Its more a case of the RFL ( and therefore their ' fan club ' ) stating that the licence process would allow clubs to be run better with less need to overspend, whereas us non believers said that the nature of sport and the pressure of success wouldnt change things, we were right

even if we accept your premise (which i dont), that isnt an argument against either franchising nor for p+r. In fact it is simply acceptance that p+r would have done precisely nothing to help this situation.

I havent suggested it would have been different with P and R, I have suggested that those that suggested licencing would make it better were wrong, it isnt

You are confusing sport, which is amateur in its nature, with BUSINESS, which is anything but.

from the day the first 14 clubs were awarded licences, chairmen and CEO's should have looked at ways of cutting players wages, developing their own kids and attracting increased fans and sponsors......self sufficieny should have been their aim.

I liken the licencing system to letting 14 kids loose in the pick'n'mix section of Wilkinsons and telling them not to stuff their faces, as they have at least 6 years to take what they want and will get free regular dental check ups throughout that time........Bradford are the fat kid in the corner with a tooth ache, throwing up and complaning of stomach pains after 5 minutes.

Just because the fat kid didn't listen, doesn't mean the whole idea was a bad one....

(again if we accept your premise, which i dont)At least Bradford are spending money they dont have trying to win SL with 11k fans watching RL rather than spending money they dont have trying to get promoted with 2k fans watching RL.

Not suggesting it is all bad, just that it wont cure cancer and end world famine as some seemed to suggest in its defence, ultimatly you are dealing with people, and they are essentially in sport to win, and everything else is secondary, and that includes the fans that put excessive pressure on the owners to provide a winning team, its just human nature, as is the desire to always move up

So which clubs are spending money they dont have trying to get promoted? Fax have just posted a profit

My original point though was in response to numerous posts suggesting that clubs wanting to be promoted should find someone to ' bankroll ' them, when in reality, it wont happen, as Stevo pointed out tonight, just confirming how difficult it is outside the top flight to gain corporate support

Also the lack of a single financial backer was part of the RFL s criticism of Fax in their SL application

Doesnt matter,

You said it was the nature of sport that caused Bradford to overspend under pressure for success, that was your premise, not mismanagement, not fortune, but overspending under pressure for success which caused Bradfords problems, that would apply to them wherever they were, the only thing which would change would be the measure of success, i.e promotion if they were in the championships, titles if they were in SL. So regardless of which league they were in, Bradford would have overspent under pressure of success.

And on your point about Halifax, were they regularly making a profit under P+R? Did relegation help them? after their financial meltdown in 2003 and subsequent relegation were their financial troubles sorted? were they financially stable between 2004 and 2008, their time in the championship post relegation pre franchising?
Is it not possible that Fax can post a profit now because the 'pressure for success' is less or at least less immediate, under a franchised SL? This despite the championships apparently not being able to find sponsors or investors?

Isnt the lack of a financial backer what has caused these issues at Bradford? Wouldnt a financial backer be able to cover this, what you would hope would be temporary, issue? Aren't Bradford right now absolutely desperately trying to search for a financial backer to give them the necessary investment to change their fortunes? It seems like having someone to cover the bad times is pretty much absolutely necessary if you are to survive.

I think your wrong there. If P+R were in place, it would be a lot easier to demote any club to the lower divisions who found a team with misdemeaners. Instead we have thousands of posters telling the rest of the RL community why their team must not lose their licence.

That was the essence of the discussion on the TV programme, essentially if the RFL dont guarantee the Bulls continued membership of SL past the end of this season, they will struggle to find a new owner

Chairmen might not agree with you, but by the same token they're not insane. A lot of people believe, with a fair amount of justification it has to be said, that what you say above is contradictory. By far the biggest draw for fans and sponsors is the team on the pitch. It simply comes down to good investment decisions. For example, take Jonny Wilkinson in his prime. It's not an insane argument to claim that signing him (which would have bust the cap of any club) would have been an investment rather than a cost. Not in terms of performance (he'd be no better than average, although a great goal kicker), but bums on seats, sponsors, and general profile of League. Our 'peak' in terms of media interest was during the years that Union players such as Davies were coming into the game.

I said 'not an insane argument' deliberately - I'm not saying it would have worked out as *good* idea - it could easily have gone wrong ...my point is simply that saying 'cut costs and bring in more sponsors' is way too simplistic. Money and names attracts more money, more names and more sponsors. Its a tight-rope, but spending (even on players salaries) isn't the same as wasting money if its done with commercial insight. And, yes, mistakes happen too, but 'cut', 'cut', 'cut' is the road to ever-dwindling income, and ultimately a worse state of affairs. Tories are slowly learning that too.

Would it? how many times did this happen during the P+R experiment?

I know. How jealous those clubs must be of all the corporate support that has flooded into top flight club Bradford these past few years.

So you’re argument is that investors are staying away because they don’t want to invest in a Bradford which isn’t in SL, despite the fact that Bradford havent been able to find anyone after about 4 years looking for investors whilst they were guaranteed to be in SL.

Are you under the impression there is someone waiting in the wings to put the necessary funds in to Bradford, but only on the proviso they get relegated, lose all their young players, decimate their youth set-up, spend a year paying and playing players not good enough SL, So they can get promoted and try and rebuild their youth set-up, wait for it to pay dividends again, and completely rebuild their playing squad all with the spectre of relegation happening again, and the whole cycle starting again, constantly hanging over them?