Regarding the P&R debate, I understand both sides of the story, which have been debated to death over and over, how about this idea as a middle ground where everyone would be happy...


Keep franchising with P&R every 3 years, as it is now.

But instead of spending a fortune on any of the ideas of a 2 tier SL, reducing the amount of teams etc etc, why not spend some money on prize money in the lower leagues.

If the prize money in the NRC, C1 and Championships were vastly increased the competitions would get the vitality they need, if teams won they can reinvest for preparation for SL, rather than paying off debts.

If there was a dominant team for a few years, like Featherstone, instead of getting kicked in the teeth, they could have their ground, accounts and maybe even squad bridging the gap between the Championship and Super League.

This would also give the lower Super League teams and promoted Championship teams the required 3 years to adjust to Super League and develop slowly.

just have a bottom of super league v top of championship play off game every year

Yes and then the third year P and R I would go with that

leave it alone!!

superleague has never been more level playing fields so to speak.

and with fear of relegation would we have seen the likes of watkins, hardaker, cudjoe, lomax, charnley, dwyer, currie. i think not.

While the Championships die from lack of oxygen.

And then they get promoted take two thirds of the team that was relegated then get relegated anyway

Yes we would have done. How many of the clubs that brought those players through would have had a fear of relegation anyway?

Why wouldn't you have?

I don't know how feasible this is but I like the idea.

Good idea, I like it. Franchising is the way forward for the long term future of the British game, as long as the application process is reformed. It would work brilliantly if a more ruthless approach was taken (i.e. don't admit clubs with clear financial difficulties/ relegate clubs regardless of established heartland or expansion status). The talent pool in this country simply isn't big enough to sustain p and r; as those clubs who get promoted are resorted to signing average Aussies to even stand a chance of staying up the next season. This does nothing for junior development or long term financial security, as clubs would have to increase their expenditure significantly. Increasing prize money seems like the best solution for long term stability, as long as the money is used for just that purpose.

Championship clubs already receive healthy prize money. I'm not sure why some Championship fans seem to think that the RFL has an obligation to fund their clubs, but it needs to stop.

Well if you are so 'in the know' do reveal exactly how much it is then?

£100,000 for winning the Grand Final! And errrr £0.00 for TV rights.

The Super League clubs are being funded. That the Championship clubs are not is a big reason why the gap between the leagues is so large. Furthermore franchising appears to be the solution to the artificial problem caused by the stark difference in funding.

Hardaker was developed by Fev, he went to Leeds as the finished item. All he needed was full time fitness. He was supposed to spend a further season at Fev on loan, but because of injuries they recalled him. Leeds didn't need the security of licencing to "develop" him. Niether did they need it to develop Sinfield, McGuire, or Burrow in the P & R era.
The question we should be asking is if (for example) Fev had been playing in SL would Burrow & Briscoe have started their pro careers there instead of with a club from elsewhere? The lack of P &R is throttlng clubs in the lower leagues. Fev have dominated the Championship for the last two seasons but seem to have peaked. What happens if they can't keep it up until application time do they miss out? Probably. The whole thing is a bad joke dreamt up by someone who knew nothing of the game and TBH obvioulsy cared less since he's now off back to tennis.

Hardaker is FAR from the finished item.



No because the likes of Leeds & Hull would still be able to pay higher wages than Fev



The lack of P&R isn't throttling lower league clubs - the lower league clubs are what's throttling themselves, if they knew how to market themselves etc they could pull in crowds and make good money.

The fact of the matter is the majority of clubs in the lower leagues just aren't run well enough, have a good enough infrastructure or marketing to be a successful Super League club.

Franchising is the correct way to go - the RFL are just doing it wrong, what they're doing isn't franchising it's off-field bureaucracy P&R shrouded in secrecy and they know it's wrong because they bar teams from suing them over decisions they make during the process - if it was a more open process then they couldn't work it how they do.

Only 1 method of franchising works - the model the NRL and American sports use, you have your league set up and those teams are in the league for good (although conditions such as admin = automatically kicked out should be in place to promote the ideal of running a club properly and not spending beyond what you can afford to), then once the demand is there for more teams you add those teams.

With the above model you have a 20 team league split into 4 divisions of 5 teams.

Super League clubs are being funded by the money that Sky pay to televise their matches. If the Championships had an equivalent TV deal, they would get equivalent funding. The fact that they don't isn't an 'artificial' problem, it's completely natural, obviously the lower leagues are never going to attract as much funding as the top league. Like I said, I'm not sure why Championship clubs feel like they should be given an equal share when they are clearly not equal in terms of how much money they bring into the sport. Once again, it comes down to the fact that certain Championship fans for some reason seem to think that the RFL are doing them an injustice by not giving money unconditionally to their clubs. It's just competely ridiculous and illogical.

At the same time, the RFL reduced the amount of money they gave all of the teams below Super League by 10k last year, might not sound like a lot, but it nearly sunk my club.

We're not asking for a payout, we're asking for a chance to compete, that's sport isn't it? And why isn't it injustice if the RFL will tip money into Crusaders, London, Paris and Bradford, but not two entire divisions of clubs struggling to keep their heads above the water.

How about the overall health of the sport?

The NFL have a salary cap and draft system that massively holds back the biggest teams. Why? For the overall good of the sport.

Furthermore, if we're only going to give out money to those clubs that are attracting it, then I'm afraid we'd only be paying around 6 clubs — in terms of attracting Sky to the game, the rest are simply making up the numbers. Some teams are being massively funded by the TV deal despite the fact that they bring next to nothing to the table. If it's ok for them, why not for other clubs?

No it isn't. It's the fact that Super League clubs are able to attract new supporters. If you live in Sharlston, and are making the decision as to which team you're going to support as a youngster, you're going to choose Wakey, because you've seen them on TV regularly playing the top teams, not Fev. Same goes for kids in Hindley Green say - they're going to pick Wigan not Leigh. It's the same thing that makes kids from outside Liverpool or Manchester support teams from those towns. Following the big name. In their time in SL Wakey's crowds have grown and Fev's have shrunk, the same applies the the Bulls and Fax and probably Leigh and Wigan. It's got nothing to do with clubs' marketing and everything to do with access to Super League and their marketing.
BTW if Hardaker wasn't the finished product how come he's in the England squad?

The salary cap only holds back Dallas & Washington, the rest of the owners prefer the salary cap ($120m this season!). The draft...again the best teams tend to be the best drafters too.

There's a ton of things that RL could copy from the NFL though to improve every team, here's 2 things they do that helps spread the wealth:
League kit/merchandise contract - revenue paid by Nike + all sales (minus ones sold in the club shops) split 33 ways (32 teams + the league)

Tickets - All ticket sales minus season ticket sales & VIP seats are split 33 ways.

Those 2 things are probably the biggest thing the NFL do for the good of the sport over the good of certain teams....oh and they don't agree to sponsorship deals that involve no money but a couple of trucks

Wouldn't that be incredibly unfair on the Championship side?

A fully pro team, with a cap of £1.6 Million against a team of semi-pros with a cap of £300k. That looks like the odds will always be stacked in favour of the SL side.

So rather than increase the turnover of a club like Cas or Wakefield who are turning over roughly £4m, we simply take money from a club like Leeds which turnover £13m and give it to them?
As a sport we need to get away from ideas which take away from the top and give to the bottom.

Not really, if all the money the teams made got lumped together I'd guess that over half the league would end up better off for it and if it improves the league then it's better for the sport.

Hull KR would be one of the biggest benefactors of revenue sharing in Super League, as would London.

The Dallas Cowboys owner doesn't like it happening in the NFL, probably because his team can't win in a fair league - where as Green Bay have one of the smallest markets in the league and are one of the best teams thanks to revenue sharing.

funny enough i'll bet the same people vote labour