I bet I'm not the only who thinks this but isn't a 3year SL licence too long? As everyone expected salford & crusaders got mullered in their 1st season of 2009 SL but wot happend the next season crusaders got into the playoffs & salford didn't end up in a relegation position in the old format. So why do we need a 3 year Licence as they've already proved a couple of seasons in SL should probably get you on your feet & see you right at the highest level of RL.......?

I wonder how many new posters join in 2012 compared to 2009.........

tbh mate its not long enough..hkr have been in ther for four years now and still they feel the need to be top heavy with non brits,as do salford and a number of other clubs.what they really need is a closed shop,£1.2m a season and all the other benefits that go with it.maybe then we might see some real progress,or we might just keep making it up as we go along...who knows.

It's about business planning phases, not 'being ready for SL competition'.

The Watcher thinks that franchising is wrong.

You say Crusaders got into the play offs , but as we all know , the Crusaders club is not the same one that got the licence over 2 years ago

Any club , even ours given free ' licence ' , to bring in a full squad of NRL players would do ok in SL , Salford have done 'what ' exactley ? , finish a few points better than bottom

Beside which have either seen decent improvements in attendances ? , but that also isn't relevant to the Wrexham club as the ' novelty ' value hasn't worn off yet

Franchising is a long term plan , 9,12,15 years

Franchises are every 2 years, but any club with SL Aspirations only has 2 seasons too meet the on the field criteria.

Which could and most probably will change

We did have three! 2008 counted towards these franchices given out in 2011 but as Salford & Cru cleaned up on them it hasn't really been mentioned ever!

The biggest problem with franchising remains the three year gap. For my money they should be on a rolling system, one team up, one team down - expansion of SL excepted - EVERY year, but based on (an arbitary figure here) the previous three seasons, and teams promoted to be given that three year season of grace.

Granted, you could quite easily have the anomaly of a team finishing third off the bottom being relegated, but as it's franchising, and not promotion/relegation in it's most literal form, that shouldn't be an issue - all clubs involved would know the score at the start of each season.

Problem with that is if you have one up one down every year but promoted team get's 3 years then who do you drop out? As you'd be replacing 3 current sides with 3 new one's effectively!

No you wouldn't... a team relegated would be able to find it's way back after the same three years as every other club.

Perhaps allowances could be made in there for accepting that performance in SL was worth some sort of bonus. It's only a suggestion, and not one that the RFL would ever take on board, but I think that the rolling franchise has it's merits.

The only downside to the franchise system is the moaning from fans from craps teams like leigh saying it's not fair, they should be in, Leigh rent a nice stadium that's it, no money, can't run a proper under 18's team because of no money, sod all fans just want everything handed to them.

From a club who will be homeless in a fortnight...

Plenty of franchise supporters on here, plastic scouser.