How many super league supporters that don't want P /R would if there team was in the championship?

No I know, I wasn't referring directly to you with that, it was just a general statement. The point is though that P&R inherently does hinder youth development. Trying to have a system of P&R tailored to youth development is just a complete contradiction and isn't ever going to work. Again, what is wrong with the current system, which does promote youth development effectively?

You are correct on this one, its either yearly P and R as we all know and love it ( the only concession is that the Championship GF should be earlier than the SL one by a couple of months as it used to be ) or a franchise system, everything else causes more problems than it solves

One final concession would be for the Championship club to be able to forfeight their promotion for a sizeable ' 400K ' cash alternative ( this money would not alter a strictly enforced Championship SC )

Thats about it really

I've checked every SL season where we had P&R. Ignoring SL5 and SL6 when there was no P&R, there were 6 seasons where the promoted club stayed up, and only 4 where they came bottom and were relegated.

P&R gives meaning to the second tier and provides a much more exciting time for the bottom end of the upper tier (whilst giving the relegated team hope of a swift return if they can turn things round and perform on the field).

The gulf between the cash SL clubs have compared to lower leagues will always mean that promoted clubs may struggle. Wakefield and Widnes both had to build largely new teams, and although they're not exactly blowing the opposition away, they're not bottom (someone has to be!) and have both won a couple of games this season.

Winning a lower league, whether by topping the table or winning a play-off series, should be rewarded with a promotion to a higher league. I'd be in favour of introducing minimum criteria for promotion, so long as these were easily and openly measurable, fair, and not changed to suit.

Lastly, the main reason touted for stopping P&R - the reckless spending of cash to tray and stave off relegation - is easily dealt with by some carefully thought out, and strictly administered rulings around what is, and what isn't, allowed after a certain stage of the season.

Why not?

Hull KR came up with P&R and we earned our right to stay in SL. If we'd have finished bottom that season we'd have gone down. So teams can make a fist of it and it will give the teams at the bottom of SL added incentive to perform.

Because the promoted club may well be worse than the relegated club.

Which is my club?

I agree with this play off, of course the SL team must select a team whose combined salary complies with the Championship rules and only has access to one overseas in the game.

And if Hull KR hadn't been promoted that year then they would have gone bust and probably now be playing in Championship 1, if at all.

Because the non SL clubs rely much more on their fan bases to finance their clubs than the SL clubs, and if those fans lose interest due to a apathy, then those clubs will struggle to build or even survive, as I am finding myself, I dont feel the same as I once did from a win or a loss, I would rather make the NRC final than the Championship GF, as it is more of a fun event without the frustration I would feel from winning the GF and seeing no promotion

....and offering promotion to a different league is the only way (if it's even a way) to remove that apathy?

If we had never had it, then it probably wouldnt be an issue, but as we did, it is, maybe in 25 years it wont be an issue

The problem with looking at historic performances of promoted clubs is that they were able to build/stabilise their team around not just the relegated team's cast-offs, but 5 or 6 reasonable Aussies (using any and all loopholes to bypass any rules the RFL had), who would generally be just enough to give them a chance to compete.

Add to that the peril 3 or 4 sides faced every season, meaning they too would rather not take the risk with young English players, and we have the situation we were in just a few years ago - SL awash with poor Aussies/Kiwis.

That route to quick on-field success is - thank god - disappearing as SL clubs across the board are finally focusing on youth and we are actually being helped by the fact that SL is becoming financially less attractive to NRL players.

In any event, the 'immunity from relegation' and P+R every two years instead of every year is remarkably similar to franchising, except franchising allows other criteria - which have previously been sacrificed on the altar of short-term survival/success - to be taken into account. The fact that the system is flawed or some clubs are just badly run doesn't change the essential common sense in franchising.

Says who? and as for playing in Championship 1, if it all. We've seen alot smaller clubs then Hull KR go bust and come back quite happily albeit in a lower division.