There are many many other options. They just may not be palatable to you because it doesnt involve prioritising a relatively small number of clubs in the championship over all other parts of the game.

Seems Sam Tomkins prefers P&R as well (with apologies to mods if link needs tidying up). menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... mfort-zone

Seems Sam Tomkins prefers P&R as well (with apologies to mods if link needs tidying up). menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... mfort-zone

Super League clubs are going bust whilst holding licenses Smokey. Not just small clubs either - big ones like Bradford.

What words of wisdom do you have in this regards?

Bradford have been a poorly run club for a while. Whichever system we operate under if Bradford make the same decisions, they will be where they are.

No Smokey, franchising has caused the ills of the Bulls, rising crowds are irrelevant because they don't suit the argument for P&R, and Widnes games are boring because there's no threat of relegation.

Meanwhile, in the real world lets consider some realities.

1) RL is - and always will be - a minority sport played mainly in the north. RL simply doesn't attract the kind of money available to RU/football. This relative disparity is increased during a financial crisis impacting the whole economy. SL struggled to get a major sponsor this year - I doubt whether the Premier League or RU competition would have had the same problems, no matter how dire the economy.

2) During such a major financial crisis, it would be stunning if clubs weren't under enormous financial pressure. This has nothing at all to do with P&R or franchising. Its a combination of economic conditions and in some cases poor management.

3) All teams are NOT created equal - either under P&R or franchising. Wigan and Sts would be big under any system; Batley, Keighley etc never will be big under any system. Exactly the same is true in other sports as well, right across the world.

4) Sky money is absolutely vital to the survival of the sport in any professional sense.

5) End of season relegation battles added "excitement" at the back end of the year (ignoring the harder games which relegation-threatened clubs would sometimes seemingly throw), with the losing team doomed to be broken apart.

6) Teams are no longer able to sign 6 half-decent Aussies in an attempt to survive in SL. That change alone would mean that P&R would lead to sides as bad as the current Widnes one coming up and going straight back down again. At least Widnes have some chance of trying to build a team over the next two years.

7) Across SL we are finally starting to see investment in youth. Under P&R there was no evidence that any except the most secure clubs put faith - and more importantly money - in junior development as a major source of new players. This is one of the most positive features of the SL landscape, and needs to be given time to work.

Franchising was never going to solve all of the problems RL has. But it is helping with some. The only arguments in favour of P&R appear to be claims about excitement at the end of the season (not matched by overall crowd numbers, irrelevant to the sport as a whole and generally enormously damaging to the relegated club, but lets be generous and take as a plus for a few fans) and the opportunities franchising seemingly removes from Championship clubs.

I understand that P&R has some appeal on the grounds of 'fairness'. But if we want a professional sport then the claims of Championship teams and fans simply cannot be put ahead of the SL sides that actually make the game as big as it is. Unless we really do want to see the sport at a professional level in England die on its a*se.

but the quality of Super League games is going right down from what i've seen, boring boring yawn yawn matches because most teams have nothing to play for

Ok

Tomkins lives in a real world, the sporting part of which expects P&R and laughs at Franchising. Considering it the domain of Hockey, Basketball and American Football - ie the joke sports of the UK.

Relegation and Promotion should be back every 2nd year with the two winners from the championship in those years unless it is the same team that wins the championship should play each other for promotion with the two sides that finish bottom of SL playing each other with the loser being relegated and the winner surviving unless it is again the same team that has finished bottom both years

This would give lower teams some incentive to get their act toghether

They don't need any 'incentive to get their act together'. Do you think lower clubs don't want to be successful, and that they would be happy being year after year unless there was a threat of relegation? It's just a stupid, stupid argument from people who haven't thought about what they are posting.

There are no clubs outside of SL capable of attracting 8000 fans and revenues of 3mill. End of P&R argument.

Promotion and relegation would give the lower clubs a reason to not throw the towel in after when 2 scores down in match with 50 mins to go and also not to "mail it in" when the half way point of the season comes around and they are struggling it would also make matches between teams like London and Cas or Widnes and Wakefield no offence to their fans but these games would be more exciting if these teams had somthing to fight for rather than knowing they can fold like a pack of cards and come back next year and the same happens on a year in year out basis under the licensing system

On that basis who will be left in SL, I assume you are taking personal investment from that £3m. Goodbye Salford, Wakey, Cas, London, HKR, Widnes, Huddersfield, Bradford. Great fixture list between Hull, Leeds, Saints, Wire, Cats and Wigan. That knocks my 2 tens out the water.

Interesting point - Leigh will turn over £8-900k this year, add in £1.3m Sky, a conservative £500k more from gates and the gap isn't great to £3m for sponsorship etc. Thats why nearer £4m is needed to compete.

Do you propose they play each other six times?