SUPER LEAGUE FRANCHISE

[cpwigan]

The promoted team gets 3 years grace.

Relegation is decided each year by average placing over the last 3 years.

Thereby giving all teams 3 years but retaining promotion relegation.

14 clubs in top division
18 teams in the division below

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
The promoted team gets 3 years grace.

Relegation is decided each year by average placing over the last 3 years.

Thereby giving all teams 3 years but retaining promotion relegation.

I don't understand what you mean by the above.

The way it works is as far as I understand it is at the end of this season all clubs which apply for a franchise are judged against the criteria. The 14 teams who are awarded a franchise base don how they score v the criteria are given a three year license. During that three years there is no p&r.

At the end of three years the process is repeated and another 14 three year licenses will be given out.

The performance aspect of the franchise criteria is that a team must average a top 8 finish over three years to get the one point available toward their total franchise score. They could all do that and if they do, they would all get that point toward their franchise total.

Even if a club finishes outside the top 8 three years running, relegation is not automatic because it is just one point they have lost out of the total available to them.

If all the existing SL clubs score higher than any clubs who apply for a franchise in 2012 there will be no change to SL regardless of how often clubs finished outside the top 8.

Dave

[butt monkey]

DaveO posted:
I also have no idea what you are on about when you say "and the possibility that the 14(?) original franchise "winners" may not survive long into their tenure ship"

Dave

I was not sure if the number was for 14 franchise places for definate, or if there was any possibility of that figure changing.

But, one things for sure, it doesn't guarantee solvency just because the "chosen few" got a franchise - we will have to see what happens to Bradford and Leeds in the future to see to that!

[DaveO]

butt monkey posted:

DaveO posted:
I also have no idea what you are on about when you say "and the possibility that the 14(?) original franchise "winners" may not survive long into their tenure ship"

Dave

I was not sure if the number was for 14 franchise places for definate, or if there was any possibility of that figure changing.

The RFL have said they want to add 2 more teams to make 14 but won't do it just for the sake if it if not enough are deemed good enough.

But, one things for sure, it doesn't guarantee solvency just because the "chosen few" got a franchise - we will have to see what happens to Bradford and Leeds in the future to see to that!

That is true whether we have a franchise system or not. With the 50% of turnover rule going from the salary cap regulations it isn't beyond the realms of possibility a club like Cas or Wakey could overspend.

Dave

[Mike]

DaveO posted:

cpwigan posted:
The promoted team gets 3 years grace.

Relegation is decided each year by average placing over the last 3 years.

Thereby giving all teams 3 years but retaining promotion relegation.

I don't understand what you mean by the above.

I imagine it was a suggestion of another system with promotion and relegation embedded in it that is an alternative to a full franchise system.

However, within this context, teams may get a bit anoyed when they finish last (lets say out of 12) for two seasons when they are exempt then finish 7th (5 places above the bottom) in their third year and get relegated (because three newly promoted teams exempt from relegation finished below them as well as two other teams that did quite well previously). In fact a team could even qualify for the play-offs and get relegated in the same season under these proposals. :conf:

[cpwigan]

They could Mike but highly unlikely. If you used previous SL seasons this would never have happened.

[Fujiman]

Mike posted:

DaveO posted:

cpwigan posted:
The promoted team gets 3 years grace.

Relegation is decided each year by average placing over the last 3 years.

Thereby giving all teams 3 years but retaining promotion relegation.

I don't understand what you mean by the above.

I imagine it was a suggestion of another system with promotion and relegation embedded in it that is an alternative to a full franchise system.

However, within this context, teams may get a bit anoyed when they finish last (lets say out of 12) for two seasons when they are exempt then finish 7th (5 places above the bottom) in their third year and get relegated (because three newly promoted teams exempt from relegation finished below them as well as two other teams that did quite well previously). In fact a team could even qualify for the play-offs and get relegated in the same season under these proposals. :conf:

very true but unlikely because of the way the points system works but if it does so what? we should be aiming for the highest denominator not pandering to the lowest

[cpwigan]

You could even add extra weighting to the year 3 placing. Albeit history indicates the hypothesis suggested by Mike is highly unlikely to occur.

However, it does retain promotion and relegation and provides stability.

[ancientnloyal]

In 3 years time, we will have Leigh, Salford, Halifax and possibly Whitehaven with new stadiums/ major ground improvements who i believe wont make the franchises for 2009.

These top 4 may be able to qualify then and an introduction of a 'bottom 4 SL, top 4 NL' playoff knockout system to run alongside the grand final?

[Mike]

cpwigan posted:
They could Mike but highly unlikely. If you used previous SL seasons this would never have happened.

What about catalans? They finished last and second last. Lets say they now finish 9th with Cas below them (exempt) and lets say Huddersfield and Wakefield who both had one reasonable season in the last three years. Les Cats would be pretty good candidates for the drop with this record in this not that unlikely sceanrio despite a pretty consistent improvement year-on-year.

What you are forgetting when you say that real results from recent years wouldn't have resulted in this situation is that under the standard system, the newly promoted teams who finish bottom go down straight away. They don't linger for another season towards the bottom of the table and so they don't accumulate a bad 3 year average position, they just get cut straight away. A 3 year grace period would allow them to build over that period improving their results and league positions gradually - only to be relegated just as they were becoming established.

A straight franchise system avoid this - only clubs who show no signs of deserving their place get cut, probably after a suitable warning period. Even better, any other club that shows its ambition and meets the criteria can come into the league without forcing another team out.