When you can spell allowed you may be listened to...

Taking nothing away from Fev but Cas are 5hite. REALLY 5hite.

Cas really are becoming the Championship teams whipping boys arnt they? First Fax take them to Golden point, then Barrow go and beat them, now Fev.......

some fans want promotion/ relegation brought back.. its a good thing in soccer as most teams are full time pro teams and no salary cap. in rl a team gets relegated and loses most of the team due to lower salary cap and therefore kills the team...keep a bigger salary cap in lowr leagues and the teams struggle financially?...in the light of day its a tough call

I can't see the shock here, Championship winners beat an erratic SL side?
It should be a reminder though, SL isn't forging ahead and taking over the Galaxy quite yet.

Not too concerned because I think there will be S/L 1 and S/L 2 in a few years time Super league in a mess now and the RFL will have to change things around the big clubs will vote it in because they end up with even more sky money if there is less clubs in the top flight and if clubs like Cas Wakey Salford etc are playing clubs like Fev Halifax Leigh etc in S/L 2 this will also becomes very entertaining league

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?



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?

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.

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.

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.


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.

And yet they were a couple of points away from last year's final

Which 4 clubs? I can only think of 3 - Crusaders, Bradford & Wakefield. And if you think Bradford & Wakefield's financial crises were to do with franchising you're kidding yourself. Their problems stemmed from well before 2009.


A ridiculous expansion? What does franchising have to do with the size of the league? They are two different aspects. The clubs vote on the size of the league seperate from any franchising decisions. Also a reduction of the league means a reduction in games and a reduction in income for the clubs, which is probably why they voted to expand the league for 2009.
A failed experiment? After 3 years? Seriously? Thats like a team giving up on the season after losing their first game. It's daft and makes no sense whatsoever. The previous system, which has seen a league of varying sizes over the years, has been in place for a century. Yet you somehow think all the ills of the game and problems faced by clubs have suddenly appeared in, and because of, the last 3 years. That is a very strange logic you seem to be using.

And Widnes in 2006. But let's just forget that we were a kick away from Wembley last year and took the world champs to extra time in the semi. It's a funny old game.

'championship teams should be in superleague' - they are already are; Widnes, Hull KR and before them Hull sharks and Huddersfield.

Everything good that happens is because of franchising, everything bad is because of what went before and because franchising hasn't had enough time. Only idiots would be fooled by such political spin.

Clubs decided to expand the league without knowing about franchising? I think not, more likely that more clubs forced their way in the door before it was closed . Less teams means less fixtures, not supported by recent history is it? Franchising brought young players in and reduced foreign players, not the quota and the salary cap? Teams improve and change grounds because of franchising, or because old grounds are financial millstones and new facilities increase crowds and profits? If no side outside super league meet minimum criteria why were two of them allowed to submit a franchise bid? Clubs given the chance to grow and improve, like Crusaders who went bust, like Cas who have a long record of producing young British players under P+R anyway and Catalans whose success has been with a side based on overseas players rather than developing French talent (France had their worst ever international results since Catalans were given the first ever franchise) At least think before posting arguments that aren't supported by facts and don't try and separate issues that aren't separate.

The game is in a tough place, it absolutely has to justify changes to be positive ones especially when there are clear alternatives. Income from sponsors is declining or none existant, the amount of terrestrial tv coverage and exposure is declining. Clubs are going bust regularly. Cutting franchising isn't the only thing that needs doing, but it does need doing, and whilst it is in place it should at least do what they said it would do when they brought it in and distribute licenses to only those that deserve them.

Halifax put on 'standby' when the Bulls looked like they were going under.

I believe our chairman told them (RFL) to do one!

we are not ready for SL, neither are Fev or Leigh.

im more than happy in the Championship for now, having the chance to win trophies and getting to finals.....compare that to what the lower SL clubs have to look forward to and i think we have the better time of it!

we dont have to worry about going bust, or gamble with the future of our clubs with the Sky money and cheap season tickets.

Up the Championship is what i say!

id much rather spend my money on watching young british players than fill the pockets of has been Ozzies anytime.

Only idiots would make it up. No-one has said that, if they have then quote them.


You have a habit of making things up. Nobody said they didn't know about franchising. It's that the two aren't linked. Why would the clubs currently in SL at the time of the vote, vote for extra clubs to come in if they didn't think it would benefit the competition? It wasn't Salford & Crusaders getting the vote, it was the 12 current (in 2008 season) SL teams voting for extra teams.


Yes. Everyone is sick of continued fixtures against the same teams. Look back over these boards and see the complaints a few years ago when there were the extra fixtures. It was boring. In 2004 Leeds played London 3 times, Saints 4 times, Warrington 3 times, Wigan 4 times and Bradford 5 times. And no doubt it would have been more had we not gone out of the cup so early. There is no appetite for repeat fixtures to that extent. If we reduce to a 12 team league that is 23 games per year (incl MM). 11 home games. How do you think club chairmen/owners will react to a reduction of 15% and where is that income to be made up from?


The salary cap hasn't particularly encouraged investment in young players, although the recently introduced exemptions will help a little bit. The quota has helped a little, but not much as most players can find an EU relative and therefore a passport fairly easily. The Fed Trained Rules have been/will be the best way of reducing the amount of overseas players over the next few years as the exemptions leave/retire. But the Fed Trained Rules wouldn't have come into place without franchising. Because you would be condemning the promoted side (under no franchising) to certain relegation under the much tighter Fed Trained rules. How can they suddenly produce the required number of quality youngsters in just a few months from October to February? They need time to invest in them, the franchising system gives them this time. If they don't use that time well enough then they run the risk of losing their licence dependent on other factors.


Hang on, I thought all franchising was was a relentless war on clubs in old stadiums? "It's all about fancy new stadiums" is a cry oft heard throughout the din of whippets barking. If teams aren't changing grounds and moving into new and better stadiums because of it being an element of franchising then why are they?
I'm quite sure Bradford would describe Odsal as being a millstone. But obviously its only become a millstone since franchising started in 2009 has it?
I'm fairly sure Saints will reap the benefits of their excellent new stadium over the next few decades, if other clubs have c0cked up their move to a new stadium or failed to invest in their old one, then that is a fault within their own decision making.


Why shouldn't they be allowed to bid? They're the top Championship clubs. It would seem daft to not at least at look at their potential bid? Personally I think any club should be allowed to bid if they want to, it doesn't mean they'll be accepted. The fact they weren't accepted merely shows they weren't better than the other 14.


Crusaders went bust because their owner was a kn0b who pulled his money out after giving numerous guarantees of his financial support. How many clubs at virtually any level of rugby league do you think would survive very long if their wealthy owner sodded off? There's probably only a handful. If Steve O'Connor decides he's not financing Widnes tomorrow is that a franchising failure?


Do they? Considering the rugby league mad area they are in their record has been pretty pathetic over the years. Getting better now though. Do you really think as many young lads at Cas would have go their chance in the first team over the last 3 years if there was a threat of Cas being relegated? Or would they have gone for an average aussie? I know what I'd have done had I been in charge at Cas. I'd have been checking the exchange rate straight away. Avoid relegation at all costs.


Again, do you seriously think that is a problem based on the last 3 years? Really? Do you seriously think that players can suddenly be found within 3 years? I would recommend you take your own advice below



The clear alternative is a system thats been going for over 100 years and doesn't work for the sport at this time. As all the evidence points to. When a system has been going for over 100 years and isn't working then there has to be a reason to keep it, not to change it.


Is it? Is that franchising's fault or maybe something to do with a worldwide recession going on.


So is domestic rugby union, football and horse racing. Cricket has no terrestrial tv coverage other than highlights. Presumably it's franchising thats done for them as well then is it?


Are they? Only one club has gone bust during franchising. And at the moment only one other has gone into administration. Crusaders went bust because their owner walked away. In what way were Wakefield's (or even Bradford's) problems due to franchising?


Why?


It did. Franchises were issued to the 14 best clubs. If you don't agree with those 14 then please finally answer the question and say which clubs shouldn't be in SL and which should replace them? Which Championship clubs are better in most criteria than those in SL?