Now is the time to bring back franchising

[Scotchy1]

Just now, bigbaldnmad said:

But you still lose the argument on proximity been a driver.

Either proximity matters.... or it doesn't

Or proximity is a driver rather than the only driver. 

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How so.

It was your argument that London's history meant they had no hope. Now you are arguing that history doesnt matter.

If you want to argue only the recent present matters, well. in 2018 London were promoted to SL, and performed ok in SL in 2019. What happened to Leigh in 2018?

[bigbaldnmad]

Too many see it as the only driver.... just from observation.

(Or should I say the only driver in West Yorkshire)

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Let’s go to licensing if we want a six team league and even then, I’m being generous at as many as six clubs. 

Let’s not go to fourteen and weaken an already pretty weak product in Super League. Two more clubs stretches the player pool further and adds fifty players, who, predominantly, are going to be the worst fifty in the competition which will result in a series of mini-leagues within Super League, more blow out scorelines and will likely see an extension of the play-offs in a poor attempt at creating jeopardy for more sides, weakening our strongest product, the play-offs, while holding back our best clubs and pandering to the needs of a handful, dragging us down to their pretty average (at best, I’m generous) level. 

 

That is an impressive amount of straw men built and knocked down in what seems to be 2 sentences. 

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, bigbaldnmad said:

Too many see it as the only driver.... just from observation.

(Or should I say the only driver in West Yorkshire)

But that isnt true either is it, because its not a driver when looking at Leeds. 

[bigbaldnmad]

Or Bradford

[Scotchy1]

For the obvious reasons

[bigbaldnmad]

Not obvious to me, you either apply the same rules to everyone, or not at all.

 

[fighting irish]

38 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Nay Irish, sighting today what London did in the 90's has as much relevance to what Hunslet did when winning the 4 cups in the same season, I thought that you and Oxford - who liked your post - would have been aware of that, just shows that sometimes one should not assume and just spell it out Janet and John style.

Yes sighting what London did in the 90's is only as relevant as what anyone else did in the 90's, I agree.

Come on Harry I didn't mean to cause offence but you can't complain about that in one breath and then go back years in order to claim London are a failing club in the next breath.

It was only two years ago they were promoted to Super League after winning the Championship Grand Final. Their recent production line of quality players stands up to scrutiny too.

Scotchy's point was fair.

Now to round it off, with one of yours ''I'm only saying''. 

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

It was your argument that London's history meant they had no hope. Now you are arguing that history doesnt matter.

If you want to argue only the recent present matters, well. in 2018 London were promoted to SL, and performed ok in SL in 2019. What happened to Leigh in 2018?

I said if London was a pupil with a private tutor they would be classed no hope.

Only a couple of hours ago you stated that London was only privvy to performing in the jeopardy games on the back of 2 games v Saints, they would have been alone in the relegation spot for a long perio but for those games. 

As for Leigh in '18 to much trust in the forgotten man of Rugby League being Keiron Cunningham who as DofR assembled a team not for purpose on long contracts, had many of those player's been in industry and performed as they did and their work was measured they would have been sacked, there is always one thing I will have over you looking from the outside I was witness to watching them perform. 

I often thought at that time if the player's recieved performance related pay on win, loss, home or away draw they would have put far more effort in than just turning up and holding their hand out to be paid, professional pride was floating down the Bridgewater Canal for a lot of them.

[Hela Wigmen]

Are we going to pretend that too many clubs don’t have too much to lose by relinquishing their hold on the way Super League is governed and they’ll happily let someone come in and remove them from the league?

Licencing didn’t work due to this reason, amongst others, last time and if anything, Super League clubs are much less tolerant than they were ten years ago, so who are we kidding that they’ll be up for this again, without it being governed by them to preserve the status quo?

 

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

why do they have to be truly objective?

Surely they should have an agenda, that being to grow SL as much as possible. That is the reason you would put in place franchising. So you could have a set coherent plan. 

Because without objectivity we will always have accusations of club bias. Yes the decision makers should have an agenda to maximize the growth of the game, however that may require such a shake up that a number of the incumbent clubs would find their positions jeopardized, do you really think this sport is capable of taking such a step?

[Oldbear]

47 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Let’s go to licensing if we want a six team league and even then, I’m being generous at as many as six clubs. 

Let’s not go to fourteen and weaken an already pretty weak product in Super League. Two more clubs stretches the player pool further and adds fifty players, who, predominantly, are going to be the worst fifty in the competition which will result in a series of mini-leagues within Super League, more blow out scorelines and will likely see an extension of the play-offs in a poor attempt at creating jeopardy for more sides, weakening our strongest product, the play-offs, while holding back our best clubs and pandering to the needs of a handful, dragging us down to their pretty average (at best, I’m generous) level. 

 

Your first sentence is spot on, a 6 team league is all we could end up with.

With regard to the 14 team league, what is most likely to happen is that the 2 extra clubs will overpay for players who are currently middle rank players at the existing 12, great if you are one of those players and also good if you are a young player who ends up getting promoted on the roster to replace the departed, but overall will cause financial problems for the weaker SL clubs who will see their wage bills climb without an increase in quality on the field. We just are not strong enough for a 14 team SL and without a major injection of finance we are not likely to be for the foreseeable future.

[Scotchy1]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I said if London was a pupil with a private tutor they would be classed no hope.

Only a couple of hours ago you stated that London was only privvy to performing in the jeopardy games on the back of 2 games v Saints, they would have been alone in the relegation spot for a long perio but for those games. 

As for Leigh in '18 to much trust in the forgotten man of Rugby League being Keiron Cunningham who as DofR assembled a team not for purpose on long contracts, had many of those player's been in industry and performed as they did and their work was measured they would have been sacked, there is always one thing I will have over you looking from the outside I was witness to watching them perform. 

I often thought at that time if the player's recieved performance related pay on win, loss, home or away draw they would have put far more effort in than just turning up and holding their hand out to be paid, professional pride was floating down the Bridgewater Canal for a lot of them.

Leigh are more than welcome to only sign players to performance related pay. Then the players can make their choice between signing for Leigh paying performance related payments or signing for a different club. 

What is absolutely morally repugnant would be to sign players promising them multi-year contracts so they sign with you ahead of other sides, then not fulfil your end of the bargain. 

How London did in SL in 2019 is substantially better than leigh did. 

[Scotchy1]

1 hour ago, Oldbear said:

Because without objectivity we will always have accusations of club bias. Yes the decision makers should have an agenda to maximize the growth of the game, however that may require such a shake up that a number of the incumbent clubs would find their positions jeopardized, do you really think this sport is capable of taking such a step?

Who would those making that decision have a bias to and for what purpose? 

This conspiracy theory outlook would require SL to put in place a process to remove and admit clubs as per the best interests of SL and then choose not to. For what purpose would SL do that? 

Lets talk in absolutes for a moment. Lets say it was a sure thing that replacing Wakefield with Leigh would improve SL's long term growth. For what purpose would SL institute a process which protects Wakefield and is biased against Leigh? it is to every other clubs detriment to do that?
 

[Scotchy1]

1 hour ago, Oldbear said:

Your first sentence is spot on, a 6 team league is all we could end up with.

Walk me through that process. We institute franchising. How do we end up with a 6 team league

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

Walk me through that process. We institute franchising. How do we end up with a 6 team league

A number of posters have stated that there are (maybe) 6 which would meet any objective criteria.  Did you miss that somewhere?

[Scotchy1]

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

A number of posters have stated that there are (maybe) 6 which would meet any objective criteria.  Did you miss that somewhere?

Well that just plainly isnt true is it. 

Are we supposing here that the process we would institute would be to set a list of tick box criteria that a club has to meet to be awarded a franchise and then just stop when we run out of clubs hitting that arbitrary level we have set? Because we could just not do that. 

[Big Picture]

45 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Well that just plainly isnt true is it. 

Are we supposing here that the process we would institute would be to set a list of tick box criteria that a club has to meet to be awarded a franchise and then just stop when we run out of clubs hitting that arbitrary level we have set? Because we could just not do that. 

Yes it most certainlly is true, and in my view the number 6 is downright generous.  Wigan's terrible financial results in pre-COVID 2018 and 2019 might well put them short of worthiness by any objective measure.

[Hela Wigmen]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-clubs-wait-nervously-super-23162331.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Betts championing a return to licensing. 

[Snowys Backside]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Toulouse, Leigh, Fev and Widnes?

Nah,

Got to include Bradford Harry.  They are a big City, Debt free and have a huge modern stadium which needs no kind of modernisation whatsoever. The SL and RFL would embrace them deeply (i dont know why though ?)

 

In all seriousness though, there are various team in SL who have just 'slushed' around for years, took the Sky money and lingered on year after year. This has been allowed though and is the reason Franchising will not be coming round anytime soon.

Belle Vue and Wheldon Rd have not had a penny spent on them since I played there in the Early 90's (other than the obese block of flats), yet not one finger pointed at raising the bar on off field spending and improving the facilities. Its like playing Rugby on a carpet in Basra !!

Interesting times ahead, but these applications from the Championship will raise a few eyebrows for sure and could well form a criteria to prove sustainability for SL for next season onwards !

[clogdance]

So the last time we had licensing for 6 years, in which ways did 'the game grow' ? Yeah, it was so succesful, promotion & relegation (kind of) was brought back via the middle 8's. Personally I would have kept them, so if you are a SL club, finishing bottom doesn't mean you will definitely be relegated. Scrapping the 'middle 8's' was a big mistake....but the governing bodies think they know best. 

[Scotchy1]

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Yes it most certainlly is true, and in my view the number 6 is downright generous.  Wigan's terrible financial results in pre-COVID 2018 and 2019 might well put them short of worthiness by any objective measure.

It certainly isnt true, its entirely unnecessary. 

The idea that the game would have to decide an arbitrary level that SL clubs had to be at and then end up with 6 clubs in SL because that is all that met that level just isnt true. We dont have to do any of that. 

[GUBRATS]

21 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-clubs-wait-nervously-super-23162331.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Betts championing a return to licensing. 

Sporting director of Expansion club wants franchising ? , Shock horror

[Snowys Backside]

18 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-clubs-wait-nervously-super-23162331.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Betts championing a return to licensing. 

Betts doing a Tony Smith.

He wants licencing now that Newcastle, sorry, Gateshead, sorry, Hull Sharks are considered expansion clubs, and sees it as an outlet for the gold star !!

Tony Smith was like the Okey Cokey. Wanted P&R when in the Championship and wanted no relegation when in SL.

Bring back licencing. If done properly, It will be a totally brand new SL  with fresh blood. Far better than P&R and you expansionists will absolutely love it !!