I think there is a lot of narrow minded people on this thread.



The Superleague is not the be all and end all of rugby,don't get me wrong i am all for expansion but we should not do it at the expense of the lower league clubs.



I'm not sure what the solution is but i think the RFL could do a better job.

It's easier to stay afloat when you're getting £1m from SKY every year.



What get's me is that SL clubs were so scared of going out of business due to relegation that they pulled up the drawbridge and ring-fenced all the money for themselves. With the pit of cash that they received every year, did they think to put abit aside for a rainy day? Did they invest in their own infrastructure to make themselves more sustainable? No, they pished it all away on playing contracts and now they can't survive without the SKY money. Great examples being set by the so-called elite of our game.



Remind me, of all the clubs that have played in Super League, how many have disappeared from the face of the RL world? Oldham fans still have a club to support, as do Workington fans, and Gateshead, and Sheffield. Widnes are still going strong, Leigh weren't even close to going out of business, Halifax have a club that is doing pretty well at the moment. Huddersfield bounced back, as did Castleford and Salford. That leaves Paris. Whose idea was it to put them in again?

So the Championship clubs are already a lost cause in your opinion , they

cannot increase their income , maybe you should apply for a job at the RFL



The strength of the Championship clubs lies in their communities and collectively , what they lack is the ability to market themselves in both area's , this is what the RFL should be concentrating on , not gimmicks like a French club and the Blackpool 9 's

Out of the 14 clubs awarded franchises, 13 of those club are in existence

one disappeared after ONE year, excellent system isnt it?



I have posted several reason why P+R is a possibility and have seen nothing to suggest that franchising will benefit the game as a whole in this thread

franchises should go as soon as possible, if not by 2012 then 2015 at the latest

That's because franchising is not meant to benefit the game as a whole. It's designed on the premise that so long as SL clubs are doing ok then who cares about the rest. Which is how some of the people on here like it - so long as their own club is secure in the system of course.

No, not at all. But it is clearly impossible for a bunch of smaller part time teams to increase their income to match much larger, full time clubs playing in a more prestigious league. You have not suggested any ideas that could lead to this, and neither has anyone else. If there was such a way, everyone would be rich. In professional sport, teams in a lower league are always going to have less money than teams in a higher league and to suggest that this is unfair in some way is just stupidity.

That's one of the worst posts I've ever read.

Refute it then!

It may not be entirely accurate but at least it contatins an opinion that is relevent to the debate, you and smokey are the same in this thread, just posting rubbish to try and annoy people

try posting FACTS and pointing out WHY the arguments for promotion and relegation are wrong

Well come on then oh wise one, tell me who franchising benefits apart from those who are already in possession of one ?



While you're at it, can you tell me why a new and completely separate business was simply allowed to buy one from a business that had gone bust and why that available franchise spot was not subject to a competitive process ?

It benefits everyone. It benefits lower league clubs with ambition because they don't have to spend above their means to get into and stay in Super League. It also benefits the smaller lower league clubs because they don't have to play a full-time relegated team and get blasted. It benefits the community game because with extra stability clubs are able to invest more time and money on grassroots rather than spending all their money on Australians to try and avoid relegation. It benefits players and their families because livelihoods are not constantly at risk, and similarly off-field staff both on the football and administrative side of things are able to properly do their job without the prospect of losing it if the team happens to have a bad year.



I cannot understand how you could possibly believe that the only reason people would like 'franchising' is because their club could be artificially suspended in the top league. Nobody would want that, most fans would rather be relegated than be embarrassed and finish bottom every year. And your second point does not even deserve a response, you are the second Championship fan to try and turn this into a Crusaders-bashing exercise when that has no relevance to anything in this thread and to be honest it just makes you look spiteful and your argument, not that you really had one, look weak and pathetic.

I'm not trying to annoy anyone, unless you find someone disagreeing with you annoying. I've used facts and realistic ideas all along, it is the pro-P&R brigade that have been spouting such nonsense as we should somehow make the revenue streams between SL and the Championship equal and then not providing any ideas as to how this could be done. However, for the benefit of anyone who has been unable to understand or whatever, I will list what I think the pros and cons of the scrapping automatic P&R were, and then people can dispute them.



Pros:

A full time club is not forced to participate in a part-time league that it is clearly too strong for

Championship clubs with ambition are given time to grow their business to a level where they can compete rather than overspending for one year in the hope that they win the league, and then overspending again to try and stay in the league

The Championship is a much stronger and more competitive all-round league without the relegated team dominating every year

Super League clubs are able to grow businesses and put community structures, marketing initiatives etc in place without the possibility of everything being lost because of one poor year on the field

Super Leauge clubs are able to be much more progressive with youth development, and can bring junior players through and give them time to develop with much less risk

Similarly import numbers are cut, especially the number of low-quality imports signed simply so clubs can avoid relegation

Super League is a more competitive league as all teams have the chance to grow and get out of the rut of having to avoid relegation every year. No longer such a status quo with the league table.

Increased playing standards in both Super League and Championship

Focus of the media, television etc is on the top of the league rather than constantly looking at the worst teams at the bottom

Job stability for players, coaches and off-field staff



Cons:

Automatic P&R was 'exciting'

I find it annoying when people dont back up their arguments, the majority of anti P+R posts are "its impossible", "it wouldnt work" etc and no one has countered the points I raised in this thread





I havnt suggested they be "equal" but there should be some movement of money down the divisions, I have suggested ways to reduce the gap between the divisions but some clubs have shown that it was unneccesary to do so, I do beleive that it would be better to reduce the gap





We already established that the National League was not an entirely part time league, the number of full time clubs was increasing before the door was closed, the problem of franchising is that the money is cut off from the lower division and it is harder for them to grow - clubs "overspend" in the Super league and have massive debts but that is part of sport





well Leigh, Widnes, Workington, Halifax, Oldham all shot back up didnt they? That just doesnt add up with your other arguments anyway, surely the relegated club would go under anyway





once again this is based on assumption that we should allow poorly managed teams in Super league, ones who would fold at a reduction in income, and forget the clubs that have been relegated and continued such things, Cas have the best school kids in the country and they have been relegated, twice!





The rules are bringing that down anyway, exemptions mean that most clubs in superleague are not meeting the spirit of the overseas quota rules, the brave new franchise in Wrexham has a large collection of Australians and barely any local players, not chasing results? youth development over results? not under franchising





results matter, finishing bottom without relegation is bad for business and set Huddersfield back several years, once relegated they have never looked back and have reached the CC final and playoffs





really? on what basis do you measure this? in my opinion the standards have fallen recently but even if that were true you are basing that on 18months - that is the typical attitude, taking credit for something that hasnt been influenced by the change - its the same players for the most part, the new young players were developed in acadamies of clubs facing relegation





What media? where is the attention when the issue has been concluded at the top





the worst players still get sacked,the worst coaches get sacked, off field staff still get sacked, people move between clubs all the time - when a team was relegated this was the same

Not only are you a really poor imitation of Smokey, you really do have a major chip on your shoulder about the Celtic thing don't you. I'm picturing a Fawlty Towers-equse episode with John Cleese whispering 'don't mention the C-word' whilst you sit dithering in the corner.



You have taken a minor element of an arguement and magnified it to an extent where you really are somewhere between delusional and obsessive about the matter.



Nobody has turned it into a (Celtic) Crusaders bashing excersize, they (we) have used them as a pi55 poor example of franchising and the gaping holes within it. If or when Wakefield/Quins/Salford/whoever implode folk use them too.



Until then, Celtic are the first and only current example and you really do need to get over it.

The number of full time clubs in NL1/NFP as it was called was increasing but this was because a club being relegated would decide to stay FT because initially the NFP was completely PT and being FT virtually assured immediate promotion (so the overspend was deemed worth it). Some of the incumbent clubs in the NL1/NFP that wanted promotion started to go FT in the hope of overhauling the relegated club each season (and overspent in the process). This resulted in clubs that narrowly missed gaining promotion taking a large financial hit and going into decline (happened to Hull KR, Widnes, Dewsbury, Whitehaven, Wakefield, Featherstone, Leigh, Hunslet). Once the yearly shot at immediate elevation was removed clubs started to fall back into being PT operations as this is sustainable for them and the motivation to overspend for a one year rush at glory (and risk meltdown) was removed and stability and steady growth was now the way to achieve (though over a longer time scale) a place in the top tier.



Workington, Oldham and Halifax all had just gone under when relegated (or had come very close to doing so). All three were in financial turmoil. Workington and Oldham did go under (Oldham were liquidated) and Halifax just about kept going but due to their finances being shot only avoided relegation to the third tier by winning a playoff game. Widnes & Leigh were competing for promotion against other clubs living beyond their means to be FT but lost out in playoff games.



You are right about the need to distribute the money (by which I take it you mean SKY and sponsor money) downwards through the leagues to help fill the gulf in finances. The only problems are that 1)the SL clubs (during any licence period) would be unlikely to give up some of their money to allow the Co-op league clubs to get closer to them (particularly those in danger of losing their licence) and 2) there would be nothing to stop clubs wasting the money on playing personnel rather than using it to improve their own infrastructure. The clubs would have to be forced to spend any money filtering down on those aspects of club infrastructure that are judged in terms of licencing applications. This way the clubs below SL would become better organisations and be more self sustaining rather than becoming reliant on handouts filtering down.

What such ways? I haven't seen any of the points you have made, maybe I missed them.



As the poster above me says, those clubs that went full time were not viable, they only did it because they were forced to do so to try and compete (unsuccessfully) with the relegated club. If they could have seriously sustained being full time, then they would surely still be, as it would give them a massie advantage in terms of obtaining a license.

As the poster above me says, Workington, Oldham, Halifax and Widnes all have gone under since being relegated. Leigh were never really a SL club to start with were they, when an established SL club was relegated they dominated every time.

It's nothing to do with being poorly managed, a massive reduction in income is obviously going to mean a reduction in the club's development off-field. Cas having the best schools has nothing to do with anything, it is a RL area, it has a strong amateur background, so does Oldham, it's nothing to do with the pro club.

Were or were there not every year clubs singing absolute nobodies to avoid relegation? Look at the squads from the time - Cas in 2006 were forced to sign the likes of Deon Bird, Ben Roarty, Gray Viane, Paul Franze and even Brad Davis to try and survive, it was only when they were relegated and the theat of relegation was removed that they were able to give game time to the likes of Westerman and Owen. Wakefield used to have about 13 overseas players and they had no other option because otherwise they would have been relegated and probably gone bust. They are far stronger as a club now. Crusaders are a new club trying to establish themselves in a new area, they were badly run last year and can in no way be used as a reflection of the system as a whole. There are still a lot more British players at the club than last year, but that's not an issue that is at all relevant to this thread, if you want to start one about the Crusaders then I'll be happy to discuss them there.



Exactly, it is bad for business. That's incentive enough not to finish bottom, and if clubs did persistently finish bottom like Huddersfield did then they would be relegated anyway under the new system. Huddersfield's resurgence was also as much to do with a change in management style and the appointment of Tony Smith as being relegated, and they were only in such a state anyway because they had been promoted automatically before they were ready.

Standards are clearly going to improve when there are not a bunch of teams crammed full of journeymen trying to avoid relegation. Every team is now aiming towards the top, rather than looking over their shoulder and hoping to avoid the bottom. I agree that standards slipped last year, but that was probably as a result of the expansion from 12 to 14 teams. The new players were obviously developed in academies, but they were not given as much of a chance in the first team. I'm not trying to deny that clubs facing relegation ran academy systems (although there wasn't as much focus on them as now).



Eddie and Stevo, it's not a big issue but I'm a lot happier not having to suffer through tedious 'relegation dogfights' each season.



Agreed, but when a club was relegated the entire business went into meltdown. It wasn't a case of the worst players and staff being cut, all players and staff were at risk whether they personally deserved it or not, which is wrong.



You've still not given any arguments for promotion and relegation. I can't really think of any.

What are you talking about? I dismissed your post because it was a meaningless dig with no relevance at all to the thead or any of the points made. If you want to discuss the issue at hand then go ahead, if you'd prefer to go on another bizarre rant then start a new thread or go to the Sin Bin or something.

You want to read the posts in full instead of the bits that touch a nerve.

I did read the post in full and replied.

Nobody's touched any sort of nerve other than the fact that it's a bit stupid when people don't have any arguments and so try and turn the thread into some sort of points scoring match by having an unrelated dig at 'my' club.

Let me get this right.



You think that people with a different opinion to you 'don't have any arguements'?





You have also previously labelled them morons and clowns.



How on earth are you a forum moderator with an attitude like that?

Firstly I have not suggested that they Match SL clubs , I have suggested that the RFL are wasting money flying teams over the channel and that their only other idea seems to be for clubs to find a sugar daddy , as for how lower tier clubs can increase income , basically they need to concentrate on increasing their fan bases via localised marketing , most clubs dont have the funds to market themselves properly and if they were just given the money would probably spend it on playing contracts , that is why the RFL need to assist clubs rather than giving them the cash



There are other ways that clubs can look to make money , and they need to be non RL related , it requires clubs to work together , but the RFL actually discourage clubs from doing this , they dont want the clubs in the championship to get stronger , they operate a divide and conquer with them , how do I know this ? , I have been told so by several club chairmen

I was at the game....Obviously supporting Cardiff City......thought I'd got over it....



Then I come on here thinking it would be a football free zone and this thread shows up.

So you admit that the quarter of a million a year is being spent for Toulouses benifit , not for the British Championship clubs , and it would have been better for them to have followed the Catalans model to prepare them for entry to SL

It isnt being used between the amateur and semi pro leagues either is it. No one is relegated from the championship 1 to the conference, and no one is promoted

And again, you are ignoring the fact that the money used on Toulouse wasnt championship clubs money. Whilst it may not be the best use of money, that money wouldnt revert back to just being given the championship clubs. It was money earmarked for expansion, it was used for expansion. Bringing the Toulouse issue into it is nonsense flatcappery.



How best we develop french RL and the how we develop the championships are two completely seperate issues, the only reason someone would link them is an underlying agenda.



also, on one hand you are complaining the Championships dont have the money to market themselves, then also complaining at the RFL for trying to help find investors.



You are also saying the RFL need to help the clubs, not just give them cash, yet you have complained at them for being prepared, and offering to fund a Fulltime Chairman and Marketing managers wages, what more do you want? These are clubs you are arguing should have a right to join SL yet the cant even be trusted, by you, to spend their money wisely

Its easy to do when you have no interest in them - I propose a return to P+R, i think 12 teams in the top division is best, a reduction in the gap between SL and championship would be good and there were simple steps like changing the structure of the season and a better distribution of money that would help this



Cutting off the clubs has made it more difficult for them to continue full time and to improve their facilities without going into debt or relying on a rich backer. UNder P+R several clubs built up a team and a business that was ready to access SL, franchising has hindered this and the expansion of the game to 2 full time divisions, a long term ideal i think we should aim for. Investment was a requirement of some of the “failed” license applications. Where will this money come from now? Relegation spread money to the national league, the championship has been left to its own devices, they also took two of the best national league clubs away which made it harder for the other clubs to bridge the gap financially – the game will not expand by killing off the lower leagues or by reducing them to amateur status



So relegated sides don’t dominate the league, one of your reasons crossed out - again trying to dsicount the examples that go against your argument, widnes wnt bust chasing a franchise not P+R (if they had won the GF they woul dhave been in SL and guaranteed a franchise, thats how poorly the choices were made)



It is poor management to expect the same levels of income each year or become overly dependent on one source of income, a company will eventually hit hard times, crowds, overheads, salaries etc all change over time, relegation was one of those things that affected levels of income – franchising has not stopped that

And... Oops, you contradicted yourself, youth systems have nothing to do with the pro club but if the pro club is relegated than the youth systems disappear?



Point me to a super league club that hasn’t signed nobodies? It was nothing to do with relegation, it was to do with money and expanding the league has meant more were needed here, Wigan sent away a whole generation of english stars to sign foreigh players, this was when they were one of the top sides!

The RFL rules have reduced overseas players, this is a completely separate issue to relegation and franchises, you couldn’t sign foreign players now even if you were bottom in a P + R system



Again this change is due to the confederation trained rule, NOT franchises



You found them tedious, but the battle of wakefield was chosen by SKY to be shown, it brought media attention, as does a team winning a grand final to be promoted (see Blackpool FC) and it brings people into the game to watch



As the gap reduced this would be less of a problem, but again if a club is relegated then the club has not set out to do what it wants to do, people get sacked for this in the real world, sport cannot seperate itself from this – there are many other clubs who can pick up their services in the world - if a club was promoted for one year it could use te extra income to build its club and systems, that is the plan at Blackpool FC, and if they get relegated, so be it



Keep ignoring them, there is no further debate if you won’t engage in them

I see no reason to continue with franchises

Before franchises there were 12 clubs in SL

So eleven of those teams would have been in SL anyway, a further team would have been promoted (Salford, although admittedly the awarding of franchises skewed results in the National League)

The franchises system saved one team from relegation (Castleford) and awarded one team a franchise which it wouldn’t have got under the old system (Celtic)

So on one level franchises gave us Castleford and Celtic which we wouldn’t have under the old system, one of these failed (that’s 50% failure) and yet you feel it unfair to discuss this team? I wonder why

If you only allow the debate to dwell on the parts that support your argument then that is no debate is it?

Under P+R crowds grew steadily over many years, year on year, the level of play improved, better results in the ashes and a whitewash against New Zealand. We moved from the Wigan only era to the big 4 and pretty much all, if not every Super league team has reached the playoffs

Under franchises crowds per game have fallen, playing standards have fallen

The league is too big, 12 clubs should be enough, there aren’t enough players

There were too many clubs to fit in a 14 team Super league, there is a guaranteed spot in 2012 so that is still the case, three years or more is too long to keep them out, they should have a chance

Teams are not entitled to play in Super League, they can win the grand final and not be promoted but they should be allowed to access the Super League if they meet the minimum standards and are the best team in the national league

You don’t expand the game by placing clubs in areas you want the game to be played Paris, Gateshead, Bridgend, who is next?

you have to expand to areas where there is demand, if that means professional teams in existing RL towns then so be it, the aim is expansion in players and supporters It is NOT expansion to have clubs further apart, it is expansion to have more players and more fans no matter where they are, if you reduce the numbers in the heartlands then it is bad for the game





Here we reach the heart of your argument

This debate is bad because it mentions my club in a bad light

Relegation is bad because it would be bad for my club

I only mention clubs as examples, you are free to do the same but do not suggest that one club’s fate shows how every club would fare in the same situation, this is a debate about the game as a whole and not a personal digs or club banter thread

I have not seen why franchising is a good thing for THE GAME AS A WHOLE