To close the gap there needs to be pcloser parity in income and if the 14 elite clubs start off with a substantial handout in sponsorship cash then, obviously they should be stronger than the clubs who dont receive the same.
As a sport we have just about taken away the opportunity for the championship clubs to play in the top flight and then we bemoan the fact that their supporter numbers are dropping off and that the competition is not as attractive as it once was. Its laughable.
Since the formation of SL there has been little thought or care as to the welfare of the game lower down the Rugby League ladder.
Indeed the top few clubs in SL are trying to reduce the league so that they can enjoy a larger slice of SL cake.
This is where we need a strong and transparent governing body that does what is right for the sport as a whole and not just look after the lucky ones.

I think that's only taking into account half of what the licensing is for. The gulf between Championship + SL is forever widening, especially in terms of financial costs, and giving teams a "definite" time span of which they can be in super league will enable them to offer longer term contracts and attract players in the confidence that they will still be in super league.

But they dont have a definite time span, under either rule they would have the possibility of being removed if they fell below whats needed.

The only difference from the time standpoint would be that clubs would be in SL in perpetuity unless they fell below what is needed under my idea, meaning that they could offer even longer contracts and give even more confidence they will still be in SL>

Why should widness put up any competition this year at all? I mean they have 3 years so what's the rush? Let them play a year absorb the sky money then buy some players for season 2 be a slightly better side then buy in more players for season 3.

I was under the impression that the 3 years system was to give teams moving up time to build and not have to borrow to their eyeballs to survive season by season. Surely the whole Widness argument is nonsense they don't need to be competitive until their 3rd season.

Fell below whats needed OFF THE FIELD. That's the key point. In reality the only clubs that will get kicked out mid-license are existing super league clubs that haven't met promises they made to get a renewal. You'd like to think that the threat of kicking clubs out mid-license is only for this round, because if clubs are still needing to be making promises next time then they shouldn't get another chance.

To come up from the championship, your club must be in tip top shape off the pitch (mainly in terms of stadium + finances). Therefore you are practically guaranteed 3 yrs in Super League regardless of your on field performance.

After the next round, I think a rule needs to be brought in that administration leads to license being rescinded. As punishing to a club as that would be, it's a sign that the club doesn't deserve to be in Super League if it's not run properly. Widnes made a sizeable profit in the championship, so it can be done. The relegated club would then have to start from scratch in the championship and hopefully build up to applying for a license again in 3 years time.

And thats how it should be. But my point is there is no need to, and no benefit from, assessing the licences every three years, why only take a snapshot at that moment? it should be being done constantly. The three year timespan is entirely arbitrary.

If we are promoting a club we should be sure they can add something to it. So they should be guaranteed a licence as long as they are doing that.

What would be gain by that? sure any club which goes into administration needs to be looked at very very carefully but we shouldnt lock ourselves into rules which would be self-defeating. Take Bradford as an example, imagine they go into administration, Chris Caisley announces he is taking control again and he has got Ken Morrison on board. Morrison announces he wants to build a huge new depot in Bradford and as a sweetener for the council he will rebuild Odsal as a new superstadium and guarantee Bradford spend the SC for the next 10 years(i know, im being very fanciful here). Whats the point in relegating Bradford, seeing them lose Bateman, Kopczak, Whitehead, Donaldson, et al, along with Burgess and some of the others in their youth sides, and asking them to spend three years in the championship, promoting them again, It would take them 5/6 years in SL so 9 years in total just to get back to where they are now. What would we gain out of it?

Because as I said earlier, you need more than a seasons security because clubs from the championship find it very hard to build a super league side in a few months. The financial gulf between the CC + SL means that teams who could get relegated again after 1 yr can't offer long term contracts to players, and player in turn are less likely to come because of the lack of job security.



Maybe I was being harsh, but in a league where there is no relegation, if you can't afford to spend up to the full cap, then you shouldn't be doing. I realise it's much easier said than done, especially for clubs like Bradford who have had so much success. The Chairman of a club like Bradford would get slaughtered for coming out and stating they couldn't afford to pay up to the cap, but that's some of the sacrifices teams will have to make.

Licenses were brought in to enable clubs to build from scratch, relying on their academies more whilst being safe in the knowledge that they will be able to build on that whilst being in Super League. Allowing clubs to overspend so regularly and then being surprised when they go into admin shouldn't be the way forward.

I personally feel that if you go into Admin you should have your license rescinded. I think the penalties for actions like that should be that severe. It would force clubs + their owners to live within their means, and encourage them to actually try and invest in facilities and youth development rather than signing overpaid journeymen.

But that already happens, any club can have its licence revoked at any time durig their three years. Thats as it is now. Im not talking about changing that. Im saying that the review after 3 years is pointless, they should be reviewed every year, not to look for reasons to kick them out but to look at where they can improve. Lets be realistic, if a club is in danger of losing its licence its not going to come as a surprise to anyone.

I dont disagree that we should be harsh. We certainly should be. I just think handcuffing ourselves with such a rule really wouldnt be beneficial. I think we certainly should err on the side of a club which goes into admin losing its licence and it being a difficult effort for a new owner to keep a side in super league i just cant see a benefit in forcing ourselves to relegate them. I would have rescinded Wakefields licence for instance, and from none of the speculated takeover plans at Bradford would fill me with confidence so it is likely they would lose it.

Betts and Cullen were the wrong people to bring the club into SL with. Real potential at Widnes so no problem there.

Results on the field should play a part, afterall Halifax have finished in the top 3 in SL more often than some current SL teams have in the past 15 years.

Do you understand the concept of being a fan? Pay £180 for a Stronghold season membership (or however much it is) and then watch your team not give a crap until year two, maybe year three.

Smooth.

I don't think this is Cullen saying anything profound about the state of the game; rather, it strikes me as a PR exercise aimed at a) appeasing Widnes fans and b) keeping his job.

Widnes have a squad at least as good as 3 or 4 teams around them; they're just badly coached and poorly managed.

You might want to check the criteria. They look at average positions over all three years, so finishing bottom 2 years out of 3 isn't a plan designed to win a new licence.

This sounds far too simple and logical for any SL criterea that has been in previous years.