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

Which clubs should be added? The ones with the best bid.

Franchises? I think it would make sence to change the system a bit. If you get an "A" franchise you get 6 years, "B" you get 4 and "C" you get 3. This would mean that there would be more possible target dates for access to SL and there would only be audits of a few clubs every year.

That has to count as one of the most sensible posts i have ever read on this forum

Which means it will never be considered by the RFL , In their quest for ' openess and fairness ' they made several clubs waste tens of thousands of pounds submitting pointless applications

Good old RFL I say

You cannot have a system which does not coincide with the TV contract. That is because the size of the TV contract is affected by the roster of clubs.

You can't change the size of the TV contract within the 3 year period. So that means that if you add a team within the three year period, the TV contract pie will be shared between more clubs, making each club's share smaller. No club will agree to that. That is why the addition of clubs can only take place in three year periods.

On the other hand you could more easily drop a club within a three year period. If it went bankrupt, for example. Or if it turned out that the club had misled the RFL about its stadium being finished by a certain date. In that case the size of the pie would stay the same but it would be a bigger share for each club, so the clubs would not object. But the TV companies could object, and cut their pay proportionately..

That has to count as one of the most senseless posts I have ever read on this forum (except for all the posts of =greenfredie, =redRoofs and =bluevastman.)

Not if the clubs concerned were being replaced. Clubs deemed worthy could take the place of clubs failing SL clubs in the interim years, thereby not affecting the roster. Every third year the number of clubs could be reviewed, coinciding with the TV deal.
Seems fairly reasonable to me.

There is no guarantee that you will have a replacement club ready when you want to demote a club. Presumably the replacement club has to satisfy enough SL criteria to be a C or preferably a B qualifier. It just so happens that now we have a club (Toulouse) which does satisfy enough criteria and is ready to step up. But that may not always be the case if you are rigidly classifying clubs on 6 4 and 3 year licenses, with the 4 year clubs being reviewed in the midst of an ongoing TV contract.

The TV issue is a fair point, but I doubt that it is the problem you make it out to be. TV deals will be for a given number of matches in a given compettition, saying that they would quibble with replacing a club would be similar to Sky Sports complaining that a team was relegated from the Premiereship. Obviously there is an appeal of a franchise system to the TV deal, possibly they would ask that a couple big-interest clubs not be relegated during a given TV deal period - but even without a rolling franchise review clubs could still go under due to extreme circumstances, what would Sky sports say to that.

As to your last comment, it starts as good rhetoric but then lapses into exaggeration. I may have a kettle here that would like a word with you.

Your post also shows that you have completely missed the point that other posters agreed so vehemently with, which is that "the best club" should get a franchise, no matter other wishes (i.e. no more yorkshire clubs). I will admitt that this position is somewhat sophistic since in reality this is a topic to argue which is "the best club".

By 2030, if it's still going then I'd like to see:

Leeds
Hull
Barrow
Toulouse
Barcelona
Moscow
Fulham (Harlequins)
Chelsea
Arsenal (North London)
Wakefield (Merged with Cas + Featherstone)
Catalans
Bradford
Manchester (Former Salford)
Liverpool (Former St Helens)
Edinburgh
Cardiff (Celtic)
Dublin
Glasgow
Belfast
Birmingham

Imagine:
Leeds v Arsenal
Chelsea v Liverpool
Belfast v Moscow
Birmingham v Manchester
Barcelona v Edinburgh

etc...

Far fetched to say the least!

You shouldn't give Albert your password!

is that a football avistar you have there? ...erm looks more like a football fixture list to me....imagine the costs to goto all the away games...lol...yeah, loved to