2 leagues of 10 wont help anyone. Firstly it would mean less games which in turn leads to less income. The players would not willingly take less money because they would be playing less games either, so you would end up with teams paying out the same amount of money yet receiving much less. I don't see how that can work, please explain.

It doesn't have to mean less games, it could mean you play each team three times instead of two. Those games would hopefully be more competitive, more attractive to audiences and hopefully attract bigger attendances because it's likely that the best supported teams will generally be within the top 10.

The more serious issue would be what happened to the teams in the lower league. That League would need a good television deal to provide adequate funding, because in order to be successful it would need to be much closer to Super League level than the Championship currently is.

I'd seriously doubt that a 'two tier Super League' would be sustainable with both league's being under the guise of 'Super League'. Sky would only care about the highest league and that's where all the money would go.

I don't think anyone on these forums would know the ins and outs of such a decision and how feasible it would be so it's all hypothetical.

If you look at the 3 teams that screwed up in the last couple of years.

Crusaders - Mr Moss took everyone for a ride including Wrexham fc. He was only intrested in the money and selling the ground for a nice payday.

Wakefield - old Ted towards the end was clueless no cash and was running the club like a semi pro team. Look at the change since the new guy has come in.

Bradford - Again short term planning for this guy. 2 years on the bounce they have sold cheap season tickets. They sold a large amount but how many go each week. The ones that do go are then handing the cash saved into the burger vans etc which are not run by the club. He has no cash to support the club & no idea how to get extra cash in.

If we were to go back to P&R no doubt we would have a couple of teams who would be yo-yoing inbetween leagues and at least one of them going belly up as they would be paying full time cash but playing in front of a 4,000 people each week. Do Leigh, Fax or Fev have backers who could support this? (maybe fev with probiz coming on board)

Its not the SC or the RFL, its the clubs managing outside of their finances

The SC prevents excessive expenditure-It holds wealthy clubs back such as Wigan and Wire rather than hinders less wealthy clubs. They should be the ones complaining about it

How on earth is the supposition (which is nonsense) that franchising is killing non-sl heartland sides responsible for Bradfords problems.

Some on here will look for any excuse-The answer is in the mirror, Bulls Board

Of course it is the Bulls BOD fault, the RFL criticism is only relevant to the fairly recent awarding of a licence to a club with serious financial problems

The situation with the licencing issue is that it was supposed to stop things like this happening , but it seems it doesnt

It isnt supposed to stop things like this happening, no system, ever, not even your precious promotion and relegation can stop it happening.

Its just supposed to make it less likely and easier to deal with when it does.

Most definatley, an average of one a season isnt that bad I suppose

Really? Thats one of the more idiotic statistics you have made up. Not the most idiotic but one of them.

*popcorn*

Good basic analysis.

In another example of exceptions proving rules, I agree with this.

The whole worlds going to explode and everything we do is wrong and always has been...cos one man cant manage his club properly.

Mmm let me think, 4 years of franchising? , 4 clubs in serious financial problems? , yep thats one a year

Love the way people preach this two divisions of 10 (Jamie Peacock is one of them) but can never provide any financial numbers to back this plan.

Can someone please tell me how the 2nd division of 10 is gonna generate TV money? How will they afford to pay full time wages?

No TV executive will be interested in paying for 2nd division TV rights.

What evidence or actual argument have you got to say that non franchising would have stopped teams going bust?

I like how you are now moving on to your fairly vague and subjective interpretation of 'serious financial problems' rather than any actual, definable issue. It will allow you hide behind your usual fog-knitting and deliberate-confusion.

But other than Wakefield and Crusaders, and now Bradford, which was your other one?

While I like the idea of the 10 team leagues you are quite correct, unless the 2 nd tier recieved a reasonable TV deal it isnt workable,

Again correct, so why is the 2 nd tier on TV now?

Again no evidence, but it was one of the major arguments for it at the time, something us more knowledgeable ( about human nature ) fans pointed out, I suppose that is the argument

Celtic Crusaders
Wakefield
Crusaders
Bradford

And we still have a few months to go yet

You outdo yourself.

but at the moment the 2nd tier gets no money for TV rights. So yeah we may get that no problem but thats no good if people want a professional 2nd division.

Why which one of them was just a dream in the shower?

I suppose it depends if anybody was willing to stump up 3-4 million a year, if there isnt then as you say, it wont work

Don't forget the extra crowds and revenue generated from the P&R battles..

For you? probably all of them.