No, it most certainly doesn't do that!

The thing is though, that even with unwritten rules, people will work them out eventually and react to the incentives that exist. A lack of rules has consequences - a plus is that gives you the flexibility to make what you regard to be common sense choices. It does though leave the system anchorless and open to charges of inconsistency. A lack of rules will tend also to lead to a lack of compliance - for the small clubs there is no point and for the big ones there is no need. This puts the RFL in a very weak position.

So anyway, we've reached an agreement - the current system is not constrained by rules.


If we're going to retain it, all I ask is that we do so honestly, and not imply rigour where there is none:

'Super League is a RFL invitational tournament...'

Fudge! Fudge! Incomplete! Fibs!

=#FF0000*** Failure to establish above statement with evidence alert ***

See [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=17304620&tsmp=1363368032#p17304620[uHERE[/u[/url.

It was already a qualified statement. We are 'on course' to, not we are doing or already have done. Talk to me at the end of the season.

Happy to help!

I've never personally been that comfortable with a central body determining much when it comes to how a club chooses to spend money. If a club has spare cash to pay superstars, great. For me, the best a central body can do is ensure there's a landscape whereby bankrupting yourself isn't the only way to compete. Beyond that, if a club bankrupts itself anyway, well...

You can achieve that landscape simply by limiting the number of players in a squad that can be paid over, say 50k a year, and cap the squad size in total to say 30. The amount the 'star 13' actually get paid is the club's problem. Keep the central body out after that. Don't even link to turnover.

This is why I think it works...say the limit is 13 players, for example.

First up, you need a strong setup behind the scenes because you'll certainly need plenty good players outside your 13 to get you through a full season. At sub-50k these will more than likely have to be academy graduates, eager to prove themselves to get in a top 13, not Aussie has-beens.

It's impossible for a club to hoover up all the talent and stick it on the bench.

It won't lead to massive wage inflation, because with only 13 star berths available in each side, there'll be plenty talent competing hard on the fringes looking for one of those berths...in others words, excess supply. Even if you're a poorer club, once Leeds, Wigan etc. are 'full' there's plenty good players looking for a job.

Works for me anyhow.

in Argentinian football they have P+R but its based on a 3 season average it was to stop the big clubs getting relegated if they have one bad season last season River Plate were close to getting relegated and winning the league in the same season i know its got nothing to do with this just thought i would mention it

The RFL should just be upfront and call it as it is, closed shop with the existing clubs having a license. If new clubs want in and are viable then the comp expands or a club is replaced if they go bust and can no longer service the license.

Explain ' Viable ' , ' Bust ' and ' No longer service the licence ' in RFL terms?

Not that old chestnut again.

It should be fairly clear that the RFL have neither the ground nor the money. The problem is that the Crusaders secured other debts against the ground. If the ground was sold, it would not pay off all the debts secured against it.

More games played, more teams.



It was secured against the ground. To my knowledge no money has been paid back. You would expect some kind of announcement if it had been.

Come on Mr hedgehog the rfl are still owd £700k or they still own a large part of the wrexham ground.
Thers no way would they write off that kind of money