Because it protects teams who perform poorly in their club administration, youth development, stadium upkeep, supporter recruitment etc. Teams who neglect all those important things and concentrate on on the on-field work are protected from being moved down the divisions. J

If this hypothetical club is so bad in so many areas, I imagine it would be just as bad on the field.

It's an interesting point that you make and I agree that all those aspect are vital. It's a shame that many clubs in SL have not been able to improve these vital areas you suggest, even though they have been protected for three years to allow them to do just that. I'm not saying this as a tongue in cheek dig, I mean it, in fact it's a bloody crying shame for rugby league, not just those clubs.

The big difference is that the traditional system did not set out to be protectionist and any that occurs is by accident and tenuous at best.

Franchising deliberately set out to be protectionist. At the moment it isn't quite working, but I accept that may take time.

That depends on whether you take a literal interpretation of what I said. Perhaps it would have been more precise of me to say "hovering around the borders between divisions with the financial uncertainty that that brings and making poor financial decisions to gain promotion".

Yes it is. In the same way the salary cap is protectionist.

But it's an attempt to protecting clubs against themselves and to try and eliminate boom and bust nature that some clubs were willing to risk

So thats a ' none ' then

The salary cap is the same for all clubs so it protects ' all '

location criteria protects some only

I don't disagree, but then that was not the original point of the debate. That started several pages back when Adeybull wrote:

Hmmmm..... lets see.....

hovering around the borders between divisions ..... financial uncertainty ......making poor financial decisions to gain promotion. Must be at least half of the clubs in RL



I seem to remember that Dewsbury actually turned promotion down because they did not think they were financially prepared which ironically then resulted in Kelly leaving and ultimate relegation to NR2, but I am only speaking from memory. Did Hunslet also once turn down promotion?

Dewsbury and Hunslet were both turned down by the RFL I think.

There were Workington and Oldham for two.

So when were they promoted back up then ?

it doesnt protect those who could comfortably spend much more nor does it protect those who cant spend it