Tough. Conversations develop. It's their nature.

I really thought Vastmans post there was a good one and an interesting topic point. Not sure I agree with it all but we have seen how quickly the RFL run from a legal battle, they cant afford it.
FWIW I think the RFL would win any said battle, its a members only club..but they wont stand and fight

I am not convinced that the best NL1 team will be passed by in favour of Widnes/TO on grounds of location.

I think in the UK the next additions will be on merit, with possibly extra consideration to Sheffield-Doncaster and Gateshead. We will have to see how those teams get along, as Sheffield have started well and Gateshead have an expected boost of Pia players after the LER final. Doncaster has a good stadium but has also gone under, not very stable unfortunately.
I still reckon Leigh, Widnes and Fax are favorites, with the Gateshead and Sheffield in the mix.

From Europe there can only be TO, maybe, depending on their results. Much as I would like to see a third Catalan feeder club in the SL I doubt that Barcelona will get a team into the LER in 3 years and in the Championship 3 years after that, let alone SL. Picking from strength the next logical step for a SL franchise in France would be the Aude region, but I doubt the money would be there. Paris and Mille need to get to the LER first, so as likely as Barca.

I think that in the next 6 years the comp may expand to 16, but definately not 18. Financial backing will be a big deal here, especially given the current climate. I expect that there may be one addition in 2012 making it a 15 team comp, TO will only get it if they make a Championship final in the next two years - we will have to see.

One (or two) from Widnes, Leigh or Halifax 2012
I don't think a second French team is needed yet, or another London one for that matter either.
Depending on who performs the better in the Co-op league over the seasons 09, 10 and 11, I would bring in the club(s) with the best business plan.
Widnes should be a shoo in (IMO) if they can be competative on the field. The financial backers look to be there for the long run, their fan base is there, the stadium is cracking and their youth set up one of the best.
If there is a second team to come in, I would think Leigh would be second favourites.

They've got to make it to a Grand Final first.

Vastman, that is all complete and utter rubbish.

It's not a case of removing a SL club. They all have 3 year licenses, which means they all need to reapply in 3 years. If they don't get one, they didn't do enough. I'm pretty sure the RFL have it covered in law, otherwise they wouldn't have set up such a system would they? Why would they set up a system that they cannot remove teams from?

If there is a significantly better license application from outside of the SL compared to the worst SL application (even if it does meet all the criteria) then they will no doubt swap them, and there is nothing the clubs will be able to do in the courts because they signed up to the system. It's like suing because you get relegated. Doesn't work.

[u2012[/u
Widnes
Toulouse

[u2015[/u
Sheffield
Gateshead

Any suggestion of Doncaster is stupid talk, they go bust anytime they get near, and that's before we get to the Paris/Barcelona rubbish.

From 2012 the Championship should be strictly for British (and Irish if possible) clubs, so that the Elite can be built up as another 2nd tier league alongside the Championship (have a comp for the best teams of both) and to stop unnecessary expenses. If Toulouse aren't ready for SL in 2012 send them back to France to improve the league there and let them apply from there.

No your wrong - look at how the franchise is scored, there simply are not enough points available to an NL1 club to dislodge a SL club except on Stadium criteria.

Here is the list in full, I have bolded the the points that simply will not be available to non SL clubs and thus render them incapable of dislodging an existing club - go on tell me where I'm wrong

1 A stadium capacity of at least 12,000.

2 An average crowd of 10,000 or over.

3 An average crowd that fills more than 40% of a club’s stadium capacity.

4 A turnover of at least £4m per annum.

5 Solvency, in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency, although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owner’s guarantee of the club’s debts.

6 A reasonable playing strength, which is likely to be satisfied if the club has finished the season in the top eight in each of the last three years.

7 A reasonable contribution to junior development, judged by the number of scholarships and the performances of the club’s Under 21s and Under 18s Academy teams in the last three years.

8 The stadium meeting the standard of a premier sporting competition, which is judged on the quality and quantity of its facilities in accordance with detailed criteria.

9 Geographical position. Clubs that are more than 20 miles away from any other likely Super League club will be allocated one point on this criterion.

10 Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years.

If any of the existing SL clubs maintain what they already did to get a 2009 liscense then there is now ay a club from outside can IMO beat the existing 14 teams.

Any team brought into SL at the expense of one of the existing clubs would be doing so against the RFL own criteria and would very much be open to legal action.

It is you who is talking utter rubbish.

Whilst your post makes sense, this last part is questionable. Legal action? The RFL can change the criteria if needed. They can, at will, bring any special dispensation to non-Super League clubs who apply. It's a "members" club don't forget.

Also - these still may be achievable:
3 An average crowd that fills more than 40% of a club’s stadium capacity.

10 Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years.

Apart from that, you make a good case for your argument.

You're starting to sound like a Rosenfield there, it's not a question of "needed", it's a question of best application (we hope). Do we "need" Widnes/Fax/Leigh? Do we "need" to expand the comp tbeyond 14 teams in 2012?

I think that the only fair decision would be best applicant in 2011, whethr it's the 800th Yorkshire club or Wellington Orcas.

No, you're wrong.

Nope. Only your misreading and misquoting of them



Nope.

IIRC there's an RFL bylaw that any club taking such legal action would immediately forfeit its place in all RFL competitions.

And of course, the playing strength criterion for non SL clubs is demonsrated by their performance in non SL competitions (specifically the Championship and NRC – ie win the NRC or compete in a Championship GF)

.............. and of course the Challenge Cup?

There are a number of SL clubs who won't pick up many points on that (hopefully rather simplified) ticklist and would be vulnerable. If it stays at 14, an underperforming incumbent could easily have to make way.

Your first point is a typical and meaningless side step to as ever avoid the truth.

Swcond point. What you seem to forget is that the clubs are limited companies and thus covered by the law of the land. No rules of the RFL can over rule those of a court of law, and the law would have no troble judging this as a blatant retstraint of a companies ability to trade - they won't give two hoots about RFL bye laws. Ditto an individual employee can do the same and sue the RFL for unfair dismiasal and unfairly restraining there ability to work.

Remember I'm talking here about a case in which the RFL breaks it's own rules but to be honest it would apply anyway even if they didn't. It is down to the good will of the clubs as to whether they abide, let's hope that good will is not tested to far.

RL does not live in a bubble. If any company and RL clubs are companies was told it had to forgo millions in revenue through no fault of it's own to let another company take it's place do you think they would. Get real, you can't have it both ways, you can't have clubs run on bussiness like grounds with shareholders, emploees etc and then not expect them to behave like one. By law the directors of a limited company are obliged to protect their shareholders!

In the days of members clubs you could have enforced the franchise, but in this day and age it's little more than a gentlemans agreement and Red Hall knows that for starters.

I can't imagine it would ever get this far, but to pretend it couldn't is typical of some on this forum. Get real.

Make way for what, where is there a NL1 club or a new club that could prove it could do better. Tell me how they do it. I can't really see any SL underperforming enough to allow a new bid to win, for me it's just not possible as much of that criteria simply can't be obtained outside SL it's a bit of a closed shop.

I think that's just wishful thinking on your part. If any club in SL returned similar results to Halifax in 2003 for three years running they'd be out on their [iars[/ie.

A nice outline of the old criteria for licencing not franchises.

However.....

RFL/SLE have already put down markers with certain clubs re their facilities / stadia. This has been done via public general statements and the specific reports to clubs. they have also indicated that at least one club will enter SL next time around (this need not necessitate a relegation from the RFL/SLE pov. However SL clubs are unlikely to expand the SL if the Sky money would be 'diluted'.)

RFL/SLE are in the process of reviewing the criteria and the assessment process. So last years will be unlikely to be used next time. For e.g. the move to a U20s competition may have repurcussions.Also the new criteria will take into account that Championship clubs 'cannot' achieve 10K etc. There will also be considerations of clubs making improvements rather than mere maintainence.

The criteria are likely to change. One club is likely to be 'promoted' and SL is unlikely to go to 15 clubs. Everything possible will be done to keep Quins and Celtics in. Saints at KR would stay in but with a potentially 'lower score'.

That leaves Wakey /salford/Cas vunerable. If they are all groundless in 2011 other things being equal I think cas should go down.

As far as I know the 10 point criteria was for round 2 of franchising, and there was a different criteria for last years. As soon as the 10 point criteria came out everyone jumped to conclusions and we had people such as Angela Powers making up nonsense.

Was there any mention of the 10 point criteria in the franchise announcement? I can't remember this being the case.

How is compliance with salary-cap regulations not attainable in the Championship? And how can they not contribute to junior development?
Also, the reasonable playing strength is judged differently for non-SL clubs, as already mentioned.


Absolute garbage.

You have highlighted points that would be very difficult (close to impossible) to achieve outside SL. That doesn't mean that clubs inside SL will achieve any of them.

Should a club not turn over £4m+, not fill 40% of the ground, not achieve 10k attendances, as well as other points that being in SL gives you a considerable advantage for, then they will be in a similar position to those outside of SL. That's not to mention the quality of their ground or geographical position which many outside of SL applying will have as an advantage.

If clubs don't take advantage of these advantages of being in SL, they will not remain in it. If you think Wakefield will remain in SL on the back of an exact replica of their last franchise application, you are seriously deluded! Standards rise.


No they wouldn't. It is not against the RFL's own criteria. You have just misinterpreted it, and thrown in a load of stuff about laws of the land and business companies for no reason. Before franchising (P&R time), they were all still PLCs, and they could still leave the SL then through relegation. Why where they not suing then?

I think his point is that by being relaegated, everyone knows the rules, it's agreed beforehand, practically a binding contract. No one can dispute you finished last.
People opinion on criteria on the other hand...

That's my beef with it to be honest. I like it black and white - no messing and no meetings behind closed doors. On the other hand, if it saves irresponsible clubs from themselves then perhaps ultimately it's a good thing.

agreed 101%

Before you can apply for a SL licence you have to sign that you will not take any legal action against the RFL with regards to the outcome

If you dont sign , you cannot apply

SL is a 3 year business