The current licensing system that the RFL is merely a modified system from that which has run for most of the RFL's history.

In order to become a professional RL club you had to be accepted in by your fellow peers. To do this you had to satisfy them that your proposed club would offer a positive contribution to the code of RL.
There was no pyramid in place guaranteeing promotion and relegation. Instead there was just one big league of affiliated teams.

Some clubs decided that they were better served elsewhere eg Stockport County who withdrew from the Northern Union as it was then called, and became instead a professional soccer club.

Other clubs however were formed at later dates and have made lasting contributions to the development of the sport. I'm thinking here of the Cumbrian clubs along with Castleford and Featherstone. These sides are all expansion franchises. Though i doubt their fans would describe themselves as that.

There were also some failures for example St.Helens recs , Runcorn, Lancaster, Blackpool borough

So historically what we see is that licensing has an historical precedent of producing a mixed bag of success and failure.

One of the negatives of the original licensing system was that once a club was in the RFL, it could sit back and pretty much get away with doing very little, as there were no proper checks and balances in place to get rid of failing clubs. Runcorn being a classic example of a side that did nothing other than exist.
Hence most RL clubs spent most of their time being quite content to potter along without doing anything to develop themselves or the game, preferring instead to parasite off the small number of big and successful clubs.
The end result of this was that the game stagnated and crowds started to fall.


The RFL's solution to this was to ape Soccer and bring in promotion and relegation. One of the aims being no doubt to shake things up in an attempt to create a more entrepreneurial spirit, with clubs striving to aim for the top division.
What happened however was that an arms race developed between a small elite of clubs who would literally buy themselves out of any league difficulty. This resulted in increased financial insecurity throughout the league, and increasingly a concentration of the best talent amongst just a few clubs.
Arguably as a result of this, the league became uncompetitive, and standards dropped . Its no coincidence in my book that the last time we defeated the Aussies was just prior to the introduction of promotion and relegation.

Relegation became almost a nail in the coffin for successful but not prosperous clubs, one bad year on the pitch sent great clubs like Swinton, Leigh and Huddersfield out of the top division and into the wilderness.

At the same time many of the smaller clubs, rather than attempt to grow themselves, merely became content with their lot and just did what they always did, and merely exist off the back of their richer peers.
As a result what developed was a small group of yo yo clubs who would each year swap places in the top division, while the majority of the sides in the lower league just got on with playing the season out.
This yo yo syndrome sapped at the finances and confidence of these ambitious clubs and arguably also damaged their ability to draw crowds as fans became sick of the constant cycle of boom and bust.

Promotion and relegation also effectively killed off the games ability to expand, because there was no ability for a new club to make any long term financial projections and plan ahead. Without security, clubs like Fulham had brief moments in the sun before getting relegated and then imploding.

As discussed earlier, the big clubs entered into a furious "arms race" in order to avoid the dreaded chop into the lower divisions. The consequences of this were that these big clubs became financially insolvent themselves as they outbid each other for the signatures of the best players. This then diverted attention away from developing young talent. Clubs knew that merely by buying up a smaller clubs talent they could weaken them and ensure they were the ones relegated. The ultimate example of this arms race, was Wigan in the late 1980's and early 1990's who created a super team by buying up most of the best British RL players. Widnes were the only team to try to compete with them. The end result for both teams was financial meltdown. Wigan got bailed out by Dave Whelan but were forced to sell their home Central park as part of the takeover. Widnes had to sell all their star players and ended up being relegated, and as a consequence have spent the period since the mid 1990's out of the limelight.

The recent reintroduction of licensing rather than the destructive P&R is in my book therefore a move to greater stability within the game both from a financial and playing point of view. It isnt a perfect solution as seen both today and in the past, However IMO it is a lesser evil than Promotion and Relegation.
The move to assessing clubs under set measurable criteria, is also one whose aim is to prevent stagnation as happened under the original licensing system, as it gives the game a big stick to threaten clubs that are engaged in a parasitic rather than productive existence.
Similarly by offering the prize of promotion to SL for ambitious and well run championship clubs, the RFL is trying to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit amongst the smaller clubs, without exposing them to the lottery of P&R.

I've got an idea......just lower the overseas quota, then youth development becomes necessary and we can do away with stupid licensing.....simples

No , we broke even without tipping in hundreds of thousands , in fact a slight profit was posted

I don't remember Doncaster and Workington getting promoted to SL , and Widnes didn't come straight back down

Awesome post mate!

The majority of sides that cam up went straight back down and did it with poor overseas players and by getting into financial trouble as has been said.

A 3 year franchise system gives every club the chance to improve on what they have and keep their place. Wigan for example went from a Grade B to a Grade A because we now earn the right amount of revenue which we never did due to our Marketing contract with JJB. Widnes improved their licence and so they got in. Crusaders went the other way and it's au revoir to them.

I do think however that Halifax should have been in for Wakefield. Wakefield have gone into admin which is against the licence rules, their ground is a mess, they won't have a new one by the end of 2014 and they don't really offer THAT much on the field. They finished 5th in 2009 but instead of building then finished 11th and this season will probably finish 13th. Halifax have reached two GF's winning one and improved their stadium to the point that SL rugby has been played there.

Whilst not everything should be made public, I think the RFL need to make this public so that each and every RL fan knows what is needed to stay/get in SL because apparently it isn't what we thought it was.

Once again , which teams went up and straight down and got in financial trouble ?

Well maybe you didn't get into any financial trouble, but you're stay wasn't exactly the best was it? Just to remind you:

- Team P W D L F A Diff Pts
1 St Helens 28 24 1 3 1028 537 +491 47
2 Leeds Rhinos 28 22 0 6 1152 505 +647 44
3 Bradford Bulls 28 18 1 9 1038 684 +354 37
4 Warrington Wolves 28 18 0 10 792 702 +90 36
5 Hull FC 28 16 2 10 756 670 +86 32
6 London Broncos 28 13 2 13 800 718 +82 28
7 Wigan Warriors 28 14 0 14 698 718 -20 28
8 Huddersfield Giants 28 12 0 16 742 791 -49 24
9 Salford City Reds 28 11 0 17 549 732 -183 22
10 Wakefield Wildcats 28 10 0 18 716 999 -283 20
11 Widnes Vikings 28 6 1 21 568 1048 -480 13
12 Leigh Centurions 28 2 1 25 445 1210 -765 5

Halifax finished on 0 points after going bust and were relegated. It took them a few years to get back to anything solid. Cas came up and went straight back. Relegated twice in 3 years. Salford yo-yo'd and Hudds were in a mess when they went down IIRC.

Widnes were controversially left out in 2009, but have got their house in order since and deserve their place. Leigh can now begin to get theirs in place ready for 2014. If they don't manage it, they don't deserve it.

So what you posted was bollox

Yes we finished bottom , well somebody has to , every year

Yes Cas went up and down , well so what ?

Salford went down , up , stayed a few years then down again , once agai , so what ?

Yes Huddersfield were in a mess , after spending three years stuck at the bottom , which is my nightmare scenario with franchising

So where is all this ' damage ' caused by P and R ?

So a team coming up and down every year is entertaining is it? A team being relegated from SL but being bigger than the teams below and walking the division is good is it? A team full of overseas players getting tonked every week is good is it?

Didn't Leigh end up in financial trouble of some sort in 2006? (I honestly don't know the answer to this but thought they did) I also see you missed out my Halifax point regards 2003. They have sorted themselves out and deserve to have a crack at SL, but by giving them 3 years means they have the chance to improve year on year and who knows establish themselves in the top 8. Giving them 1 year to get tonked every week will do far more damage.

From 2000 onwards I can see only 2 clubs who stayed up. Salford (at the 2nd attempt) and Hull KR. Cas would have gone straight back down AGAIN in 2008 had it not been for licensing.

Or, put another way, only 2 teams have gone straight back down, Leigh in 2005, and Cas the following year (and they didn't finish bottom!)

More teams yoyo between the Championship & the Premier League in football than that, and I don't see anyone calling for that system to end.

Yes actually it is more interesting both for SL and the Championship ,

In 2006 Leigh sacked a coach and a general manager left as a result of that , also a director resigned , all within one week , no financial bother

Yes Fax eventually ran out of money , so what , was that the fault of P and R ? , or would they have been better being stuck at the bottom of SL year on year like the Giants ?

Salford got promoted and stayed up 3 years , then came down again , Widnes only went down to accommodate the French

No clubs have ' suffered ' because of P and R

Quite right Stan , and let's not forget the fiasco with W1g4n , which would have meant Cas possibly staying up

And Cas in 2008 had it not been for licensing.

Yes somebody has to finish bottom every year , we know , so what ?

Complete nonsense. Could you put some factual evidence on this or are you just trying to create a reaction.



Doubt it was little to do with the JJB contract more to do with increased revenues in general and reduced costs and signing of new long term lease at the JJB.



Since the last bid Widnes have been performing on the pitch to a lower standard that is part of the licensing guidelines and thus part of their bid. The only thing that stopped Widnes before was financial irregularities with the previous application they had new owner that placed guarantees so in reality at the time of the current bid it was at best no better than the reality of the previous bid. Simple case the RFL did not want to take a risk on Widnes.



It is not against licence rules since there are no real rules. Crusaders were in a far worse position financially, changed club name halfway through their licence, changed location and performed worse on the pitch than Wakefield yet they were going to get a licence.



What evidence is there that Halifax will have a SL quality squad for next season?



What has it got to do with RL fans? Are the fans making and financing the bids? Bids are between the RFL and the clubs you can ask the clubs for the details of their bids not the responsibility of the RFL to divulge confidential information. The RFL clearly adjust/ignore the conditions to suit the vision they have for the ESL, months ago they all but guaranteed Harlequins a licence without the bid being submitted for all they knew they could have been on the verge of collapse.

Yes, Halifax went bust whilst in super league, not because we got relegated.

And just who was it that was overseeing this shambolic period in our history.....................

Are you worried about the future of our game now?

Workington's situation was entirely different to any of the others. You probably won't believe it, but we were actually solvent while in SL as the accounts of the time show.

The thing that did for Town was that we had players on 2-3 year contracts on SL sized wages. After we were relegated (sacrificed for Paris) we were stuck with these contracts with no income to pay them.

There were no 'null and void' clauses following relegation then, nor were there any parachute payments. Of the debt that took Town under, more than 80% of it was for future contract liabilities to players. Unlike clubs who were relegated later, we were not allowed to walk away from those contracts. We were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

After this happened to Town, and then at a lesser extent Oldham, the RFL moved to bring in things to prevent it such as making SL playing contracts void if a club was relegated and instigating parachute payments for a while.

Sorry to split hairs but Paul Mansson didn't play for us in 06. He left the season before we got promoted and I know we didn't go for broke that season as Hudgell himself told me that promotion would damage the club and would be much better the next year.

Now now Derwent , dont you go pointing out the truth

Thing is every team says that, at the end of the day a season in SL set the team back years.

Yes because at that time the people in charge did not consider the possibility of something going wrong , something it seems the current administration also dont ever seem to consider , how many times do ' loopholes ' appear that should have been considered , and then the RFL and the sport end up with egg on their faces again

My inquiry about the make up of the Championships next season is an example , we have teams playing in Championship 1 , with 5/6 games left not knowing how many if any propmotion places are up for grabs , it is quite ridiculous

I know and thats why I said went bust and were relegated not went bust due to being relegated.

So at least you got one right

By the same logic you should be in favour of franchising because it does allow teams to plan or are you saying that being allowed to plan should only be for the teams in the championship? I agree that it's silly with teams not knowing how many places are available however I also believe the three year franchising plan has been a step in the right direction. I would go a step further though and seek to extend that three years to four with a view to making it five years.

Entirely entitled to your opinion