Quote: The Clan "If memory serves me right Keighley never won. Grand final, they were denied promotion when SL came into existence and at the same time Us, Fev and a few others were culled.
Hunslet were denied and Dewsbury chose not to apply.'"
Amounts to the same thing though. Before franchising, the top team only came up if both they and the RFL wanted it, and it was all about criteria then, as it is now. The criteria was arguably less strict, but they kept teams they wanted in by fake mergers. It has always amounted to a franchise system. It was never just about winning. All they have done really is make it a three-yearly process, rather than an annual one.
Don't read this as a pro-RFL thing. For me, top comes up, bottom goes down, and give clubs a moment in the sunshine. If the club has potential, they can build something. If it hasn't, it will go back down again. But it's natural selection, Darwin and all that, everything in it's proper place.
I do think the RFL has an understandable dilemma though. They have decided that they want to spread the game, which is an admirable goal, and at grass roots, it is working. If you want to spread the game, you've got to give the expansionist clubs some measure of protection, because they don't have support built over more than five generations to fall back on. Once you have decided on expansionism, franchising fits it, because it bestows protection.
So what should the RFL do? Natural selection or protected expansionism? They have made their choice, and I think it is an understandable one. It isn't the one I would have made, but then again, I'm quite happy in my northern bubble, mooching down to Belle Vue. They want to make the bubble bigger, and good on them for trying.
:Others/bones.jpg
