keighley

You didn't see minimum attendances as a standard supported by me. 2,400 in the Championship would almost certainly rise in SL. London will be very lucky to average 2,400 this upcoming season and no one is proposing denying them their SL place based on that. As for faceless administrators. SL clubs should have no part of that process. They are too self interested in the buddy buddy system. The admisnistrators should be appointed by the league and should be independent. The standards should be thrashed out well in advance and every club in the Championships would know where they stand from the get go. The administrators would not be faceless and there would be no goal post moving as has happened in the past when p and r was suddenly abolished mid season and grounds standards were introduced half way through a campaign. There would be no Lindsay, Caisley and others huddling in back rooms playing god. The required levels that clubs must achieve before their qualifying for promotion by winning the grand final would be plain and clear and the clubs would know that if they met them they would be up. the bottom SL club would be down. No more this licence application is better than that one to save them.

That would be up to the league, maybe with advice from KPMG and using the accumulated data gathered from the experiences of issuing and vetting licences. If it was up to me there would be no club owners involved. An audit of the finances would be crucial and this could be done by an independent, unbiased company. The other probable standards could be set for grounds standards by whatever measure they use to evaluate SL grounds although London are currently setting the bar quite low in this area., Junior development could be evaluated based on existing setups measured against the leagues they played in and future comittments, bearing in mind that the teams would have been operating on a \championship budget. That's all thrown together at a moment's notice by myself. I am sure the professionals can come up with something better. Before the standards are finalised there should be some input from the championship side of things. All in all, if some thought was given to the standards required, a reasonable set should be able to be established that would make sure the promoted club are pretty sure making it in SL without being so onerous as to be totally prohibitive as to exclude most reasonably run and well prepared organisations. With these standards being known in advance, the clubs would know that if they measured up to them, promotion would be guaranteed and that there would no anonymous vetoes by self interested SL organisations.

But if they do meet the standards they WILL be promoted because they won the right on the field. Under licencing, if they meet the standards they MIGHT probably WON'T be given a licence because others were deemed to have met the standards to a better level and we know how well those decisions have turned out at Crusaders, Bradford (twice) and Salford. Let's hope the game finds a pot of gold in the New Year. have a happy one. I'm definitely a "He" with the kids and wife to prove it.

So the alleged SL commitment to expansion from the heartlands into big cities is just flim flam and window dressing then. When it actually might come to pass Sky will not sell any boxes and we should stick to playing in Castleford because the people there are interested in RL. The people pushing a big city team SL expanding to new areas seem to be hypocritical when push comes to shove.

That's my very point. These decisions would not take place in public with everything being seen to be fair and above board but instead would have been taken in private backrooms where you can smoke as much as you wish and vote in your preffered members of SL with no questions asked even when patently unfair decisions were made as to SL membership.

That's right, they should have dropped the team which was financially insolvent, playing in the worst stadium with massively declining crowds. No prizes for guessing which team that would have been.

isn't it a theory that people in Wigan buy Sky boxes because Wigan are in SL. Why should Sheffield be different ? I don't know the record. Have I broken it ? Do I get a gold star if I have. I don't see the problem. I am intersetd in this subject. I have my ideas. Other people have other ideas and challenge my points and I respond. Isn't that kind of thing the raison d'etre of this board ? I am retired and have time to play. I didn't realise a limitation on a certain number of posts was a requirement.

No. Clubs will have been denied their chance by their own inability to meet the conditions set before promotion can be achieved. In the same way that a licence would not be issued to an insolvent team ( or so we were told). The difference is, if the standards were met, results on the field would determine promotion not KPMG or some committee in a smoke filled back room casting votes for their co conspirators and mates.

As in all things complete freedom results in anarchy. You have freedom of speech but you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You can't hurl racial epithets around with impunity because there would be blood in the streets. You can't have naked unregulated capitalism because it creates serious have and have not divisions and destabilises society. It has to be regulated. In RL we have had unrestricted p and r and yo yo clubs and bankruptcies have destabilised the game. Whilst, in theory, I support auto p and r, in practice it has injurious effects. In the same way that just issuing a licence, just because I think such and such a team deserves it with no standards attached would do the same. the problem is that licencing, with or without standards, is ring fencing. Any turnover by not renewing licences, if indeed it were ever to happen, is way too slow. The lower teams cannot better themselves beacusenthey are condemned to remain in the lower tier with a negative effect on finances and attendances. So, we need a middle ground. P and r removes the ring fenced, hardly ever changing, makeup of SL and gives the lower teams a chance at the big time but, in order not to destabilise things with teams who cannot compete, having won promotion, it is necessary to ensure that they can compete at this higher level and survive as a club, not necessarily stay up, by compelling them to have finances in place that will ensure stability. this is good for the individual clubs and SL as an entity. Moderation in all things usually ensures stability. There is a need for laws, rules and regulations to prevent chaos.

The cream will rise to the top so, eventually, in theory, all the current SL behomoths will still be n SL. However, some of the "others" might want to produce their own cream and might be better at rising than current incumbents, e.g. London and Bradford. That is why there is a need for p and r. Money is crucial and will win out in the end. The end might not be exactly what the ring fencers want though because a Fev or a Halifax might just do a better job than a formerly ring fenced team. That s all I want. A chance for upward mobility. If it doesn't happen and the status quo remains largly as it is then that's fine as well. The lower orders will have had heir chance. I absolutely agree that the RFL don't seem to chase the TV money as aggressivlely as they might but, to be fair, that's only my perception from the outside looking in. The reality might be quite the oppsoite

When the league split into divisions, Bramley were in the 1st division so they got their reward for finishing in a high league position in the 30 club table the previous season. So they got their fixture against Leeds. If we ditch this fixed and weighted 3 x 8 nonsense and go back to straight p and r, the system is not designed to keep small clubs out, nor is it designed to get them in. It merely creates an opportunity for them to get to the top if the are able to grasp it. Those clubs who would have been promoted and those relegated would have been reaping the rewards for their success or failure a the case may be. Dewsbury had previously been in the top division and were quite a decent side with decent attendances for some seasons. A second club in Leeds would not be a bad thing IMVHO. Sheffield is an expansion area. They are a well run club, they have had success on the field, there is a new purpose built ground proposed for them. If their finances could handle it, what's not to like. I bet Sky would relish a new market in a city the size of Sheffeld. My point is that these clubs would have been rewarded for their success and the relegated clubs penalised for their failure. As some on here like to constantly state. Life ain't fair. Hull, Widnes and Huddersfield have all been relegated at various times and survived, luckily for them because p and r was in place and they had the opportunity to bounce back. It strange you are championing Widnes, a small time team adjacent to a SL colossus, on well less than 10,000 crowds. These are exactly the criteria you claim are a recipe for disaster and a negative factor in the larger neighbour's prospects.

I have long ago agreed that p and r should not be automatic but should have conditions attached, the most important of which is stable finances. I have sated this many times and yet you always come back with automatic p and r, you never deviate from that line so that's that canard disposed of. The farce and laughing stock yo yo instance you are quoting is I assume the Leigh affair. There are however the examples of Hull KR, Huddersfield and Wakefield, all of whom were promoted and all of whom are still in SL despite some stumbles along the way. The licencing method has produced London, Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead. A plethora of successful entities there then. So, overall, licencing has produced more failures than p and r and that was auto p and r which I don't support. I don't see losing Catalans to be replaced by a lower tier team as a permanent changing of the SL status quo. Catalans can be promoted and according to your yo yo theories they would immeditately be returned to SL. You argue divisions were introduced to produce top level fixtures but then you argue divisions aren't necessary. Isn't SL a top division designed for top level fixtures. Which of your conflicting scenarios do you actually want. I want a top tier division. I just don't want it ring fenced and it's members set I stone by a self interested hierarchy. I want a chance for all and when they get their chance they will sink or swim. According to you, these promoted clubs will never stay the course so I don't know what you are afraid of. Eventually the anointed ones will regain their rightful place, maybe. The geographical spread of the game now is in the lower tiers. I don't know where you got the idea that p and r was a rejection of geographical spread. If you think justice and fairness are unimportant then, scrap the salary cap, remove any upward movement for clubs or equal spread of talent. Let Wigan and Leeds play each other in the grand Final 8 out of ten years with an occasional cameo appearance from Warrington or Saints. Have London and Castleford and Widnes or Wakefield, bereft of all talent perennially ship a 1000 points at the bottom of the heap. After all, the world isn't fair. When these bottom dwellers then go to the wall, have fun with your elite 6 team league. People are tying to address the issues that RL faces. One of then seems to be a return to p and r. It was the leaders of the game that have proposed it's return. Have a go at them. I just happen to agree with them.

Fact 1. Catalans finished bottom. Fact 2. A club that did not finish bottom were relegated. I never said it wasn't agreed. I said it was wrong and unfair and a reward for failure.

O forget the analogy.

You are quite right. No club has an inherent right to SL. End the ring fencing, stop the closed shop, let p and r return and we will get a SL based on merit and which relegates failure and rewards success. Furthermore it should be true p and r, maybe with financial probity attached as a condition, but no fancy contrived schemes with a built in bias towards SL clubs as in this 3 x 8 ######.

But Parky, p and r does not eliminate an elite top tier league. In fact it strengthens it by removing not so elite failing teams and replacing them with successful ambitious newcomers. One of these finished top last season. What ring fencing does is support mediocrity, a far cry from elitism. It's a prop for failure. I can't think of one poster on here who is advocating cancelling the Sky contract. Most people would like it to be bigger

yes, but this was fundamentally wrong. Catalans were given three years notice that they would be given a SL spot and still finished bottom. That arrangement failed all standards of natural justice. It rewarded failure.

You are probably right that Leigh and others cannot compete with Wigan, not for long at least BUT if they win a place they should be allowed to try. if they fail and all back, so be it, but why should some failing organisations like London and even Castleford or Salford last season be perennially up their in the top tier at the expense of others who have worked long and hard both on and off the field to qualify for a tilt at the top level. I know people don't like comparisons to soccer but the fact remains that Barnsley, Bradford City, Wigan, Blackpool, Blackburn, Charlton, Birmingham and probably some I can't remember have won their spot and had their chance in the premier league and soccer has no suffered as a result. I don't see why we can't do the same. Blackpool, Dewsbury, Hunslet, Swinton all three Cumbrian clubs, Doncaster, York, Bramley, Oldham, Rochdale,Leigh, Keighley as well as various Welsh clubs and Carlisle have won and competed in our top division. If they can put a team good enough on the field, which will cost money to do, and win promotion, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed a shot at it again. If they can't hack it in SL they will soon be relegated but they will have had their shot.

That's what some people want but it's not sport, is it. I don't see why these new clubs can't work their way up the leagues or, if it absolutely necessary to admit them to SL, then just increase the size of SL and not remove an existing club just to accommodate them. If any new club from a new area has so much money to offer the game hey will soon rise to the top. Fulham, a previous incarnation of London started life with a 10,000 attendance in their first ever match and had an average crowd above 5,000 in div 2. hey won their promotion but couldn't hold onto their first div spot. if the money had not run out they may well have stayed in the top tier. Carlisle were similar and won promotion a the first attempt but couldn't sustain their 1st division place. Crusaders went the other route but went from div 3 to SL, then the money ran out. Toulouse were in the championship but couldn't produce a winning team but it's a precedent for either new French teams or relegated ones that they can play in the lower level. I just don't see why there should be any special exemptions. it smacks of elitism and unfairness. It's like giving some untried new employee a job because daddy is loaded and dismissing a long serving worker or not hiring a better worker because he's not as well heeled. If a new club has the rsources it will get to SL and stay there. Huddersfield and Hull KR fell so low they had to be virtually reformed from scratch but worked their way to SL.

Catalans finished rock bottom in their first SL season and a club above them, not in a relegation spot were demoted because Catalans were exempted from relegation. So you stop spouting rubbish.

I don't see why Featherstone, Halifax and Leigh or, in past seasons, Hull KR, Castleford and Huddersfield have had to or will have to get a top side together playing in the Championship but Toulouse can't. You constantly, and rightfully so, praise the contributions Mr Davy has made to Huddersfield in their march from the Championships to League leaders, but refute the idea that Toulouse could do the same. Catalans finished bottom in their first season and somebody higher than them were relegated in their place ( Was it Widnes). This sort of thing should not be tolerated. That's the sort of thing Wells4HullFC and I are talking about when we quote fairness, decent behaviour and morals. Widnes are only fully recovering from that even now. Catalans and natural justice would have been better served if they had competed in and been promoted from the championships and established their SL place like Hull KR, Huddersfield had to do. If we have a return to p and r, this should be the procedure this time around. No more unfair procedures. Widnes have their rights won on the field, i.e not finishing in a relegation spot and there should be no unfair juggling of league positions. this is a sports league where competition is key. 68 million or not, Featherstone offer money. We would have to wait for the Toulouse money to get into SL. if it's that substantial, it wouldn't take long. I have to go out now so I don't have time to discuss the Hull scenario at present.

Thanks for articulating in a very cogent and reasoned way many of my thoughts on the situation in RL present. I would just add that if any daddy Warbucks want to help RL they are welcome but they have to work within the system and, if they choose to bankroll a lower league team, that team must work it's way to the top. If we want a second French team, the favourite is Toulouse, then maybe we can give the French elite a grading of say Championship level play and allow them in at that level, but, thereafter they need to be competitive and win promotion. In theory, that should be easier on the playing field than being dumped straight into SL a la Catalans first year.

I never said the Derby was everything but over the years it has produced some impressive crowds. Do you think that there has been a prolonged depression/recession in the country and that Hull has been hit very hard by it had anything to do with the decline in attendances for RL in the city declining and also the re emergence of Hull City could be another factor or is it all Hull KR emergence that caused the drop because in the other close proximity teams, the trend for attendances has not seen such large declines?.

If it's not legal, how come sanctions can be invoked against non compliant clubs ?

I don't see where Widnes's recent rise has affected Warrington or how Wigan's successes affect St. Helens or how Swinton's fall has helped Salford. Featherstone are increasing their attendnaces at the same time as Wakefield are increasing theirs. Your suggestion re hull KR affecting Hull just doesn't hold water unless the proximity of the two clubs is somehow different to the other clubs in the game who are in close proximity.