The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

[Dave T]

Yes of course it is but that is why I said most of the Sky money has been wasted by SL club Chairmen.   There's a big difference between £1.25 million per year and £90k.

What percentage of Sky money has been wasted? When you say most I assume you have some kind of figure in mind.

 

I have seen some fabulous players in Super League from overseas, I'm sure many others have enjoyed it, and maybe the likes of Robbie Paul, Trent Barrett, Matt King etc have actually enhanced the game and attracted fans, sponsors and viewers to the game.

 

The money hasn't been wasted, the money was paid to allow Sky to televise an exciting league. The money was not all about developing the England team.

 

In an ideal world every player in SL would be eligible for the England team and all would be world beaters, but that is a pipe dream.

 

When I look at the facilities, crowds and entertainment on offer I don't agree that most of the money has been agreed at all.

 

We could easily create a list of ###### overseas players, but likewise we could do the same with English lads.

[yipyee]

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.

Firstly IO am not a bulls fan.....

 

Secondly ALL tier 3 clubs are members of the RFL play in RFL comps, play in the challenge cup....

 

You are tailoring your argument to suit keighley.......you also state you want licensing in place .....just not in the league keighley are in your eyes trying to reach....

 

your explanation of the league system is stuck in the eighties and you claim stats from the sixties.....

 

next you will be saying the sun never sets on the British empire??????

[yipyee]

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.

 

whose clamoring for promotion?

 

there are more against it than for it! 

 

several clubs are happy just where they are!

 

any club who wants to raise a tier can do......meet the standards and your in.........there is no closed shop or ring fencing......in this system there are NO SHORT CUTS......and that seems to be your beef.....you are worried as to how long it will take for a club to become good again! 

[Keith T]

What percentage of Sky money has been wasted? When you say most I assume you have some kind of figure in mind.

 

I have seen some fabulous players in Super League from overseas, I'm sure many others have enjoyed it, and maybe the likes of Robbie Paul, Trent Barrett, Matt King etc have actually enhanced the game and attracted fans, sponsors and viewers to the game.

 

The money hasn't been wasted, the money was paid to allow Sky to televise an exciting league. The money was not all about developing the England team.

 

In an ideal world every player in SL would be eligible for the England team and all would be world beaters, but that is a pipe dream.

 

When I look at the facilities, crowds and entertainment on offer I don't agree that most of the money has been agreed at all.

 

We could easily create a list of ###### overseas players, but likewise we could do the same with English lads.

No I have no figure in mind can you put a figure on what hasn't been wasted?    Those are sill arguments.

 

My original post was because l'ange posted about being narrow minded and self interested people not looking at the bigger picture.   I responded by saying that SL Chairmen have done more than their fair share of being narrow minded and self interested by not looking at the bigger picture of international RL, especially English international RL by their recruitment of overseas players.   Not every overseas player has been a waste of money but many have taken places in teams that young Brits could have been developed but for self interest in club before country.

 

You might be correct and then again I might be correct in whether most of the money has been wasted or not.

[yipyee]

or they where able to exploit the extra and better commercial opportunities that SL offers, that is sponsors, hospitality, etc. Of course the TV monies would help putting gate money around third place in revenue income. Yep, they need to improve gates to fully compete but my point is they would have better commercial opportunities which gets over looked as most comments just focus on gate money.   Obviously depends but for the likes of Leeds commercial sponsorship & hospitality is a major factor.  Not sure if other clubs like Hull are able to maximize this major and highest revenue stream as well as the likes of Leeds are able - maybe down to better commercial focus or advantage of being in a city with many more potential sponsors than a city or region that is not as relatively economically well.   So maybe board doesn't have to dig so deep....

 

Hi,

 

I agree with what your saying.....i was responding to a post saying you don't need home fans as the away fans will carry you..... my point was clubs should be sustainable with home support, of course the sponsorship and commercial side is an additional factor.......

 

I also dont think gate money is in third place.....what do you get from sky around 1.2 mill?

 

clubs say you need around 8000 to compete others say 10k?

 

so if we go at 9k with an average ticket price at 15pounds thats just shy of 2mill?

 

added to 1.2 mill is roughly the full cap?

 

I think in soccer the latest TV deal has only just pushed TV monies ahead of gate receipt....

 

I was also adding that if your directors are prepared to make up a shortfall then they can be more 'loose' with their projections.....

 

Clubs with chairmen like bradford for instance risked it and lost......

[yipyee]

What percentage of Sky money has been wasted? When you say most I assume you have some kind of figure in mind.

 

I have seen some fabulous players in Super League from overseas, I'm sure many others have enjoyed it, and maybe the likes of Robbie Paul, Trent Barrett, Matt King etc have actually enhanced the game and attracted fans, sponsors and viewers to the game.

 

The money hasn't been wasted, the money was paid to allow Sky to televise an exciting league. The money was not all about developing the England team.

 

In an ideal world every player in SL would be eligible for the England team and all would be world beaters, but that is a pipe dream.

 

When I look at the facilities, crowds and entertainment on offer I don't agree that most of the money has been agreed at all.

 

We could easily create a list of ###### overseas players, but likewise we could do the same with English lads.

 

 

Most overseas players in the NRL opt for Aus?

 

We are getting closer we need a few more rangi chases! Who was that saints prop faservaluu? and that bradford player who played for England RU.....not to mention henry Paul....

 

I am of course joking!

[jpmc]

Hi,

 

.....i was responding to a post saying you don't need home fans as the away fans will carry you.....

Someone actually wrote that?

[Keith T]

any club who wants to raise a tier can do......meet the standards and your in.........there is no closed shop or ring fencing......in this system there are NO SHORT CUTS......and that seems to be your beef.....you are worried as to how long it will take for a club to become good again! 

Oh, if only that were the case.   What happens if you have a current SL and a Championship club that have the same credentials and same financial accounts and same grade for ground facilities?    Which one gets the place in SL?

 

The answer of course is the current SL club because it is the SL clubs who get to decide.

[redjonn]

Hi,

 

I agree with what your saying.....i was responding to a post saying you don't need home fans as the away fans will carry you..... my point was clubs should be sustainable with home support, of course the sponsorship and commercial side is an additional factor.......

 

I also dont think gate money is in third place.....what do you get from sky around 1.2 mill?

 

clubs say you need around 8000 to compete others say 10k?

 

so if we go at 9k with an average ticket price at 15pounds thats just shy of 2mill?

 

added to 1.2 mill is roughly the full cap?

 

I think in soccer the latest TV deal has only just pushed TV monies ahead of gate receipt....

 

I was also adding that if your directors are prepared to make up a shortfall then they can be more 'loose' with their projections.....

 

Clubs with chairmen like bradford for instance risked it and lost......

 

you may be right I just wanted to highlight other big (relative) income streams.  Of course level of gates and season tickets are important but also the price they are sold.  I always get the impression than likes of Bradford charge a relatively low amount plus a lot are junior and other concessions - I guess it depends upon the demographics of the season ticket base. I note from web site that Bradford have a early bird terrace ST for £180, a concession at £135, a junior 12-16 £45 and under 12 £0/free which gives a game price of approx £13.40, £10.40, £3.46 and £0.  So depending upon the demographics and whether terrace or stand the average could be much lower and hence income could be less than or close to TV money if that is similar to other clubs depending upon gate size and demographics of ST sales.

 

To add - me thinks 9 teams had average attendance around 8500 (Bradford) and less. a couple in the 7000's. a few in the 6000's.  So I still think for some gate money will be the third income stream assuming they are doing a reasonable job commercially (sponsorship and hospitality) with sky money 2nd.   SL offers better potential to exploit commercially to CC than they currently have which plus TV money narrows the gap, again depending on pricing and demographics if they have time to grow gates plus get more away fans - no doubt a benefactor can help with that transition.   

Edited January 7, 2014 by redjonn

[keighley]

Firstly IO am not a bulls fan.....

 

Secondly ALL tier 3 clubs are members of the RFL play in RFL comps, play in the challenge cup....

 

You are tailoring your argument to suit keighley.......you also state you want licensing in place .....just not in the league keighley are in your eyes trying to reach....

 

your explanation of the league system is stuck in the eighties and you claim stats from the sixties.....

 

next you will be saying the sun never sets on the British empire??????

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.

[keighley]

whose clamoring for promotion?

 

there are more against it than for it! 

 

several clubs are happy just where they are!

 

any club who wants to raise a tier can do......meet the standards and your in.........there is no closed shop or ring fencing......in this system there are NO SHORT CUTS......and that seems to be your beef.....you are worried as to how long it will take for a club to become good again!

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.

[GaryO]

Presumably the O is for onanist

 

to quote dear old Frankie Howerd  "MADAM - please"

[yipyee]

If Thatto Heath apply and are admitted into the RFL's pro levels, then, should they win promotion, they should be promoted. Keighley applied as did Featherstone and both joined the pro leagues.

you are describing licensing!

[yipyee]

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.

the RFL want all clubs to be members, simms cross won the top division of tier 4, by the way they aren't being promoted. .....

Sheffield said they weren't in favour of the proposed system, most players wont want P&R and why would they? The promoted team loses their jobs.....the relegated team loose theirs....or they hold on for their contracts and become hated for bringing a club down!

P&R wasnt an issue during semi pro as the players day jobs didn't change, again if the championship was fully pro there would be no change!

do you not see this to be a problem?

Wheres the motivation to win if the end result is loosing your nice little earner playing part time RL?

[yipyee]

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.

licensing hasnt been a disaster there have been some victories aswell!

Some of the CC1 clubs didnt want promotion either by the way...

also check out the RFL website, it will show who is part or affiliates of the RFL, now SL clubs are members of SL and the RFL, tier3 clubs are affiliated to the RFL, under the old regime the vision was P&R from bottom to top,

Now are you a bottom up guy?

If so you will appreciate the need for P&R to be in place at the bottom first!

[yipyee]

you may be right I just wanted to highlight other big (relative) income streams. Of course level of gates and season tickets are important but also the price they are sold. I always get the impression than likes of Bradford charge a relatively low amount plus a lot are junior and other concessions - I guess it depends upon the demographics of the season ticket base. I note from web site that Bradford have a early bird terrace ST for £180, a concession at £135, a junior 12-16 £45 and under 12 £0/free which gives a game price of approx £13.40, £10.40, £3.46 and £0. So depending upon the demographics and whether terrace or stand the average could be much lower and hence income could be less than or close to TV money if that is similar to other clubs depending upon gate size and demographics of ST sales.

To add - me thinks 9 teams had average attendance around 8500 (Bradford) and less. a couple in the 7000's. a few in the 6000's. So I still think for some gate money will be the third income stream assuming they are doing a reasonable job commercially (sponsorship and hospitality) with sky money 2nd. SL offers better potential to exploit commercially to CC than they currently have which plus TV money narrows the gap, again depending on pricing and demographics if they have time to grow gates plus get more away fans - no doubt a benefactor can help with that transition.

looking at those figures it probably explains why Bradford were/are in trouble......

[The Parksider]

 

 

Being parochial is for me the main reason that Mr Parksider’s campaign for merger’s would not work.............

 

You seem to have joined Mr. Keighley's "school of debate" here Mr. O. You decide what what someone is saying and you counter the argument you invented yourself.

 

But I have no campaign for mergers whatsoever. I have made it clear as best I can that IMVHO the far easier path to the "principle" of just one team in each area to get all the resources in one place, is to just put one team in each area. Let Hull FC represent Hull  in SL. Let Wakefield Trinity Wildcats at hopefully Newmarket, represent Wakefield MD in SL, Let Bradford represent the "Pennine area" in SL. Let Widnes represent the Halton District.

 

I've lived it, stardate 1980 when crowds were rising and Hull hit the first 10,000 average in many years.

 

Bramley 1,204

Hunslet  1,718

Leeds     6,681

 

Slowly but surely things changed as the sporting world changed then when the seizmic change of selling top level RL to SKY came along things accelerated. Leeds took on Bramley who could not survive in the new world as an "A" team then dropped them and they died 2000. Hunslet won promotion and the SLE showed them the door. Ironically Leeds have used them extensively as an "A" team last year - result - demotion to the league of death.

 

Whilst second tier semi pro RL in Leeds has virtually died out the resultant Super Superleague five times Superleague Champions in seven years now announce that they have their strongest squad ever for 2014 and all that without a Dr. Koucash. That is how IMVHO things are going.

 

So wouldn't it be fantastic for the game and those who love it, if the inevitable process that has seen it's near full course in the Leeds area was just given a push in other areas?? IMVHO it is bad business to just wait for things to happen, because it prolongs the agony, and costs the business a shedload. To start giving CC clubs money SL clubs need, and to bring back auto P & R, and dumb down Superleague because nobody has the balls to lead the game to where it IMVHO will end up anyway, and all "for the good of the game", smacks of cowardice.

[GIANTSTRIDES]

You could have fooled me saying you don't want to hold anyone back and you not caring which teams are in SL.  Of course you are and do.   You are speaking from the position of being one of the top clubs and despite what you have witnessed with your own club in the past you wisj and hope for them to remain there forever more.  

 

All the clubs in SL need a large amount of money and I don't see that it makes much difference giving that money to a viable Championship club or a struggling financially unsound current SL club.    How much money has London had over the years to keep them afloat and in SL?    I'm sure Fev or Fax or Leigh with the same amount of financial support could have been pretty safe in SL by now.

 

How is the quality of SL being diminished by allowing one new club in per season?    I'm sure that replacing London with Fev would not diminish the quality of SL one iota and what you are saying is again mere attempted justification for keeping the status quo or closed shop attitude.

 

 

Well you believe me or don't , But show me where i am wanting to hold any club back, Show me anyone who is stopping any CC from growing , I don't know of any SL club taking money from the championship, Nothing in the world is stopping Leigh being as big as Wigan except their own shortcomings, " and that's wigans fault is it", Or is it the whole of Super league.

 

I wish there were a Dr K coming into the game every day, If there was i could see some sence to this. The only thing i have said is that i want to see any team Promoted to SL be able to hack it and be a success, I don't want to see anyone go through the same thing my team did, year on year, or what happened to Fax, or  Leigh, It to me is quite pointless.

 

You make out that everything wrong is the fault of SL You are wanting a bigger share of the money SL generates, and dressing it all up as some sort of saviour of the game, in which all clubs are one big happy familly,

 

I want there to be a good vibrant league below SL, But isn't that where the RFL come in arn't they supposed to promote the game , shouldn't they be trying to get a TV deal for the Championship, A nice lucrative one so you can also help to fund the clubs in the lower league, because you surely have those in mind as well as your own club,

 

Whether you like it or not League has to go forward, It can't stay in the last Century with 30 clubs all in on big happy league, It's now all about money ( that's why my club are where they are ) and if it's not , Why are you so bothered about being in SL anyway.

[The Parksider]

You do realise Hull FC made a loss of £500,000 in their last accounts ??? This included away fans...

How Mr Pearson must wish they could break even...

 

Not sure how many away fans want to travel the very long way to Hull, but I am interested in the scale of the Hull.F.C. Loss you quote. Oddly £500,000 is exactly the same sum Hull.K.R.'s Neil Hudgell says he and Mr. Crossland has to put in annually to cover their losses.

 

So am I to conclude that in "one club" Leeds they have the correct business model, whilst in Hull to ensure the old days of FC/KR derby's it needs £1,000,000 a year from someone else's pockets to keep the past alive?

 

Again when Hull were a club who could win a challenge cup and get to a grand final (I was in the Hull end that day and what passion) they managed to up an 11,211 average crowd in 2006 by 2,000 more fans in their 2007 opening matches regardless of usurpers HKR's entry that same year.

 

The derby when it came attracted a sell out 23,002 fans. The alleged "symbiotic" relationship had started. However one year later neither club made the play offs and Hull crashed to one place off the bottom. Since then the top sides find both easy beats, and Hull's 76 point thrashing last season at Fartown was only surpassed by Hull.K.R's 84 point surrender to Wigan.

 

Last year the symbiotic beloved derby was 4,000 bored fans short. What IMVHO would be good for the game is one club in Hull giving the smug Leeds, Wires, Saints and Wigans some regular spankings. I think that would (to return to Mr. Funkmeisters original point) turn one heck of a profit and fend off the challenge of Hull City, but above all be fantastic for the game and fantastic for the TV contract.

[Padge]

Not necessarily, if no away fans turned up at Warrington, we would potentially have a £250-300k hole in our budget. We have seen clubs go extinct based on that kind of black hole.

 

All budgets are set on forecasts. How realistic they are, and how good your business is to achieve your forecasts are different things. Not factoring in income streams is not good forecasting.

 

The problem is that people say about attendances, especially for clubs who historically have only achieved around the 5k mark on average during the divisional era, that 'yeah but we'll be alright because we'll get all the away support from Leeds, Wigan, Hull Saints etc", that means that what they are saying is that we'll be alright because we'll get loads of away support, in effect relying on away support to financially make the club sustainable. 

 

No club should be reliant on away support to survive.

[The Parksider]

clubs should be sustainable with home support

 

Should they? I cannot get my head around that?

 

When you put on an event and sell tickets for it, if you turn a profit what does it matter? Why is £20 from the lad/lass down the road worth more that £20 from the lad/lass who has traveled 60 miles?

 

OK I accept CC clubs are trying to say that once in SL several thousand Wigan fans will swell their attendances making them SL clubs, but last year Widnes averaged a crowd of 6,015 at home. The mighty Wigan turned up in June and swelled the crowd to 6,528..............

 

The problem is CC clubs are just embellishing their projections based on deliberate false premises. If any club in any town COULD attract 10,000 crowds exclusively from another town altogether without a single local in sight, then they should be in surely?

 

There are places I love to go away to, there are away dumps I avoid. People avoided Featherstone the other year because of the yobs. I welcome any club who can attract away fans. What matters is how many fans regardless of where they come from.

Edited January 7, 2014 by The Parksider

[Steve Slater]

If fans were to vote on the future of Rugby League, in my opinion those fans that attend every game, home and away, should receive twice as many votes as those that only attend home games. There are some real stalwarts amongst the game's supporters and their wishes should not go unheeded.

[Padge]

Should they? I cannot get my head around that?

 

When you put on an event and sell tickets for it, if you turn a profit what does it matter? Why is £20 from the lad/lass down the road worth more that £20 from the lad/lass who has traveled 60 miles?

 

OK I accept CC clubs are trying to say that once in SL several thousand Wigan fans will swell their attendances making them SL clubs, but last year Widnes averaged a crowd of 6,015 at home. The mighty Wigan turned up in June and swelled the crowd to 6,528..............

 

The problem is CC clubs are just embellishing their projections based on deliberate false premises. If any club in any town COULD attract 10,000 crowds exclusively from another town altogether without a single local in sight, then they should be in surely?

 

There are places I love to go away to, there are away dumps I avoid. People avoided Featherstone the other year because of the yobs. I welcome any club who can attract away fans. What matters is how many fans regardless of where they come from.

 

Attracting away fans isn't the issue, attracting them is good. Bradford have brought from around 4,000 to around 400 within a matter of a couple of seasons to Wigan.

 

Away attendances (along with home attendances) can vary depending on how well a club is doing from one season to the next. Hence clubs push for season ticket holders, the income is in the bank. Leeds may have lets say 7,000 season ticket holders, but 7,000 aren't going to pop in Wigan, if both teams are going well you may get a high proportion of away support if both are doing average then that figure could well start to tumble, but the vast majority of the home support is in the bank.

 

The variations in support depending on how the club is going in any particular season is in part under the control of the home clubs marketing team, they can offer incentives to keep people turning up, you can't offer incentives so easily to away supporters who losing interest in their own club due to their poor performance and marketing.

 

Only rely on that which you can at least have an element of control. Relying on something outside of your control is a dangerous strategy.

[Keith T]

Well you believe me or don't , But show me where i am wanting to hold any club back, Show me anyone who is stopping any CC from growing , I don't know of any SL club taking money from the championship, Nothing in the world is stopping Leigh being as big as Wigan except their own shortcomings, " and that's wigans fault is it", Or is it the whole of Super league.

 

I wish there were a Dr K coming into the game every day, If there was i could see some sence to this. The only thing i have said is that i want to see any team Promoted to SL be able to hack it and be a success, I don't want to see anyone go through the same thing my team did, year on year, or what happened to Fax, or  Leigh, It to me is quite pointless.

 

You make out that everything wrong is the fault of SL You are wanting a bigger share of the money SL generates, and dressing it all up as some sort of saviour of the game, in which all clubs are one big happy familly,

 

I want there to be a good vibrant league below SL, But isn't that where the RFL come in arn't they supposed to promote the game , shouldn't they be trying to get a TV deal for the Championship, A nice lucrative one so you can also help to fund the clubs in the lower league, because you surely have those in mind as well as your own club,

 

Whether you like it or not League has to go forward, It can't stay in the last Century with 30 clubs all in on big happy league, It's now all about money ( that's why my club are where they are ) and if it's not , Why are you so bothered about being in SL anyway.

 

1. You want to retain the licensing system which as I have said on another post if you have two clubs (1 x SL and 1 x Champ) equally financed , with the same grade of ground and they are equal in all other credentials under this system the SL club will always be the one to retain it's place because the SL clubs are the one's that will decide.   IMHO the fact that you would wish to deny clubs automatic promotion is holding them back.

 

2.  I never mentioned anything about a SL club taking money from a Championship club so I don't see why you have introduced that.

 

3.  You originally said that "anyone who thinks that a CC without either a huge amount of money (could happen) or a huge crowd every week (won't happen) will be able to compete with multi million clubs, I would say are dreamers".    My point to that was that also applies to current SL clubs who are not multi million clubs and I see no difference in handing over the £1.2 million Sky money to say, Fev or the struggling London or Bradford.

 

4.  I have never claimed that everything is SL's fault, once again that is your wording nor have I said at any stage that I want more money for the Championship clubs.   That's not to say that I wouldn't gladly accept it if it came along but once again you are putting words in where I never uttered them.

 

5.  You also asked, "what is to be gained by reducing the quality, or even risking it,  Just to show the world how fair we are".   My response to that was by allowing one club in at the expense of a not so virile SL club each season does not necessarily mean that you are reducing the quality.

 

6.  My club is nowhere near going back in to SL and I cannot foresee them doing it in my lifetime but that is beside the point.   You would deny others the chance who may be more ready and better suited for SL than maybe your club without your moneyman.   How is that taking the game forward?

[bobbruce]

Oh, if only that were the case. What happens if you have a current SL and a Championship club that have the same credentials and same financial accounts and same grade for ground facilities? Which one gets the place in SL?

The answer of course is the current SL club because it is the SL clubs who get to decide.

No it isn't if everything is equal its the RFL that gets to decide