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?

When doing what he does best (deriding the super league competition) jeff has posted on a few occasions in the past he favoured a 12 team league, a top 5 playoff system and p&R, which is what the new structure could entail. He will find a new angle to troll from if it get's instigated,

Did the RFL buy Odsal?
Did the RFL get the money back they loaned Crusaders?
Did wakeys squad get picked off whereas the Bulls' didn't?
Have London deserved a Franchise over Widnes ,Fax and Fev?
How did the Bulls get a franchise in a system that was promoted as seperating the weak from the strong and whilst they clearly couldn't deliver what they promised?
Feel free to present these facts AG proving how well this Franchise system worked and that the above events never took place?

Wakefield's time in Administration lasted a couple of weeks whereas Bradford's was about a month. Big difference in terms of costs needing paying including wages. Bradford's ground was under threat, Wakefield's wasn't. Bradford's administration was mid-season, Wakefield's was pre-season.
The 2 situations were different, as was Crusaders, I don't know why differing circumstances would require a like-for-like response. So no, I don't believe there was preferential treatment. I believe there was treatment appropriate to the situation.


Yet London have never finished bottom of the table. Why is Steve O'Connor's money worth more than David Hughes? So it was the years before the first franchise round that's the problem?
In that case in the 10 seasons before 2009 (the first franchise year) London only finished in the bottom 3 twice. An average position of 8th.

Compared to Widnes with a SL average position of 10th and finishing in the bottom 3 twice.


I have no idea, as I understand it the loan was secured on the stadium. I'm not sure how the RFL would lose out on that and I've not heard anything to say they have.

Him-Whether pre-season or during the Season both Clubs were under threat yet only one had -Their ground bought and their squad protecetd to complete the season.
Wakey's ground may not have been under threat but the Club as an entity was so what's worse?
I've no problem with the RFL stepping in and helping but surely it has to be same amount of aid for ANY club in trouble?
The level of outside interest in both Clubs was known was it not?
When Widnes were refused a franchise they were told that theer were doubts over their ££££ so Steve Oconner wrote a cheque to the RFL to cover their costs for the first season to show his commitment but was turned down.
Since that time Wakey ,Crusaders and Bradford have hit ££££ trouble yet retained their licences how is that system fair?
As for London fair play mate i got their finishing positions in SL wrong but i'will say they don't have their own ground have low attendances and in the last 3 yrs have gone backwards so i doubt their franchise award.
I'll support ANY system wher the game thrives but i dont think this Franchise system how its been policed has worked and i doubt the actions taken by the RFL for different Clubs under this system.

But there was obviously more willing and available options to take over Wakefield, since the administration and takeover took only a couple of weeks. Did their players even need paying during that time? I assume they're paid monthly like other employees. No-one protected Bradford's players other than Bradford.
Again, why would the RFL buy Wakefields ground? It wasn't under threat and not owned by them in the first place so how would that have helped? Their stadium was not under threat. Bradford's was and they needed that sorting.
The pre-season, mid-season issue is also a bigger issue than you are implying.


Why? Simplistically speaking, if Wakefield required £100k to keep going and Bradford required £300k, should both only receive £100k? Or should the RFL "overpay" Wakefield and give them both £300k? A club should receive the level and scope of help it needs depending on the situation, anything else is just daft.


Yes. Which is why it took only 2 weeks for a takeover of Wakefield and a month for a takeover of Bradford.
Should the RFL have refused to help Bradford based on Wakefields administration? What if Bradford's had come first? Shoud they then have bought Wakefields ground even though it didnt need buying and wouldn't really help Wakefield?


Right, so why does that make them more deserving of a licence for 2009 than London? Who didn't go bust in the licence period?


Crusaders haven't retained their licence. They withdrew from the process. There isn't a mechanism for removal of a club mid-licence period, nor should there be otherwise it defeats the point of a licence period. A licence should only be given/revoked at the licence decision round. Wakefield were awarded another licence in the last round. Rightly in my opinion, unless you think they aren't one of the 14 top clubs in the country. Bradford haven't reached that point yet (of another licence round) and it seems unlikely there will be another round, however if there were I would be happy for Bradford to receive a licence as quite categorically one of the 12/14 top clubs.

I'm still not sure how Wakefield, Bradford and Salford going bust and being allowed to stay in SL fits into the "expansion gets you a licence" argument. Since the only "expansion" club to go bust under licensing no longer has a licence and those protected by licensing are heartland clubs.


I don't doubt in the slightest their first licence, it was thoroughly deserved as one of the top 14 clubs. The second is more debatable but given the withdrawal of Crusaders had let Widnes in there wasn't a strong club banging down the door for replacing London.
I agree totally that they've gone backwards and appear shambolic on and off the pitch. But so have Salford, Cas and Bradford since the last licence decision. I think that is far more down to club mis-management, often historic mis-management finally coming home to roost.


I think this system has worked ok, but could be far better. More detailed summaries for a start. Going into detail on various issues including playing strength, academy systems, community work, financial strength/stability and stadium issues. Plus goals to be completed by the next licence round.

The problem is that some people view the licensing system as a process of weeding out teams who are financially weak, pointing the finger when teams subsequently hit money problems. But that wasn't quite the case: it was intended to choose the 14 teams which best fitted a bunch of criteria. Under pretty much any measurement of things, the Bulls were one of the top 14 when the last licences were passed around. So were London who were and are more financially stable with the confirmed backing of their owner for the licence period.

I've still not seen any posts displaying love and affection for GH relative to his divine wisdom and key support for the latest structural changes to SL, the return of P&R and the termination of the shambolic licensing experiment.

However, I am seeing criticism of these changes in a "Who voted for this? The same chairmen that have run their clubs into the ground with chaotic mis-management, short-sighted, shooting oneself in the foot, appeasement of irrelevant Championship clubs" kind of way... a critique which remains curiously devoid of any reference to GH himself and his supportive and enthusiastic role in all these proposed SL changes.

Hmmm...

Indeed

I'm flattered by your interest in my opinions on these matters, but surely you ought to be more interested in GH's volte face (or chaotic mismanagement according to G1) on SL structure and the reasons why?

I know I am

[url=http://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php/topic/241927-is-it-really-all-my-fault/?p=2744656Just for you Gilder![/url

I really couldn't have put it better myself

Blasphemer....those that do not believe should have their necks smitten to remove the offending heads.

Quite, but this is not Westeros, though I'm sure anyone who possesses the combined skill sets of Lord Varys and Littlefinger must necessarily be considered as extremely gifted in the darkest of arts. Without such input (for the greater good of the game as a whole - obviously - no, really), I doubt the rich and abundant history of structural change during the SL era would have been half as interesting.

GH by plenty

Couldn't care less what GH and Sinfield think - its a dumb thing to do.

Aside from the RFL asking all clubs to agree not to approach Bradfords players!!




So Wakefield would not have benefitted from the RFL buying their ground and letting it back to them at "market rate" like Bradford? By the way I have put market rate in quotes because we all know that their rent is nothing like the actual market rate.

We "know" this?

Go on, this should be fun.

How much is the market rent for a sports stadium of Odsal's size and condition? If you don't know, you can tell me what rent they were paying to their previous landlords instead.

And how much are Bradford currently paying?

Since Wakefield didn't have a ground to sell isn't this a fairly meaningless point?

Quote ="MjM"Since Wakefield didn't have a ground to sell isn't this a fairly meaningless point?'" Quite How many CCJ's have Wakefield been issued with? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5854747

Quote ="MjM"Since Wakefield didn't have a ground to sell isn't this a fairly meaningless point?'" Quite How many CCJ's have Wakefield been issued with? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5854747

Quote ="Northern Boys"Quite How many CCJ's have Wakefield been issued with? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5854747'" 9. of which 8 are settled.

Quote ="Northern Boys"Quite How many CCJ's have Wakefield been issued with? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5854747'" 9. of which 8 are settled.

Leaving the sniping aside, I'd love this to work, in terms of bringing back P&R but I just don't think the league is strong enough to sustaining it. For reasons elaborated on already by others, it's hard to see anything but one or two clubs who "yo-yo" back and forth between the two tiers, being too weak and ill prepared for SL level, or being offered a parachute payment and cap (the cap alone probably isn't enough with small crowds and reduced sponsor exposure) which means that they will be far too strong for everyone in the tier below.

I hope I'm wrong.

I also still don't believe that declaaring there not to be enough players to go around and thus retreating into the heartlands to be the answer. Why do that instead of doing the hard yards at grass roots levels to increase the player pool. The former option (as espoused by my old chum Nantwich - sorry mate, I know you're not alone, you just always stick in my mind for some reason) reminds me of austerity economic politics. It doesn't promote growth, it just creates an illusion of efficiency , if you're lucky.

Finally, I've asked this in various places, but if this odd split into 3 tiers happens, can somebody tell me what it is that the teams in the second tier will be paying for, or why, in particular, the fans of the 4 bottom teams in SL are going to want to keep paying the same rates they were expecting to pay to watch Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds to watch Fev, Fax, Batley, Sheffield? No offence to those clubs, but their current attendances suggest they are less than marketable.

Licensing was only ever supposed to provide a better platform and more stability for the game to address its problems, not for licensing to actually solve the problems the game faced. The game addressed its problems, but only in part.

So the game has decided to regress to 12 team P+R, which wont address any of the games problems and wont give a platform or stability for the game to address them.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter which format we have if the game is ignoring its actual problems. Until the game addresses its poor marketing, poor visibility, poor facilities, poor youth development, poor PR, poor image, poor corporate relationships, poor management and poor governance it doesn’t matter if we have franchising, P+R, or something so amazingly brilliant none of us can even imagine it right now, the game wont move forward. The cut to 14 and the regression to P+R is disappointing because it shines a very bright spotlight on the fact we are looking for answers in the wrong places.

It wasnt the RFL. SL clubs were asked at a SL club meeting. They didn't have to agree. Huddersfield didn't. Hence the Craig Kopczak affair. At least Wakefield got fees for their players.



What is Bradford's payment rate?
What is Wakefield's? Why is Wakefield's rate so poor? Was it that rate putting their existence in doubt? Was Belle Vue under threat?

Once again, it's incredibly daft, and can only happen in the world of sports fans, for 2 very different situations requiring different responses to be criticised for responding by providing help in 2 different ways.

Oh, that's OK then.

“We had hoped they would accept our payment terms without advertising the information,” Glover added. “There have also been a number of CCJs against the company. Some of these are through disagreements with suppliers and others are through straightforward mistakes on our behalf. There have been nine in total, of which eight are now settled and cleared. We are still waiting for the final paperwork to come through for the last one and then it will be cleared off."

Erm, if you had disagreements with suppliers and they got CCJs then the suppliers were right and you were wrong Mr Glover. Sounds very shambolic.

1 of the CCJs was handed out the day prior to the interview he gave fwiw.