Because they start doing this around June/July time or even earlier, rather than throwing a squad of rejects together a month or two before the start of the season

are you 4 real?...dougnut

Is it ?

In what way ?

That still does not stop the problem of the relegated Super League club dominating the Championship competition and getting stripped of its foundations and any progress it had made over the past 5 years. As well as the fact that there would still be a massive influx of journeymen Australians, such as the ones Widnes signed that eventually led to them being relegated again 3 years later. It's alright saying 'they would survive', but really it is just ridiculous that people feel there should be a need for them to have to 'survive'. And bringing some anti-expansionist garbage isn't going to change that.

Is it what?

[i"Is it"[/i doesn't make sense in the context of that part of my quote you put in bold.

Go on then, what is the difference between them?

How about the chance to win the league you have been playing in all year?

yeah and by rights then you should step up

So you admit that the removal of relegation and promotion is to protect expansion clubs

The players Widnes signed when they were promoted were not the ones that got them relegated , it was an almost totally different team

Once again you are falling into the trap of assuming that every club can avoid finishing bottom in a sporting competition , we hae a thread on the VT about it at the moment

For every winner there is a loser , dont forget that

Ok , Why should being on the TV at some point in the season help with sponsorship to the championship clubs ?

The deals for sponsors are done before you know wether you are on the telly

No, I haven't mentioned expansion clubs once


Yes, but the fact that they based their team on those journeymen meant that they had no structure to fall back on once they had left/retired, and they ended up signing players like Troy Wozniak and Sala Fa'alongo to try and replace them. Hence they got relegated after 3 years and not one, but the cause was still the same. It was similar at Salford when they got relegated in 2006.
This did not make any sense to me. Someone obviously has to finish bottom, what does that have to do with this?

Not necessarily. The National Conference champions aren't promoted to the Championship 1, crickets minor league champions aren't promoted to the the county championship, there's no P&R in British Ice Hockey.

Ah right, OK.

In the long run though - regular televised seasons should attract more sponsorship.

I accept - it is harder to attract the better class of sponsor and to put bums on seats given that the glamour clubs are in that "other place" but with clever marketing and perhaps a better TV deal (terrestrial) Championship clubs could benefit, in comparison to it's forebears. Fanciful stuff? Maybe, but there are still opportunities in this league if Chairmen AND the RFL put in the hard work.

Wether you mentioned them or not , they are the problem with relegation , they might not survive relegation , most if not all heartland clubs would

They had no structure ? , go on give us a clue , do you mean that they had not managed to produce their own juniors ? like Huddersfield



The cause was not the same , eventually somebody HAS to finish bottom , you finish bottom you are punished for that ie relegated

It seems to me that in the new SL world without relegation we will have different teams winning and finishing bottom every year but no coaches will be sacked and no fans will moan and everyhting will be wonderful

Well guess what , that is bollox

NO

Vitually impossible without a clear path to promotion

Never happen , the BBC/ITV will not waste money on second class sport with nothing to play for in their eyes

A lot of hard work and a total different outlook to what we presently have , also they have to work outside the control of the RFL , unfortunatley they are too stupid to realise that and the RFL know it

Why the heck does this need to happen?

It doesn't need to happen

Because it is just the way it is , unless of course you have several hundred millions to invest then it doesn't have to be that way

Why do we need to force one of our best teams to effectively give everything up and, in your own words, 'struggle to survive'? What are we achieving from that?

Thanks

no

thats not true at all.

Sky are investing money into NL1 and 2 with no real promotion from NL1 into SL. its up to NL1 and 2 clubs to build themselves up to be able to draw decent crowds and get good numbers watching them on TV.

promotion into SL should be about more than just on field success and look at things like finances, juniors etc.

the way the RFL have done franchising is brilliant as it still allows good NL1 clubs into SL provided they deserve it

Oh good , would you like to tell the chairmen of those clubs then

I'm sure you could provide us all with a link to show us this as well

Where's your campaign for promotion and relegation between Championship 1 and the Conference National?

Godwin.