Quote: Hopie "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. '"
Only idiots would make it up. No-one has said that, if they have then quote them.
Quote: Hopie "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. '"
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.
Quote: Hopie " Less teams means less fixtures, not supported by recent history is it? '"
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?
Quote: Hopie " Franchising brought young players in and reduced foreign players, not the quota and the salary cap? '"
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.
Quote: Hopie " Teams improve and change grounds because of franchising, or because old grounds are financial millstones and new facilities increase crowds and profits? '"
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.
Quote: Hopie "If no side outside super league meet minimum criteria why were two of them allowed to submit a franchise bid? '"
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.
Quote: Hopie "Clubs given the chance to grow and improve, like Crusaders who went bust, '"
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?
Quote: Hopie " like Cas who have a long record of producing young British players under P+R anyway '"
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.
Quote: Hopie " 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) '"
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
Quote: Hopie "The game is in a tough place, it absolutely has to justify changes to be positive ones especially when there are clear alternatives. '"
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.
Quote: Hopie " Income from sponsors is declining or none existant, '"
Is it? Is that franchising's fault or maybe something to do with a worldwide recession going on.
Quote: Hopie " the amount of terrestrial tv coverage and exposure is declining. '"
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?
Quote: Hopie " Clubs are going bust regularly. '"
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?
Quote: Hopie " Cutting franchising isn't the only thing that needs doing, but it does need doing, '"
Why?
Quote: Hopie "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.'"
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?
