[url=http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/20870.php#.Ud5-e_mceSoHere's the opinion of your intelligent and articulate hero[/url.

Very articulate.

I don't necessarily agree but when your as well fit as sinni you can talk people around.

Reading the interview with Sinfield on the BBC website, I would suggest that even more fuel is added to the fire on those rumours, and perhaps GH is the chief instigator.

GH was also a key player in support of franchising and a 14 team SL in 2009.

Will some teams risk breaking the SC next season in an attempt to avoid a bottom two finish?

Surely Wigan can't get away with that again...

I don't believe that Wigan will have to break the salary cap this time around to avoid relegation

Quite

The lack of criticism directed at GH and Sir Kev from those opposed to the changes remains conspicuous by it's absence

PDBW

I thought it was live and there fore 'unbreakable'

If the clubs want to, any cap is breakable

May I take this opportunity to applaud the CEO of arguably one of the most successful SL clubs for his enthusiastic backing for the 12 team SL, a return to P&R and the scrapping of the terminally ill and failed franchise system.

I place all my trust in the CEO in question who knows a hell of a lot more about RL structuring and administration than all of the posters on this board combined.

Believe in the sleeve!

So we're not even through the second round of franchises before, in typical rugby league style, we decide to go back to two systems (12 team top tier and automatic P&R) that were deemed unworkable due to the lack of home games and the issues with moving between pro and semi-pro competitions.

Short-termism will be the death of the sport.

My thoughts exactly. It's never going tochange

Maybe the Franchise system would have worked better if it wasn't implimented so poorly!!
For e.g how can teams like the Bulls and Crusaders get Franchises on if's buts and maybe's then need the RFL to bail them out and in both cases waste money the game needs??
At the same time how much ££££ did the RFL put into Wakey??
I'd be happy to stay with Franchising if it was impilmented much stronger with proof of funds etc and if teams struggle or can't raise the ££££ then they should be relegated.

Do you actually agree with the changes though? You've slagged everyone elses opinions, peoples opinions of other people's opinions and the [ilack[/i of opinions people have on other people's opinions.

What's your opinion? We want some fun as well having a crack at you.

The problem is you can never prove 100% where growth in revenue is going to come from. Crusaders were always going to be a bankrolled club and so the assurances of Leighton Samuel were pivotal. In the same way you have to assume other owners will continue to bankroll their clubs eg Hudgell, Davy, Moran, O'Connor etc. The fact Samuel walked away was the main problem, as it would be at plenty of other clubs.
The point with the other clubs like Bradford and Wakefield is that even if their finances/plans etc were weak, were they one of the top 14 clubs in the country? I'd say they both were and that there wasn't a ready alternative.

I'd agree though that the licensing should have been stronger and much much more transparent. With very detailed grading on each club in different areas published on the RFL website, along with key areas that must be improved by the next licence period.

Licensing should have driven the number of teams in the competition, rather than the other way around.

Stating you're going to have a 14 team comp means that you are going to take the best 14 bids, rather than excluding ones that weren't off sufficient quality.

Oh and btw, I trust you've got some figures on how much the RFL have supposedly "put into" Bradford and Wakefield? AFAIW, the RFL have advanced both clubs money they were entitled to. Big difference.

Were Bradford entitled to having their ground bought for them and then having their squad ring-fenced when Wakey weren't?
What about the money that Crusaders received as a "Loan"?
Also does exspansion mean you atuomatically get a franchise irrespective of attendances and consistent bottem 3 finishes?

All 3 situations were very different and required different responses. What about the money Crusaders received as a loan? As I understand it the loan was secured on the ground and so I've no reason to suspect its in doubt.
Bradford's ground was under threat, Wakefields wasn't. Why would the RFL move to secure Wakefields ground when it didnt need securing? In what way did the RFL ring-fence Bradford's squad?


I'm not sure which club you're referring to here. Over the 3 years of the first licence period (2009-2011) a total of 6 clubs finished in the bottom 3 places in a season. None of them finished in the bottom 3 every year:
Celtic/Crusaders = twice (14th & 14th)
Salford = twice (13th & 12th)
Harlequins = twice (12th & 13th)
Catalans = once (14th)
Wakefield = once (13th)
Hull FC = once (12th)

Of those clubs their average league position over those 3 years is:
Celtic/Crusaders = 12th
Salford = 12th
Harlequins = 12th
Wakefield = 10th
Catalans = 9th
Hull FC = 9th

Their average crowds were:
Harlequins = 3,271
Celtic/Crusaders = 3,820
Salford = 4,399
Wakefield = 6,055
Catalans = 7,717
Hull FC = 12,753

From that I can't particularly choose one as under performing more than the others. I see 3 clubs struggling severely (Quins, Celtic & Salford) another struggling moderately (Wakefield) and 2 strong clubs that obviously had a bizarrely poor season (Hull & Catalans). So I'm unsure which club automatically got a licence.

Him-When Wakey were struggling ££££ wise and Admin came calling the RFL did not act to help them keep their players and many were picked off yet when it happened at the Bulls the RFL intervened so that they were not forced to either sell or release players their squad remained in tact and they bought their ground so not prefferential treatment no??
Also it's obvious the Club i'm reffering to is London other teams have had their applications turned down Widnes included when they offered much more to SL and had the ££ to back it up so again is that a balanced Franchise system?
Finally re-Crusaders the RFL lost money on that Franchise did they not or have i got that wrong?

The heartlands continue to be the only places worth perservering with: London/Harlequins/whatever it is these days and any Welsh club should be hastily forgotten. We need to cut SL down to 10 Northern England clubs plus 2 Southern France clubs.....there are simply not enough good players for sustaining more than that. The play off should be restricted to top 4 to stop any of the [iLeeds-like-coasting[/i through the regular season.
One sided perpetual whipping boy games is not conducive to any credible game. Screw Sky or BT for more investment and get a wealthy for god's sake [inon-Stobart-like[/i sponsor...hmmmm



It's all irrelevant really as RU continues to make great strides in its efforts to make the game 'faster and more entertaining' especially when the Southern hemisphere refs hopefully take control of more international matches;thus ignoring the tedious repeated technical scrum offences/resulting penalty goals.

Ironically one day, before we know it, these scrums will become less and less important in the game's continued efforts to successfully expand on the international scene and perhaps they might also even consider reducing the points for kicks; drop kicks ....and reducing the number of forwards on the field to 6

Sometimes, there's just no point presenting facts to people when they persist in "knowing" something that isn't true to be so.

Let's assume these rumours are true. Why? What's his motives?

Isn't it part of his master plan to have leeds plodding along, engineering 5th places finishes then having an easier run to the grand final (

) This certainly blows that out of the order.

So what are GH's evil, self serving reasons for this change?