I think his point is that by being relaegated, everyone knows the rules, it's agreed beforehand, practically a binding contract. No one can dispute you finished last.

People opinion on criteria on the other hand...

That's my beef with it to be honest. I like it black and white - no messing and no meetings behind closed doors. On the other hand, if it saves irresponsible clubs from themselves then perhaps ultimately it's a good thing.

agreed 101%

Before you can apply for a SL licence you have to sign that you will not take any legal action against the RFL with regards to the outcome



If you dont sign , you cannot apply



SL is a 3 year business

Which clubs should be added? The ones with the best bid.



Franchises? I think it would make sence to change the system a bit. If you get an "A" franchise you get 6 years, "B" you get 4 and "C" you get 3. This would mean that there would be more possible target dates for access to SL and there would only be audits of a few clubs every year.

That has to count as one of the most sensible posts i have ever read on this forum

Which means it will never be considered by the RFL , In their quest for ' openess and fairness ' they made several clubs waste tens of thousands of pounds submitting pointless applications



Good old RFL I say

You cannot have a system which does not coincide with the TV contract. That is because the size of the TV contract is affected by the roster of clubs.



You can't change the size of the TV contract within the 3 year period. So that means that if you add a team within the three year period, the TV contract pie will be shared between more clubs, making each club's share smaller. No club will agree to that. That is why the addition of clubs can only take place in three year periods.



On the other hand you could more easily drop a club within a three year period. If it went bankrupt, for example. Or if it turned out that the club had misled the RFL about its stadium being finished by a certain date. In that case the size of the pie would stay the same but it would be a bigger share for each club, so the clubs would not object. But the TV companies could object, and cut their pay proportionately..



That has to count as one of the most senseless posts I have ever read on this forum (except for all the posts of =greenfredie, =redRoofs and =bluevastman.)

Not if the clubs concerned were being replaced. Clubs deemed worthy could take the place of clubs failing SL clubs in the interim years, thereby not affecting the roster. Every third year the number of clubs could be reviewed, coinciding with the TV deal.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

There is no guarantee that you will have a replacement club ready when you want to demote a club. Presumably the replacement club has to satisfy enough SL criteria to be a C or preferably a B qualifier. It just so happens that now we have a club (Toulouse) which does satisfy enough criteria and is ready to step up. But that may not always be the case if you are rigidly classifying clubs on 6 4 and 3 year licenses, with the 4 year clubs being reviewed in the midst of an ongoing TV contract.

The TV issue is a fair point, but I doubt that it is the problem you make it out to be. TV deals will be for a given number of matches in a given compettition, saying that they would quibble with replacing a club would be similar to Sky Sports complaining that a team was relegated from the Premiereship. Obviously there is an appeal of a franchise system to the TV deal, possibly they would ask that a couple big-interest clubs not be relegated during a given TV deal period - but even without a rolling franchise review clubs could still go under due to extreme circumstances, what would Sky sports say to that.



As to your last comment, it starts as good rhetoric but then lapses into exaggeration. I may have a kettle here that would like a word with you.



Your post also shows that you have completely missed the point that other posters agreed so vehemently with, which is that "the best club" should get a franchise, no matter other wishes (i.e. no more yorkshire clubs). I will admitt that this position is somewhat sophistic since in reality this is a topic to argue which is "the best club".

By 2030, if it's still going then I'd like to see:



Leeds

Hull

Barrow

Toulouse

Barcelona

Moscow

Fulham (Harlequins)

Chelsea

Arsenal (North London)

Wakefield (Merged with Cas + Featherstone)

Catalans

Bradford

Manchester (Former Salford)

Liverpool (Former St Helens)

Edinburgh

Cardiff (Celtic)

Dublin

Glasgow

Belfast

Birmingham



Imagine:

Leeds v Arsenal

Chelsea v Liverpool

Belfast v Moscow

Birmingham v Manchester

Barcelona v Edinburgh



etc...

Far fetched to say the least!



You shouldn't give Albert your password!

is that a football avistar you have there? ...erm looks more like a football fixture list to me....imagine the costs to goto all the away games...lol...yeah, loved to

This is why this proccess is open to abuse with biased opinions

As you say Everything possible will be done to keep Quinns, Celtic. What do you mean everyting possible will be done? ...and why?



That leaves Cas, Wakie, Salford. But YOU think, Cas should go down. You like me, have an opinion. Opinions always vary...would someones opinion be fair to take away a team from SL?



Just curious but why would you say CAS? (yes, I am defending my team)



Everything you said highlights that the RFL could basicaly do what every THEY like.



If the system is going to work...its got to be 1 rule for 1, 1 rule for all....NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE GEOGRAPHICALY

The license system we now have was created to make rugby league a more popular and valuable product.



Where a Super League club is geographically is very relevant to Super League's popularity on television, and hence value to the television networks. This all translates into the value of the TV contract that the RFL can negotiate.



But so far the RFL has not bent the rules in favor of expansion. They have bent them in favour of giving old clubs like Wakey, Cas, Hull KR and Salford a second chance to justify their presence in Super League. If these clubs fail to abide by the rules (e.g. by having a modern SL standard stadium built or at least under construction), then in 2011 they deserve to be demoted to the increasingly attractive Championship.

2012 - 12 clubs (not enough British/French quality for 14)



Saints

Wigan

Wire

Widnes



Bradford

Leeds

Hull

Huddersfield



Quins

Celtic



Catalans

Toulouse



A strong 14 team Championship of.....



Salford, Wakey, Cas, Fev, HKR, Halifax, Leigh, Oldham, Barrow, Whitehaven, Doncaster, Sheffield, Gateshead, and either Batley or Dewsbury.



2015 - 14 team SL



The original 12 plus Gatehead and Barrow (and be open about it too dont hide behind it by nudging criteria and turning blind eyes). You have a game them that is as national as it could ever really be over the next 20 years.



Then swap 2 from the original SL with 2 from the Championship based on on-pitch merit alone. Not geography, not baby changing facities, not stadia.....good old fasioned on pitch performances.



If its Celtic, Quins, or Toulouse then tough, by 2015 it would speak volumes anyway.

personally i'd have 16 teams

top 6 in playoffs



teams involved

1.Leeds

2.St Helens

3.Warrington

4.Hull FC

5.Hull KR

6.Castleford

7.Quins

8.Catalans

9.Wigan

10.Wakefield (only if they build new stadium)

11.Widnes

12.Celtic

13.Huddersfield

14.Toulouse

15.Barrow

16. A new Scottish or Irish side

Yes. I do agree with the highlighted. Just that it must be 1 rule as for all

Ground pending, whats your difference in quality of the highlighted teams? ...just curious

to be fair Wire are having an off season we have been a hell of a lot better than CAS over the the past few years

Personally I'd rather it be on what you do on the pitch but thats another story.



So, getting in touch with the times and using Richard Lewis rules.......you have a ground (and probably still will come 2012) and are too close to others.



Same goes for Salford, HKR, and Wakey.



Sorry

Featherstone and Barrow

Well if were stuck with a ground then yeah, we deserve to be gone, but if its built, we have just as much rights as any other team. maybe others are too close to us and not the other way round eh



As for what we do on the pitch, that can only be assest over next 3 years, and were not off to a bad start