Dave Parky always/usually (delete as appropiate) talks sense.

The Pies were on the verge of being homeless but it was their fans that put a stop their move to Reebok not the RFL. They overwhelmingly voted that they would not go to Chorley to watch Wigan.

Well franchising was always going to favour the few. I'm surprised at this thread thought it was only me that thought it will cost professional RL big time.

I stlll do not think any non relagation league club will lose its franchise.

Soon its already arrived.................

I think I'd prefer it to read "once or twice a year talks sense!"

Ao what's your alternative, everyone?

Kick Saints out of SL? Make them play on a building site with a capacity of 3,000? Make them spend £50,000 bringing Knowlsey Road up to safety standards so they can knock down a fully-compliant stadium in 2 years?

No, really, what would you suggest Saints and the RFL do instead of the current plan?

All I want is for everyone to play to the same set of rules. Most of the SL are hypocrites and have shown they change allegiance and tact more often than anything.

I wonder if Salford will move to LSV while their ground at Barton is being built?

because i dont want to watch champ 1 for the rest of my life

would be difficult having two championship clubs playing on the same ground....

After all the noise Wakey and Cas' made about never, ever, ever ground sharing, they now say that ground sharing is the most obvious sensible course of action!

Just one problem - each is adamant that their proposed new ground will be the best, most sensible option!

Well ok I am old fashioned but I cannot understand this fixation with new stadia.

I have never had any trouble seeing the game at Knowsley Rd' Weaste' Cas or Wakefield et al.

I am not against expansion either I like competition in the sport I follow and that should be via results on that pitch.

Oh and just in case that fruitcake from HKR is reading this I do not even think their ground is that bad if you are on the touchlines. Doubt if General Zod will read this though.

I still can't believe that Leigh fans are against franchising. Look back to our SL year. Franchising would have given us the safety net we so obviously, and desperately, needed that year.

Perhaps we're the hypocrites - we want the game to fall to our standard, while telling the world that we support expansion.
Oh hang on, no we're not. I've just spotted the flaw.

But would we have been given a franchise????

All any genuine fan wants is a level playing field, and everyone adhering to the same set of rules.......oh, and a slightly fairer distribution of the wealth wouldn't go amiss either!!

If teams could get in based on sporting achievement, with a few sensible, fair and transparent criteria then I'd be all for it. As it is, the RFL get to make their decisions based on a whim. The points system is a sham, simple as.

The other problem is that 3 years is a long time between attempts at promotion.

...and why don't all clubs divide up all their takings through the turnstiles and share it equally too. Lenin would be so proud




Most of us that have ambition for our club would recognise giving us 3 years to build makes sense - 2005 did tell us that (with neon sign flashing and arrows pointing at it with an annoying alarm bell going off).
Lets face it unlike a lot of sports we don't have a great choice of clubs to replace teams in top division that are ready on and off the field, So its quite obvious to ask a few questions of a club whose achievement was to win a part time competition and expecting to play with the big clubs - again reasonable enough as other sports would do this too.
The days of Wakefield blagging their way in with that stadium, and staying there are hopefully numbered now. Why are clubs panicking all of a sudden because of their stadiums? Pre-2009 who cared?

I can understand when people mistrust RFL over decision making (we all across the board have different views too), but I can't understand some peoples views of being against the system itself having been through what we have - ie without Arthur where would we be because of previous system nearly bankrupting us?

So 14 SL clubs provide 60-70 live games a season for SKY and get an equal share of around £15M per season.

Championship clubs provide around 30 live games a season for SKY and get an equal share of......nothing!!

Even in the 'bad old days' we all used to get a few bob from the SKY money - and that was before the days of our 'league' even getting on the telly!!

Feed the roots and the whole tree gets stronger!!

But look at it with a bit of logic - what I said above about the punters through the turnstiles is similar to what you are asking. Clubs bring in all of these big name Aussies (

), running FT clubs etc and expect to give their revenue from playing on TV to clubs in another competition ? Which other sports do this?
Once the Championship gains its own value in its own right and interest grows in this comp (instead of SL is everything) then maybe we can get a better deal.
Even if clubs where willing to give part of their income to the other competition, what would happen ? Same as last time it did when we had nothing to show for it by using it on the field.
I agree about filtering the money down to the roots, but not to be wasted on journeymen players. But to the amateur clubs in their areas.

Whilst I do respect the opinion of supporters of franchising I honestly think your reasoning is flawed and I have no doubt you think mine is too.

I had no argument with Superleagues introduction. What I objected too was the parachute payment for relegated clubs. After Superleague was introduced that is what caused the so called yoyo effect.

That was thankfully abandoned when it was realised that such
payments rewarded failure and maintained the status quo that perpetuated that failure rather than encouraging enterprise.

The next mistake imo was not giving the "nod" to promoted clubs until the end of October which perpetuated this unlevel playing field.

It would not happen in commerce because we have competition laws which is presumably why capitalism rules.

Asking supporters of non chosen clubs to wait six seasons or more to get to the promised land is just a few years too far and will sadly destroy our professional game for but a handfull of clubs.

What comes through the turnstyles belongs to the individual clubs, ie better supported/better marketed teams would be better off. RFL funds used to be shared on a graduated scale to ALL member clubs depending on position on the ladder. Maybe we should send begging letters to Nigel Wood (204k salary + 30k to his pension fund a year).

Exactly!!

It's laughable to talk about Chamionship clubs pi$$ing their money away on journeymen players, when SL since day one has been a pension fund for the Aussies!!

SL was supposed to raise the standards, so that our national side could compete with the Antipodean nations. Are we any nearer? - are we $hyte!!
There are 16 clubs in the NRL (with only a handful of British players among them) who I reckon could all give England/GB a game.
How many SL clubs could compete against the Aussie/NZ test teams??

Come back to me when England/GB have won a test series against the Aussies, or won the 4 Nations, or won the world cup......then i might believe that the SL 'experiment' is working!!

Oh, and when that GB team contains a couple of London, or Wales born, league raised players - then I'll believe that expansion is working as well!!

How have the RFL changed the rules for Saints?

In 2000 Leigh were in the NFP Grand final, and had plans in place to re-develop the Glebe St. end at Hilton Park, and perform other upgrades to the ground as per "Framing The Future" (the then RFL 'blueprint' for SL clubs). We sought permission, had we won the GF and been promoted, to play some of the following seasons games at the Reebok stadium while this work was done - this was refused by the RFL, on the grounds that we were asking too much of our supporters by asking them to travel that distance (about 6-7 miles!!) to home games, and that we shouldn't be playing at a football ground!!

Since then:

Bradford bulls were allowed to re-locate to a football ground while works went on at Odsal.

Celtic Crusaders were allowed to go out of business, re-form, re-locate to the other end of Wales, and play at a football ground.

Saints are going to be allowed to play all next season at a ground that is several miles away from St. Helens!!

Like we say - different rules!

Championship clubs spending money from SL on journeymen is not the same as SL clubs spending their own money on Journeymen. Thats why IMO monies (if available) should be given to the actual roots of the game - the amateur clubs where the game can benefit as a whole.
I think you are giving the Pro-franchise argument a plug here too

Hopefully a few years down the line we will get closer to being the best in the world. But what you do miss tho is that Aus surely haven't been standing still, and also RL is much bigger over there. We also have the British culture of being losers in comparision to Aus - something we have to overcome because a lot of it is in the mind, that winning mentality they have over us. I thoroughly enjoyed Englands's efforts last season against the tide of "we don't stand a chance" brigade in support.

But we could go all year with this. Time will tell.

The RFL make it up as they go along, I'm suprised folk are still suprised at what they do. Hull, Wigan, and Huddersfield all play at football grounds; their decision was, and has since proven to be, a nonsense.

We also had to install more seats in the Tommy Sale stand to meet one of the other 'rules', but when Cas came back up, that 'rule' had been relaxed.