Just a quicky ,as its D-Day we're now at this point, and what are peoples thoughts on the setup across our community.

P & R, no future for the sport otherwise.

one of the main problems with p and r is the difference in salary caps when a team gets relegated or promoted ..

One of the main problems with the franchise system is that they keep teams in who are bottom year after year...

And them that move around changing their names and still have no fans

P & R without a doubt

I would look at doing the following.

at the start of the season the clubs in the championship get told if they quailfy for super league. and if they win the GF they will be promoted, if a club who does not qualify and wins the GF no club gets relegated

Beat me to it!

You know I'm the poll man

P+R.

P+R but not at the creation of boom & bust so the above suggestion appeals.

So what if more than one team qualifies? Theres nothing to stop the qualifying clubs going boom and bust mid way through the season in an attempt to better their qualifying rivals. On top of that you'll have struggling Super League clubs going boom and bust trying to avoid that bottom spot by splashing the cash on a wave of mid season signings.

Basically you'll still have the P&R mentality pre-2008 which worked wonders, didn't it?

2 SL clubs have gone bust since P+R was removed (one of them twice), both languish at the bottom of the table - it makes no difference if you get relegated or not, clubs still have to spend money to be succesful!

Definitely the franchise system, for the long term future of the game.

All these new grounds springing up are a direct result of this system, as are the much improved youth development structures, particularly within those clubs that have previously been up and down like yo-yos, and had to rely on short-term signings to try to either gain promotion or avoid relegation.

as yourseIves then

Exactly, the franchise system is encouraging teams to strengthen across the board which in the long run can only be a good thing.

P&R but with minimum ground standards, a bit of a izastion of both.
The RFL would understand about that.

I'd have a mixture of both, 3 year point added up, lowest going down, that 1st season is always going to be a killer for whoever comes up.

If we'd got p&r then Cats wouldn't be fifth now. And I don't think that would be a good thing. No promoted team would ever get above being a yo-yo team.

So why not address the difference in salary caps rather than introduce a ridiculous franchise system?

I'm not sure the RFL has £10 million to spare to bring the Championship salary cap up to SL, and reducing the SL salary cap would be a disaster.

Franchising for the medium/long term until there are 14/16 top flight clubs who are sustainable and relatively competitive on and off the pitch. Plus a Championship where at least 4 or 5 clubs are capable of replacing SL clubs. At that point and only at that point should P&R be re-introduced.

If we still had P&R clubs would still be throwing money at imports, paying lip servce to youth development and possibly even less time to ground improvements. If it wasn't for the license system would Saints, Salford, Castleford and Wakefield be building or looking to build new stadiums? Would we have extended Craven Park?

Too many second rate Antipodeans in the whole of UK rugby-RFL and RFU me thinks.

If it was up to me I'd have a play off between the Championship winners and the Super League bottom club and judging by Batley, Leigh and Halifax's performances against Super League clubs in the cup, there could be a close game.

In a game for Super League survival? A fully pro team versus a semi-pro team? £1.6m versus £300,000?

The Championship club would be mullered. Every time.

There might be a 1.6 million salary cap but how many teams in super league are actually fulfilling it?

I reckon that if you were to put Leigh/Featherstone v Wakefield/Crusaders, there wouldn't be much more than 2 tries either way.