Actually just about everything in this sentence is incorrect. P and R is good for sport as it forces teams to improve rather than coast along not winning anything every year but still getting paid.

What it is NOT good for, is business. Sport is NOT business, it is entertainment in all its forms. If you firmly believe that sport = business try going and standing outside M&S or Tesco and cheer them on. Sport needs financial support yes, but sport is sport and both ends of the table provide entertainment that Sky are prepared to pay money for.

Why doesn't the NRL have it? Because they never had it and therefore their sport is built around not having it - plus the lower league is financially supported better than over here and they are not treat like second class citizens. Thats back to the whole mentality thing I posted earlier.

I also put to you that supporting Leeds for so long, you've forgotten all that. That isn't meant to be a dig at you, but its a possible view of why you have this opinion.

As I seem to be talking more about basketball than RL here today, i should mention that I think that perception is based on people watching highlights, which are more likely to show scores than misses. A team having 50% successful shooting from the field (I dunno why they call it a field) is considered very good.

I was once watching season highlights of Icelandic handball (long story), and pointed out to my friend how ineffective the goalkeepers seemed to be - same sort of thing.

In many ways I enjoy watching games as discrete 80 minutes of entertainment. I’d happily watch a series of challenge matches, without worrying about there being a champion, I imagine.

I see the value of a league structure in providing an ongoing sporting narrative, as well as regular fixtures and income. I prefer having it, but could still enjoy games without it, I think.

sometimes, I think the ongoing narrative distracts us and takes us out of the moment. For example, in football, when they say ‘what does this fixture mean for these teams hopes of qualifying for the Champions League?’, i feel like they’re moving on before we’ve enjoyed what’s in front of us.

So I don’t really get the concept of a meaningless game or dead rubber. Surely each game itself should have meaning - its result matters in of itself. As much as sport matters at all.

But that seems to be a minority view and the sport needs to appeal to the broadest possible audience.

This one million percent.

You live beyond your means and this is what happened. I see nothing different to suggest Widnes would not be in a better position should we still be licensing. We need all the headlines we can get and relegation gets that. We are seeing teams starting up and entering in the bottom structure and growing nicely.

Him is obviously $h!tting himself coz Leeds are in the poop.

And it's Sinfield who has degraded your club.

Seems to me like relegation is used as a scapegoat for clubs making bad decisions.

Agreed.

If you want to discuss the subject do it like a grown up.

No it’s not actually. Well not solely. It’s a series of poor decisions that go back a few years involving both Hetherington and Sinfield and possibly McDermott added in with a bit of bad luck.

And that’s not the point.

Clubs make poor decisions all the time. That will never ever end. Poor decisions aren’t always poor decisions at the time they are made.

Stop making this all about Leeds. If London go down, have they made poor decisions? It would seem they’ve made some good ones.

As I said to Cokey. Clubs make bad decisions all the time. They will continue to do so.

When we have only 14 professional clubs can we afford a structure that actively helps reduce that number?

What bad decisions have London made this season?

The main point is that, by not having relegation or, more impotently, not having the opportunity of promotion, the game had royally screwed over all of the clubs outside of Super League AND prevented the future inclusion of the N. American wanabe's.

Therefore, after discussion among ALL of the clubs, "we" had the all new 3 x 8 structure, which, despite some of the drama that was created in the "middle 8", was an absolute disaster and thank goodness, this was consigned to history.

However, allowing clubs to gain promotion is the right thing for the game, albeit, it's massively painful and damaging for any relegated club, although, they do of course have the chance to regain their spot should they achieve promotion in future.

The game does need to re visit funding for the Championship, which has to be more evenly spread and let's be honest, this conversation is only taking place because Leeds are in danger.
If the bottom 34 clubs were KR, Trinity, Salford and Huddersfield, nobody (apart from their own fans) would give a toss whether they went down (or out of business).

Our sport is dominated by the needs and wishes of the top 4/.5 clubs and the rest have to fall in behind them, which as they are the main drivers for income / investment, is probably right.
Largely, they (including Leeds) have got what they wanted so, to start moaning that relegation is wrong is just a little sad.
Your argument is not one of principle, more to do with self preservation.

Yep.

I agree with al lot of what you say but still think licensing is the way to go.

Assumptions are being made that with a franchise system it has to be a closed shop. It doesn’t. If a club has the ambition, the infrastructure and the finances there is no reason the franchised league couldn’t be expanded. We have a system now that some teams play others 3 times. If SL grew we’d end up with some teams playing others only once. Doesn’t matter with a play off to determine the winners.

Once the league has grown enough to support two mandatory full time leagues then in can be split with promotion and relegation re-introduced.

I see the point that some have made that some teams are relegated because of poor decisions on their part but that’s not necessarily the case. The current system effectively pushes clubs to spend beyond their means to try and avoid going down.

The problem with franchising/ licensing is that it tends to be a smoke and mirrors situation, where different criteria are allocated different "points", therefore allowing those controlling the allocation of licences to skew the criteria to suit their agenda and again, with the likely influx of N. American clubs, who have loads of cash but no foundation, just how do you score them ??

Plus, with franchise/ licensing, you are still effectively putting two fingers up to the Championship clubs.

People forget that RL is a sport and as such success should be decided on the field of play and not just by ticking boxes on a checklist.

Promotion/relegation was only brought back because it was deemed "unfair" to prevent Championship clubs from progressing.

Indeed, on any criteria based list, London would be nowhere near SL and yet, this season, having been promoted (and written off pre season) they have been a revelation.
Ironically, it is their success that has caused some fans to moan about the spectre of relegation when, pre season, "everyone" was happy with the format as they were "certain" that London would be straight back to the Championship.

They are without doubt the team of the season and Ward has done an increddible job, on a shoestring budget with a wafer thin squad

All of this will intensify greatly if/when Toronto are promoted as they seem to have plenty of cash to throw around and one would expect that once promoted, they will be here to stay.

TOUGH, it's called business. Widnes gave Dennis Betts a coaching role and bought a plastic pitch, hardly a loss to the game.

The difference is that in the NFL the governing body owns the franchise. They don't have to worry about the clubs.

In SL the incumbent clubs own the game and would own the franchise structure so their own self interest will always mean.

Fewer team to keep TV money to themselves
Incumbent teams favoured over better long term outside prospects.

At least with p&r, the clubs can't nobble the process from the inside.

If you finish bottom of your league, down you go..

It is that simple

These are the rules as it stands and therefore, someone will go down this year and someone will be promoted.

What I do think will happen sooner rather than later though, is we will see a 14 or even 16 team SL with franchise/licenses. There will be the usual moaning from clubs who will feel that they "coulda/shoulda/woulda", but the reality is that without a sugar-daddy or 10,000 regulars, all teams will struggle to survive.
The fact that Leeds of one of 4 sides dicing with the drop is no excuse to change the rules mid-season.

Unless the current players improve their attitude, Widnes could find themselves getting relegated from the championship. Obviously the announcement that they will go part time next season, I doubt they all gave a 100% in their 62-0 thrashing at Bradford, although I'm sure the Bulls played some great rugby.

I was just using Widnes as an example. Whether they deserve to be in SL is a separate debate.

I feel as a sport we need to make some real tough decisions to move forward. Franchises would allow those decisions to be made.

Set a minimum criteria to apply. The league then decides whether to approve & expand the league or not based on the application and the potential benefits to the sport. Any team that is admitted then has the security to build strong foundations and grow.

I was a massive fan of Licencing, but they really did mess it up....by "they", I mean both the RFL and the SL Chairme and Owners. If we are to return to it, then there needs to be a clear understanding of why it's coming back and the method of being promoted or demoted from it.
If we are doing it to secure the games future, then fine, but if it's just to protect the "average" SL clubs, then I'd steer clear.

Agree completely. It’s one of the many things the RFL did badly.

The list of things they have done well is blumin short!