And as I understood it Licences could be revoked. If not, then why the angst over Bradford's first journey into administration (or was that all just to wind Bulls fans up). Licencing failed because clubs like London, Wakefield, Bradford and Salford were all allowed to either go bankrupt or decay at the foot of the table year after year without sanction. In hindsight it's hard not to disagree with Andy Wilson on backchat that London's place in Super League should have been addressed two years ago.
Indeed they could but not without fair and moreso equitable reason. Warning letters once went to clubs who had promised grounds to be built that still await the first sod to be turned.
"Either" going bankrupt or decaying? Surely the same thing, but why remove weak businesses only to replace with weaker businesses, were Sheffield ever better resourced than any of the "decayers". Did any CC club ever push for the poisoned chalice of replacing a failed SL club mid license?? The idea London may have given up leaving a spot to be filled frightened the SL wanabees into silence.
For me London eventually were only ever there for the player development system, something the RFL did not want to give up in return for another "ready to fail" M62 club with no development system. If a reason why licensing failed is being sought try the fact that when the clubs were applying for said licenses only four were actually up to real Superleague standard.
A = Superleague club(4) B=not up to scratch(5) C = ready for failure (6).
This has been reflected in the seasons under licensing we have had when we we see the same clubs at the top and the same at the bottom and the same jiggling around in the middle.
Edited by The Parksider, 13 April 2014 - 09:39 AM.