dufftown1

Londons ability to be an SL side is not dependent on hudds and vice versa

This just isnt the case. Straight P&R exists in football. Outside of that its relatively rare

P&R is a reflection of the strength of the game there, not the cause of it

Doesnt have a hard cap

The NRL basically choose theirs on what they think are good fixtures. The benefit of conferences is youre judged against people with (largely) the same schedule difficulty. The NRL with 20 is pretty easy to keep it at 23rounds fairly. 4 groups of 5. Play everyone once. For 19games, then your own again for 23. 15 cant really go in to 27. 28 leaves you with a 30week season 26 extends the season by 1 week but means a home game less for half the league (if we keep magic) and an uneven fixture list. If we do go to 15 we should be doing so only to get to 16 and something that works.

The NRL system isnt particularly fair, nor is it really ideal. Getting rid of loop fixtures then importing the confected NRL system would be incredibly illogical, but true to RL. 14 is probably the maximum. After that you may as well bite the bullet and move to conferences. Id be astounded in the NRL dont do it at 20.

28games plus 2 byes per team

Its a problem any real investor has. Realistically that money is only coming in from people who think we are undervalued and with changes revenue can increase substantially. Nobody is going to invest unless they can be certain those changes are made and stick. Owners dont want to make those changes which leaves the only alternative realistic recapitalisation as more of a predatory PE. Basically a loan where we pay a high rate and lose equity. Maybe that is a price they will pay to maintain their control

What is a growing and successful league that has both straight P&R and a hard salary cap?

Im not sure its protecting the status quo as just simple self interest. Acheiving strategic aims is costly and difficult and they just wont stand being punished for failure to meet them

The clubs at the top are restricted to keep the clubs at the bottom competitive. Whilst the clubs at the bottom may not spend it. Everyone is still restricted by it. The threat of relegation still effects everyone. This is unfair

I think they were (to a point) and that seemed like the initial plan. Weve just moved further from it every chance

But this isnt the principles of 'grading' that created this situation is it. The game/clubs (and nigel wood in his original form) dont want to make strategic decisions or have a strategic plan. So areas/pillars that are strategic get downgraded, dispensed with, or applied in a manner which doesnt work. Theres nothing to stop a grading system prioritising strategic growth, weve just chosen to deprioritise it.

They have built their teams, thats it. A fine acheivement but one specific to their club. We havent moved the sport as a whole forward. Just reshuffled the pack a little. The problem is where were Wigan and Bradford post spending money for fun?. Local lad done good spending a bit of money on a bit of fun getting his club a bit of success is perfectly fine. Until it isnt. And then pretty much immediately its terrible.

Because the teams who are spending the cap are the ones who are restricted. The ones who arent spending the cap are the ones for who the restriction is a benefit.