keighley

1. Sheffield, under standards based p and r, would only have had their promotion confirmed if the finances were in place to give them a chance of success. 2. Widnes would have been a strong bet to bounce back. The same management supported them in CC when they had been promised a SL licence, even though the team on the field was very poor. This time the team would be stronger. 3. Keighley with a multi millionaire, stable and growing crowds in their proposed rebuilt stadium would be better than Bradford lurching towards insolvency, losing thousands from their attendance in Odslum. 4. The same applies to Huddersfield. A stable Huddersfield slowly growing their crowds in a state of the art stadium are a better bet than Bradford. The point has been made elsewhere that Bradford's away following in now quite small and that, in any case, clubs should not budget based on away following ( Not that I totally agree with that ), so the only positive to having Bradford in SL is the size of their crowds which 1 are falling dramatically and 2 benefit no other club except the Bulls themselves.

You might be right. It was Giant Strides who was "championing" that but it would certainly be an easier sell if here was he end result of a promotion to be won rather than not

Despite their best or would it be worst efforts, some team would win the competiton and therefore be promoted.

Interesting to me was the fact that if they can't resolve the format impasse at this meeting, the default position will be a 2 up 2 down p and r in 2015. That would suit me fine.

Whatever. There are three league tables in a hierachal split from SL to CC to CC1.

Why can't you do the same thing in a slightly larger well planned SL ?

All you are showing here is that success breeds success and the fans follow that. Due to the current lack f success of the Hull clubs, the crowds are decreasing. The same thing is happening at Bradford and Salford.

To throw in the towel and retreat behind a wall of exclusion and contraction smacks of cowardice and defeatism and the long term effects of that, IMVHO will be the death of the game. Its doesn't take balls to contract. It takes balls to be visionary and fuel the expansion of the game by giving new areas a chance at the top. Ultimately the goal should be to expand the size of SL. If the French want to develop their game as a part of SL, then there should ultimately be a French Conference operating alongside one or two English Conferences. Why should the game be condemned to a Northern ghetto plus Catalans because that';s what suits greedy, I'm alright Jack, incumbents

The players are employees. The management runs the clubs and the clubs want p and r.

Maybe, but that';;s just the way it is. It's not my preferred option.

A vibrant championship with it's on TV deal would be great and it would be a lot easier to get to that point if the teams were playing for a SL spot. The very fact that RL is split into three divisions is proof that the 30 clubs in one big division is a thing of the past. I have seen no posters hearking for a return to that and in any event there are 37 clubs now. What is galling to me is the desire for those in the SL to preserve it as a private club and keep other ambitious clubs out and the failures in SL in that league. Clubs want to be in SL because sport is about winning and the reason clubs exist is to win and the aim is to be the best and this means being in SL and winning the Grand Final as the ultimate. goal.

There are 14 SL clubs who are presumably in favour of the status quo. There are 24 Championship clubs. I have heard Batley say hey don't want promotion but can't remember any others. I think you are wrong on the numbers you claim make up the majority in favour of licencing. So, if a club meets the standards and they are in tat makes the SL a 15 team competition or more. I thought the desired number was 12 or even 10. How does this all add up.? There are definitely no short cuts, more likely long delays and morale killers with licencing. It's been a disaster so far.

Exactly, all clubs are members of the RFL including SL, so SL is not a breakaway competition. It is part of the RFL. You quote me where I state that I want licencing in place and 'll get back to you. I am not tailoring my arguments to suit Keighley per se , the club is a long way from any promotion to SL. I AM tailoring my arguments to support p and r, the favourites at the moment being Fev, Fax and Leigh, not Keighley. Keighley have played the game before and been relegated and are nearer to that occurring again rather than p and r. What stats do you want from the most recent period of CC to SL p and r. The fact that Castleford managed to average around 5,000 or better in the Championship twice or the fact that Hull KR more than doubled their attendances from CC1 to CC because there was a promotion spot up for grabs. It looks as though some format FOR P AND R is set to resurface soon, so when they decide which one they want, I will get right up to date. What the heck has the British Empire got to do with RL.? Oh, hang on, the Queen is still head of state in Australia. ate in Australia.

So you are saying what with that meaningless word. Is it not true that in the past we did not say "sod it" and ignore the outside world when we expanded or tried to expand in the places I mentioned. It seems to me that that comment by you was not wholly accurate.

I am not saying it is right. I am saying it is what it is. I am saying that if there is a great swell of support for and demand for p and r between the amateur and semi pro leagues, then do it. There is, however, a loud clamour and lots of support for p and r between the Championship and SL, so, just do it. As for Keighley, I don t know if it escaped your notice but we have been promoted, demoted and promoted again. No complaints, we got what our play and admimistration deserved including a 9 points deduction for going into admin.

I'm neither happy nor sad. It just isn't in place and there is no clamour from teams outside the structure for it to be so. So, since your purported logic that you have mistakenly attributed to me is false, point two is irrelevant. SL self appointed itself as a breakaway league but then came back into the fold when it acquiesced in p and r between itself ad the Championship. I think you will find that all SL clubs, with the exception perhaps of Catalans are members of the RFL. The players are governed by the RFL disciplinary process, the salary cap is policed by the RFL. They all play in the Challenge Cup, a quintessential RFL competition. The RFL went to great lengths to rescue your beloved Bulls out of altruism not because they were part of the RFL system. I am, as you say, the biggest ever fan of licencing and ring fencing. I don 't think Keighley were shafted when they wee denied promotion to SL. I think Huddersfield, Hull KR, Castleford and Wakefield should be removed immediately from SL because they were promoted to it and not given a licence. I think Bradford should be in SL forever, even if they sink to 1964 levels, because, hey, they were granted a licence. You are really lost in left field as they say in baseball with your theory that I am a closet supporter of licencing.

Yeah, sod the outside world just as we did when the game expanded to Australasia, France and made attempts several times to expand to Wales, London, Carlisle, Newcastle, Italy and recruited from South Africa. Yeah, sod the outside world.

Well. quite so but, in this instance, the poster has already stated he is not from Rochdale and is not interested in supporting a team in Rochdale.

No SL is an part of a three tier structure of the pro game. Therefore there should be p and r between those constituent parts. Thatto Heath is not a member of that pro game structure. If you want an avenue for p and r from all levels of the game to SL then I am not against it but, at present, the p and r system being discussed is one between the three divisions of the pro arm of the game. As things stand at present Thatto heath would have to apply to join the pro ranks to be considered for p and r as the new teams in CC1 have done.

Thatto Heath were not a member of the RFL semi pro/pro league. They are a member of an amateur league. There is no p nd r between the two. They are independent entities. IF, I repeat IF, Thatto Heath applied for and were granted membership of the semipro/pro Rugby league competition then they should be able to be promoted and relegated up and down that structure asyou say, fair and square. The point you appear to be making is that amateur teams should be included in a tiered hierarchy which would allow p and r from pub team level all the way up to SL. I am not fundamentally opposed to this but,at present, it's proving a mammoth task to even get p and r amongst the pro ranks from top to bottom established as a principle. Lets not run before we can walk. The new teams in CC1, Hemel, Old Golds, Oxford, South Wales, North Wales were all admitted to the semi pro ranks by becoming members on application first. It is an established route to league membership but your hierarchal pathway from the bottom is not an anathema to me, far from it.

Indeed and I was also one of them. However I am sure there were a substantial number of Rochdale residents there who were not regular followers of the Hornets and it is that group that I would hope might be persuaded to return to watch the club as a result of a positive experience at the WC game. If that is not the case, so be it. Next season will give us a hint one way or the other.

On their admittance to membership of the league, Featherstone were not playing in a competition that had a pathway to the semi pro RFL competition. In fact there was no p and r. There was just one big league and anybody who wanted to join it was usually admitted but they had to apply. Castleford were admitted round about the same time as Fev. Wigan Highfield, the two London clubs, Carlisle all joined the RFL semi pro leagues in the inter war period. And, yes, at that time the decisions were almost certainly made in a smoke filled room. St Helens rec are the team I was referencing. They were from St.Helens. They were a works team of Pilkington Glass but they were full members of the pro leagues and were a top team for a while. I think they made the Challenge Cup semi at least once. I only referenced them as you were suggesting Thatto Heath, also from St Helens should be promoted to the league structure and I suggested that the people who want mergers wouldn't be happy with two teams in St Helens even though it had happened before,, i.e.St.Helens Recs. I hope that clears up all your questions.

Do you live in Rochdale ? If not, you are not the demographic of potential new support for the Hornets which I would hope might be a result of the WC game at Spotland.

Oh, alright, I withdraw that allegation then. I got my tickets on day one and I,m glad I did. It was a great evening, a great venue and a great crowd and a great game. I was impressed. I hope I'm right and you are wrong because an increase in attendnaces at any club wojld be a good thing. I also made my first visit to the DW and that's very nice also but the steps to the top row of the stand are some kind of steep.

1. St Helens Recreation were full league members and were located in ST Helens as the Pilkington glass works team. 2. Featherstone Rovers were admitted to the league in the 1920's. I am sure you will leap to correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, at the time of any promotions from CC1 for example to the Championship they were members of the league structure.