No there wont, Rules will be changed at least another 3 times and SLE & the RFL will have had more behind closed door meetings on how they can all carry on feasting on the top table for more years, Its not about RL its about DOG eat DOG survival of the fittest and cost cutting anyway possible to ensure they dont lose out next franchise. There are already fans of championship clubs turning their back on their once proud clubs as they percieve them to have "sold their souls". My personal opinion is i agree with them, Had my club, fax, twinned then i would no longer go to watch them either and i will not go to any away games who have supported this twinning venture. Instead i will buy more merchandise and lottery tickets on my own club and who are looking to develop their own youngsters.

Terrible idea and you provide little justification other than "teams in the lower divisions have had their chances of reaching the top tier significantly reduced" which isn't really a strong argument.

It would do more harm than good at this stage.

Come on, 1 team has come up in each of the franchising days so far. You cant just change half the league. Are you telling me also that the rest of my post isnt valid? I know it's easy for me to say being a fan of the team at the top of the tree, but Franchising has really helped us bring through some great players and I enjoy watching the game more now because of this than I did when I went to see Leeds face teams full of rubbish Aussies.

This again? There's a myth built up about promotion and relegation in other sports which rlsimply doesn't stand up to scrutinyrl as mav kindly explains in that link.

You may agree or disagree with P&R but "teams in the lower divisions have had their chances of reaching the top tier significantly reduced" [iis[/i a strong argument (perhaps not strong enough to win the debate, but it's a good point)

There's no doubt that franchising has pulled up the drawbridge to some extent. For me, if you stick with franchising then there also needs to be a [iguaranteed[/i way to make the grade, so that if you're going to invest in a championship side (or even below) you're not facing the arbitary risk of whatever a panel decides in the future. You need to know the exact criteria and be given a guarantee that if you meet it, you're in. Likewise, whilst existing struggling franchises should be given a [ireasonable[/i chance to sort themselves out, if they, over say 3 seasons, fail to meet the criteria that would otherwise allow a new club in, then they should be removed.

A guaranteed way? If you have the facilities and have put a plan in place thats say, better than Wakey or Cas, I am sure you will get in. At the moment i'd say Fev, Donny, Sheffield and Leigh are the only ones who could make it due to Stadium quality. Even when we had P&R some teams didnt get promoted, and that was when it wasnt even strict.

As a potential investor ( sadly I'm not, but hey ) I'd want it to be watertight. For example, I might have a 3 year plan to get us ready for SL, but what if Wakey and Cas get investors in the mean time and improve themselves a lot too? I put all this money in, improve my club, and then lose it. You need to know in advance that, if you do what you're asked, you're in, whatever. With P&R you have that - i.e. get yourself to the top of your league, make sure your ground's up to standard, and you're in. I'm NOT arguing for P&R, just saying that the current system doesn't guarantee anything for an investor in a championship side. What that means in practise is accepting that, in order to give the guarantee, you have to accept the possibility of increased numbers of teams in SL. Not a major problem, because if the criteria is sufficiently strong, then we're presumably happy to have them there. If it ever came about that teams were meeting the criteria too easily (Heaven Forbid!), meaning just too many clubs for SL to cope with - even with imagninative changes to fixtures - then that's fabulous news and means the criteria (for both getting in and staying in) can go up.

Thats not how anything works though. There is no guarantee that any club will get accepted into the SL if the clubs already there are in a better position. ATEOTD, apart from Crusaders, it has been spot on so far and I think the RFL have learnt from that. You can't just say, yes, you can come in if you do this, because what if the teams already there have done more? Why should they get kicked out when they deserve to be in? At the moment I think you have the 14 teams that best deserve to be there. In 18 months time, if Cas or Wakey haven't even started getting new stadiums, I'd like to see 2 new teams in and that will happen. Fax and another IMO. If Cas and Wakey do get it sorted though, then it'll take a good bid from below as new facilities added onto 2 teams going for Youth, playing well and averaging 8-10k will be hard to knock down, and rightly so.

Exactly what I was saying. To offer a guarantee (which makes investment much more secure) you have to accept that a situation may arise when a team meets the criteria, but likewise, no incumbant fails. Therefore the number of SL teams goes up by one. No catastrophe. If this happens a few times (it probably won't of course) the criteria will naturally rise and the things that all clubs have to do over the upcoming seasons as a club to stay in will go up too. Good. It mean standards are rising.

I know perfectly well that its not, as you say "how things work" today. So let's make things work better for potential investors.

The problem now is that, if you were thinking of investing in a championship side you face not only the normal competitive risk you would face with P&R ( i.e. not acheiving the finishing position you hoped for), but the additional risk [icompletely outside your control[/i that some existing clubs in SL will meet certain criteria that makes your bid fail.

A championship club cant compete with a SL club without being given the chance to prove they can do better with the money recieved from Sky and what increased attendances would do. I only use fax as a example as its my team but they are staying independant, Making profit, Have a stadium already fit for super league and competing regulary in finals and winning, top 3 most seasons. Yet without the chance to prove they can make the step up and given the 3 years to show it whats the point, I'm not going to go over ground that has been beaten to death over the last few years but chances must be given to stop the leagues going stale, playing the same teams week in week out, year in year out becomes boring, no matter what sport it is IMO.

Please for the love of god let smokey stay away from this thread !!!!.

If there is a club outside SL, ready for SL. They would be in there. Why wouldn’t they? Why wouldn’t the other SL clubs want them in?

Naturally, I'd hope that were the case. But, imagine trying to put a deal together with financiers to buy and fund a championship side with a view, say, to spend 3 years getting the club into SL. The phrase "Why wouldn't they?" wouldn't be strong enough for most financiers - anything can happen - including existing clubs deciding they've got enough teams. More significantly, you say "ready for SL". But, it could take 3 years or more of investment to get ready, during which time the definition of "ready for SL" might change. Its a different matter though if you can say to investors: "if we deliver on the following plan, we have guaranteed entry".

I'm not saying issuing such guarantees is pain-free or a trivial decision, but seems to me like a step that would add that little extra encouragement to Fev's richest man (or whatever) to go mad and put his dosh on the line.

I accept that a guarantee made 3 years out gives up a bit of flexibility - ideally we might WANT to be able to change (upwards) the definition of "ready for SL" during the 3 years. But the tradeoff is that it makes it harder (much harder in IMO) to make an ambitious investment in a non-SL club. I'd take the minor downside of slightly reduced flexibility in order to make a statement that says to potential backers of non-SL clubs: "Here is your route to SL status. This is what you have to do, and we promise not to move the goalposts for 3 years or to reject you because someone else happens to have done even better"

If what you say - "They would be in there" is true, then offering a guarantee shouldn't be a big deal in any case.

Crusaders got a guarantee

I can’t agree. I thnk it makes it massively more attractive to invest in, and sustain a club which has the growth potential to be at the very top of SL. Under P+R it was virtually impossible, its one of the reasons that we have had such a poor history of introducing new clubs. Now an ‘investor’ can look at an area, put in place the infrastructure to build, and plan and budget and aim towards a promotion and growth from that jump in a fairly clear and manageable fashion. This would be a club which would add to SL

What it has made less likely is that a moderately rich local guy done good will go in to a small club, throw cash at them to get them up, have none of the necessary infrastructure in place and no further plans or sustainability to do anything other than have a season in the sun. This wouldn’t be a club adding anything to SL.

I think if a Gary Hetherington or an Ian Lenegan takeover for instance Sheffield, set out their plans and vision for a sustainable project there, SL club chairmen would be bending over backwards to welcome them and help them achieve it.