With the news today that Widnes will be back in Super League next season, and all the debate surrounding the whole licensing issue and whether promotion and relegation are good for the sport or not, what are peoples views on this.

Personally, i'm in favour of the licensing process, providing that that is what it is, a license and not a franchise. What i mean by this is that the license should be something that all clubs aim for, and can be awarded to any club within Super League or in any of the lower leagues which shows that they meet the minimum requirements for entry into Super League, but it should not necessarily guarantee a place in the top division. For example, if Halifax have met the requirements for Super League they should be granted a license, which shows that they are eligible for a place in Super League IF one becomes available. The license should be used as a mark of achievement and standards rather than a right to compete.

If this is the way the licenses are used, then we would need a method for deciding how teams can gain entry to the top division, and for me, this is through promotion and relegation (albeit not in the way most people would expect).

Promotion and relegation are not without drawbacks, with clubs potentially yoyo-ing between Super League and the Championship, and clubs overspending to try and gain promotion or avoid relegation. Firstly, the issue of clubs yoyo-ing between divisions has to be addressed, not just on the surface, but at it's core. The main reason for this is that there is a vast difference between the respective salary caps of Super League and the Championship which forces clubs that are relegated to release a large number of players and rebuild again, and once regaining promotion, having to find yet another group of players capable of competing in Super League. The only way to do this is to increase the salary cap in the Championship so that clubs are able to build a reasonable squad before gaining promotion, giving them a better chance of staying in Super League the following season. This would also allow clubs that are relegated to keep more of their squad intact, and start the rebuilding process earlier. Obviously it is not just possible to increase the cap without clubs getting extra money from somewhere. One possibility would be to increase the share of TV money that goes to Championship clubs.

Another way of tackling the issue of clubs being 'one season wonders' in Super League before returning to the lower leagues would be to give a newly promoted club immunity from relegation for their first season. However, to counter this, the team being relegated would not be the lowest placed team in the league, but the team ranked lowest when taking into account combined performances over 2 seasons. This would give newly promoted teams time to build a squad capable of competing in Super League, whilst still making their season a competitive one as it will contribute to whether or not they are relegated at the end of the second season. This system would also mean that the club being relegated would be so on the basis of two seasons of poor performances rather than because of one bad season due to injuries. This process would allow for teams to be promoted and relegated every season, meaning that Championship teams and Super League teams would always have something to play for.

What are other peoples views on the licensing system and the idea of reintroducing promotion and relegation? What ideas do you have for improvements, and how would you implement them if you had an opportunity to do so?

i think it can,
at the end of three years the bottom club gets relegated no matter what and the top team of the championship gets promoted for the next 3 years,
then have the decision on the licenses, if there are other teams that need to swap then fantastic.

So what you are saying is a SL license becomes available through a club being relegated based on league position? How else would it become available? If so, you are just talking simple P&R again with minimum criteria. We have been there before and it was a rubbish system.

Also what happens if no NL1 club gets a license? Then what you say above is actually not far off what used to happen when clubs having to meet minimum criteria was first introduced. This happened before the franchise system came into being and we had several seasons where no club was relegated (I think Wakey and maybe Hudds as well survived because of this). What that means is your fate as a SL club boils down to if you are lucky enough that the year you finish bottom no team in SL1 meets the criteria for a license.

As I said we had this before and it was an awful way to do things.



You will never get the SL chairman to agree to that. At the moment there isn't enough money in the game to run SL at its current level as we see clubs go into administration, The only way to reduce the gap between leagues is IMO to cease to be a pro sport and to go back to being semi-pro.



We have had that before where a team not at the bottom got relegated and it was very unpopular to say the least.



Your system is actually unworkable anyway. For example if a team was at the bottom one season, behind the newly promoted side but then finished 3rd bottom, one above the promoted side, with a different side at the bottom at the end of the 2nd season who should go down? The average position of both sides over two seasons is 2nd bottom.



As I have mentioned just about everything you say has happened before and all you are saying is lets have P&R with minimum criteria. It doesn't work because its inconsistent.

With franchising you know exactly where you stand (or would do if the RFL didn't do daft things like guarantee a side will be promoted which defeats the object of any system that is supposed to be based on assessing none playing criteria).

You could do both - simply create a two division format both with 'Super League' in the name, eg Super League Premier, and underneath it, Super League One.

Say - 20 teams, 10 in each division. All have to apply for licences to compete in the Super League as a whole. Of the successful applicants, the top 10 finishers from the previous season compete in SL Premier, the lowest finishers of the remaining successful SL teams plus successful other applicants in SL1. One up, one down, on an annual basis, with licence applications every three years. New joiners, naturally, have to start in SL1 and anyone can lose a franchise depending on off-field performance as like now.

It should be easy enough to preserve the level of the SL1 competition with the top flight having fewer teams in it, plus if Sky keep up their current level of broadcast commitment, there's nothing to stop them showing SL1 on Thursdays, SLP on Fridays, and SL1 and SLP alternating on Saturdays (for instance)

Kick off with a pre-season tournament with all clubs in it. This will do away with meaningless friendlies. Then play the normal SL season, with top 5 from each division in their respective play-offs.

An interesting post Dave but for me the issues of licensing and promotion and relegation (and even the SC)are side-shows, the key issue is the lack of growth in club revenue. We don't have a plan for club revenue to keep pace with wage inflation in the general economy over the long term.

It's hard to see any future other than a semi-pro SL in 10 or 20 years time. It may happen even sooner than that if the poor administration, financial monitoring and planning at club level continue.

Neither the franchising system nor the SC as they are currently administered by the RFL are effective tools for ensuring stable growth in club's revenue (they can't even prevent clubs going bust).

I await the usual posts from flat-earthers attempting to deny basic economics.

Which is precisely why the RFL include "a sound business plan" in their SL criteria, and is a big reason why clubs are being encouraged to upgrade their facilities. Corporate sponsorship is a massive part of that, along with increasing crowds.

Whether it will work is another matter, but at least they're trying to address the problem.

How about awarding 1-14 (1-11 in championship obviously) points at the end of each season based on position and at the end of the three years the top championship side that meets the minimum criteria comes up and the lowest sl side goes down. That would make sl more competive because theyd know that how they play over three years would make the difference.

That'll be like the sound business plans that Crusaders and Wakefield submitted last time, then?

I'm sorry, I can tell you have the best interests of the game at heart, but you shouldn't be defending the RFL on the issue of financial controls. Their record is absolutely diabolical. Amateurs running a professional game.

The biggest issue facing the game isn't the threat from RU or expansion or media profile or the SC. The biggest issue facing the game is the need to grow revenues at least in line with inflation and to protect clubs from financial instability. Unless everyone is happy that the game is heading for a semi-pro future, with clubs probably still going bust even in that scenario!

What if the Championship winners don't meet the criteria and the relegated SL side have one of the better licence applications?
Interesting to read the Widnes chairman's comments this week. He is all for the licence system, despite what his own club have had to go through. As a successful businessman he should know a thing or to about how a company or financially responsible sporting entity should be run.