first vote would be challenging to organise in a way widely seen as fair - but not impossible. Then you protect and give a vote to clubs that stay afloat financially and avoid bottom spot, each year.

Along with straightforward P&R, which requires greater efforts to narrow the gap, it is one of the two sensible ways we could finally reach a lasting settlement in the summer era, IMO.

P&R is more dramatic, 'sporting/fairer' and traditional (and thus familiar and easy to understand).

Re-election - it can become a self-perpetuating cartel, but as far as relegation is concerned, if you've gone bust or finished bottom, you can't have huge complaints if your peers boot you out.
Fans of Fax, Leigh, Fev, Leigh etc. can speak for themselves, but at least they'd know what they had to do - and the rate at which SL clubs go bust currently, there'd be ample opportunities to make a pitch, on top of the fact that somebody comes bottom every year. Also, other clubs would have the option of being patient with a new entrant if they thought that best.

Two posts containing the most stupid ideas I've ever read.

We are talking about sport. Sport in the UK. Soccer in this country is the best lesson we could have for RL, right on our doorstephttp://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/pyramid-up-arrows-copyspace-showing-growth-progress-32071494.jpg" >

For example, Leeds shouldn't want a nicey nicey love-in with Bradford. Leeds should want to smash Bradford on the field every time, and want others to do that to their nearest neighbours so that they get relegated and Leeds can aim to expand their catchment area and get their crowds up. Leeds really would do the game a dis-service if it really did want a cosy cartel where it can coast along with crowds under 20,000. Leeds really should be doing everything they can to get their crowds up towards double that with their potential within the game.

If Bristol Sonics get into the third tier, then get promotion, why should their potenatial promotion to Super League in say 10 years' time be subject to the whim of Chairmen of other SL cubs? You can just see it "O no. We don't want to have to travel all that way. Keep 'em out, keep Widnes in"

The new 2x12; 3x8 structure giving the POTENTIAL for promotion and relegation (not AUTOMATIC P&R) will be the ideal structure for RL in this country for the next 50 years at least.

Going back to the one big league with all 30 odd clubs in it (that we had for a lifetime before 1973) would be preferable to the nonsense set out in the two posts quoted above.

Yeah, we get you like it. You told us before. You told us you like it, and for that you believe it will work, that because you like you are sure it will address concerns you aren’t even sure of and even though you don’t know how it will address those concerns you are confident it will do. It was funny.

The thing is, why would it want to become a self-perpetuating cartel? It is actively damaging to each individual club and the league as a whole for them to keep clubs who can grow the pie out.

It would also allow us to look at how we can benefit from economies of scale in terms of sponsors, kit manufacturers, websites etc, it would allow clubs to market together, it would allow us to look again at youth development.

it wont happen though, too many in the game are happy to go along with this stupid system and in 5 years they can ask why we have no better facilities, why attendances have fallen at the bottom end of SL, why the same clubs are winning things still, why our youth development is failing, why clubs are putting out squads with 10-15 overseas players again, why the teams at the bottom are still struggling, why nobody gives a about a competition to be the 17th best team in the league, why nobody really cares about a play-off to become the 9th best team in the league, why the gap between the top 5/6 and everyone else has become so HUGE as to be unbridgeable, why the game hasn’t moved forward one iota. The game will then see the ringfencing of a top 10 and those who think this is the panacea for the games problems because it benefits their club will be wondering how they have ended up further away from SL. I will laugh at them a little immaturely, and then maybe we can actually get a system in place that addresses the games problems rather than the complete abdication of responsibility and reliance on hope we have seen.

Good news for me is that my team for the next 5 years at least will be competing in finals with the other big clubs whilst everyone else simply tries to survive.