Surely its time to have a re-think about the franchise system.
The whole idea is flawed. Rugby League is not the same as drive through Mcdonalds, where you open a new one up in each town until ther aren't any places without one.
Rugby League has a great heritage, mainly in the north of England and although there is no doubt that the expansion clubs do add something extra to the game, we are now in a position where two of the 3 clubs appear very weak.
Perhaps we should revert to promotion/relegation, even if this is every 2 or 3 seasons.
Any club being promoted under the current system nad no offence to Widnes cannot possibly be stronger than the current SL teams (perhaps with the exception of Crusaders/ Harlequins)
They only have potential.
We are in grave danger of making our sport a laughing stock to the wider public and these are the people that we want to show more interest in our game.
Time for a re think by the clever people who run the game.

What you propose presents more questions than the current system.

Promotion every 3rd year could work, it would make both SL and the Lower leagues more consistent.
It would make the who's in and who's out scenario much clearer.
It's not perfect but it can't be worse than the system we've got now.

The main difficulty for the RFL is expansion, which is probably the most contentious aspect of RL at the moment.
How much do we want to dilute RL in the heartlands against the need to promote and expand the game.
But to prop up weak teams in the name of expansion is fundementally wrong.

I see what you are saying but under P+R clubs would come up when they are ready and therefore the RFL would not need to support any clubs.

Based on what, average league position of the club over the three years? Or whoever is bottom/top every third year?

Based on average position would work well IMO because it rewards consistency and if 2 teams have the same average position then there would be a playoff.

Exactly!!!!
If Crusaders or Quins or whoever are not strong enough they should go down and only come back up if they are strong enough.
What's wrong with a club outside the heartlands working their way up the leagues, building as they go?
If there is truly support for RL in these areas it will still happen and I'm sure they would become a more stable club than what we are currently seeing.
The only problem i see with P & R now, is that (unlike football) the gulf in class between SL and the championship is so vast that it could be argued you would be weakening SL for the sake of it just to apply P & R, and that doesn make any sense.
Its almost a closed shop I'm afraid.

I think two years to develop on and off field, bring quality youngsters through, then one season to all go for it.

At least with P/R the system is transparent, notwithstanding any agreed criteria regarding club structure etc.

British people like 'fairness', whatever that is, and the current system seems unfair as it is too far detached from on-field performance.
I would go for a compromise; if your average position was in the bottom 3 or 4 over the 3 year period then your top-flight status would be 'up for review' and then other factors, as now, would come into play. The link between playing standards and P+R would be clearly re-established.
I think they use a similar system in South American soccer somewhere, but on a rolling average over 6 years.

Is it really that transparent though???

It can still be influenced by factors outside of what happens on the pitch.

Didnt Wigan blatantly flaunt the salary cap to avoid relegation.

The RFL didnt think so, although they didnt finish bottom either.
I think their legal team was a bit too good for the RFL ?

Argentina i think.

Three year average position decides promotion and relegation

No relegation just keep adding teams once they are ready, once SL is at 16 throw a lot of Sky money at the championship for the next 3 years voilà p/r returns!