The CC? Nothing.

The WCC? Everything.

HTH

Disagree big man, disagree.

[url=http://yfrog.com/gz66zxkjLeeds Application[/url

rather a lot of docs

Not if all the folders are empty

Probably Wakefield will be dropping down a divison. Should Crusaders follow suit and make way for Halifax

Wakefield SHOULD drop - they offer nothing and they should be closely followed by the Welsh folly.

I agree and think wakefield will drop, and also agree with Crusaders but sadly that wont happen IMO

Both Wakefield and Castleford should drop. Both were given licences on promises they made about stadiums. Promises that haven't come to fruition.

Three seasons in the championship might make them see sense about a ground share.

Harsh but true.

of the 14 teams I think Crusaders bring the least to the competition, they are behind wakey and cas on more criteria than they would be ahead particularly since their double bust and move
but i'd prefer annual P+R, particularly as if Fax are denied promotion there is a clear indication that there are more teams ready than places available and at least one of them will be cut off from the game's main source of income for three years (and beyond...)

I'm in agreement with you on this mate not least because it's blatantly obvious that the likes of Quinns ,Catalans and Crusaders are not judged on the same criteria in the name of "expansion" especially the Welsh mob because that would be the RFL admitting making a balls up in letting them in in the 1st place.

They are not judged in the same way because they add to SL's value to TV, from which all clubs benefit. If that wasn't the case then Quins and Crusaders wouldn't be in SL today.

How do they add value to T.V?
Seeing empty stands in London for a RL match live on t.v really adds value and the same for the plastic South Wales Franchise.

They don't add value to TV, they add to the value of Super League as a TV package, by at least a couple of zeros

We have concrete evidence to prove this do we?

We have common sense, which should be enough

So it's common sense to keep supporting these failing clubs?
How long do we "shield" them from the whole franchise process?
How long do we give them to actually gain reasonable attendances?

Have had an idea to make all this easier...

You know we play all these games of rugby every week, and they keep dishing out these mythical "points" for the people that win the games, and the people that don't win don't get any. Well, if we had some sort of "table" to record who had earned these "points", and more importantly in this case, who has failed to earn them, then at the end (you know the bit when we normally have the Grand Final), whoever has the least points isn't allowed to play in Super League the year after?

Thoughts?

I'm all for it.

When the teams in the Championship are strong enough of course, which currently, they aren't.

I've no evidence, nor am I sure I have any common sense, but it's hardly a stretch to theorise that Sky would pay more money for a sport with a presence in London and Wales than it would with a sport whose presence is solely limited to Yorkshire and Lancashire. There can't be much scope to sell many more satellite dishes and sports subscriptions in the heartlands and that is what Sky care about.

Plus, it seems to me that Harlequins and Crusaders are already, in their short existence, doing much better work at grass roots in their areas than many heartland clubs are doing in theirs.

I'd also like to see them persevere with an idea and give it time to grow, especially in Crusaders case.

Just my twopenneth but I think both are worth an other three years.

Plus, how do these two clubs crowds compare to long standing heartland clubs like Salford and Wakefield? Is there that much of a disparity?

So they'd have to Yo-Yo for a few years. Deal with it.



It could also strengthen the Championship because players that are not quite SL standard, but "better than Championship" standard (Kirke etc) would be more likely to sign for Championship clubs if promotion was a possibility. It would be seen as less of a failure to succeed in SL, and more a success for getting Sheffield (whoever) promoted.

The main reason the RFL don't do it, is nothing to do with whether the Champ clubs could cope, it's to do with not having control over whether or not Crusaders, Catalans or Quins go down.

How long do we give Widnes, Salford, Wakefield, etc to ge reasonable attendances? they have a 100 year head start and arent massively in front.

The main point i'm making is that not every club has been judged on the level playing field the RFL are selling this Franchise system as and as a way to "improve" standards.
What about the grass roots work Wakey have put in and the success of their junior teams in recent years?
Again with the Sky money does that then make the Welsh and Quinns untouchable and how much would we lose as a sport if they were judged not SL standard?
The franchise system is a new way of judging our clubs so everyone of them should be judged the same from the same start point imo.
There seems to be an attitude that it's a straight choice between Salford and Wakey who gets the boot and i think thats wrong if the assessmenst are done fairly and on a level playing field for all clubs involved.
How long have the London club had?
Of course the grass roots stuff is great and important but again does that make them untouchable down south and in Wales?

They should ALL be judged the same from when the franchise system was introduced afterall does'nt the RFL always preach that the past is just that when they are making thes decisions?
It's easy to have a dig at Wakey ,Salford and Cas but why not question the complete feck ups that happened at London Broncos ar the recent Farce at the Crusaders?