At least one Super League club to lose licence in 2011

[cpwigan]

Very true. Essentially every franchise should be up for grabs with no promises either way. I think in this instance the RFL will be OK but what about the round after? Having made a promise in this forthcoming round, how will prospective franchise bidders react if they turn around and say we aren't promising anything this time.

Surely the franchise should be here is the list of franchise requirement, put your bids in and we will take the best 14 whomever, wherever they come from. Personally, I have felt the system supposedly up front and honest has been anything but.

[mave the rave]

Same as DaveO read somewhere he has deferred people"s payments and signed a document which does not entitle him to be involved with the club and a decision on this will be out this week.Def did not sound good for wakefields future if he loses his position .

[mave the rave]

Found the clipping now its on bbc sports (george Riley"s column )Mr Richardson has a IVA an individual Voluntary Arrangement this means he can not hold his position of chairman on Wakefields board .He has however appealed against this decision.

[nellywelly]

I agree with Dave O. Why should it be automatic that a Championship club receives a franchise and an existing franchise holder in SL loses their franchise? If Widnes have a better franchise than say Wakefield fine they have earned the right to a franchise but if say for sake of argument Wakefield and every existing franchise puts a superior franchise on the table than Widnes or any other Championship club then surely the system becomes a farce. I thought the whole idea of frasnchising was to move away from automatic promotion and relegation.

This is the point I was making. As it happens Wakefield and several other sides all scored grade C last time so are vulnerable to a superior bid from an NL1 side but when it comes to the crunch if the bids from Wakefield and the other grade C SL sides are all better than the NL1 applicants, then the SL sides should keep there places.

It should work the other way as well. If for example three NL1 sides out did Wakey, Cas and Salford then all three SL sides should lose their place.

I don't agree with Geoff that NL1 sides can't outscore their SL counterparts. For example a well supported NL1 side could easily turnover more than a poorly supported SL side, Widnes have a better ground than several sides and from hat I hear a very good youth set up.

I don't think Widnes need a promise to get promoted but if they did because they didn't outscore the grade C SL sides I think the whole system breaks down as a fair process.

Dave

Any NL1 side can expect an increase in their support once they are in the SL and to close your eyes to that fact is just plain daft. It would mean the SL teams do have an advantage and do we want a situation where no one ever is religated

[DaveO]

Any NL1 side can expect an increase in their support once they are in the SL and to close your eyes to that fact is just plain daft. It would mean the SL teams do have an advantage and do we want a situation where no one ever is religated

The point I was making is it is possible for a top NL side to outscore an existing SL side on the criteria (including support) so they don't need a promise of a side being promoted come what may, Widnes being the example.

If Widnes got wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow the RFL would be in a position of having promised a side would be promoted and none of the the others actually meet their own criteria for promotion so what is the point in the promise in the first place?

As to SL sides being at an advantage, some SL sides have clearly failed to take that advantage over the last three years hence they are at risk of being demoted. So currently the franchise system would not lead to a closed shop - provided there was an NL1 side up to being promoted. Luckily for the RFL there is so they can keep their promise.

Eventually you would expect all the SL sides to be running a top operation so yes it would be very hard for a side to get promoted but that is whole point. There is simply nothing to be gained by promoting a side not up to competing and demoting another side who have a large commercial operation that simply could not be supported in the semi-pro National League.

Like it or not the move to professionalism has made this gulf between the top clubs and NL1 what it is as there is only so much money in the game. Simple P & R simply doesn't work between a pro league with clubs turning over 4m pounds+ and semi-pro one where clubs turnover a few hundred K a year.

Dave

[GeoffN]

The point I was making is it is possible for a top NL side to outscore an existing SL side on the criteria (including support) so they don't need a promise of a side being promoted come what may, Widnes being the example.

If Widnes got wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow the RFL would be in a position of having promised a side would be promoted and none of the the others actually meet their own criteria for promotion so what is the point in the promise in the first place?

As to SL sides being at an advantage, some SL sides have clearly failed to take that advantage over the last three years hence they are at risk of being demoted. So currently the franchise system would not lead to a closed shop - provided there was an NL1 side up to being promoted. Luckily for the RFL there is so they can keep their promise.

Eventually you would expect all the SL sides to be running a top operation so yes it would be very hard for a side to get promoted but that is whole point. There is simply nothing to be gained by promoting a side not up to competing and demoting another side who have a large commercial operation that simply could not be supported in the semi-pro National League.

Like it or not the move to professionalism has made this gulf between the top clubs and NL1 what it is as there is only so much money in the game. Simple P & R simply doesn't work between a pro league with clubs turning over 4m pounds+ and semi-pro one where clubs turnover a few hundred K a year.

Dave

You're contradicting yourself there Dave - one of the criteria is turnover. SKY cash alone means a NL club can't compete with a SL one, no matter how well run. The same applies to attendance figures - the highest NL figure (Widnes) is still lower than the worst SL one (Quins).

[cpwigan]

I think it is important and I cannot believe Championship clubs have not kicked up a fuss to compare things fairly. I think an everage attendance of 2,500+ in the Championship equates to 10,000 in SL. Likewise turnover is largely determined by an unequal share of SKY TV money. You are actually better off not having an existing club in order to secure a franchise whereas that was not the message last time. Hence, rumours abound that Toulouse will withdraw from the Championship.

[exile in Tiger country]

.

At present, the clubs who qualify are Widnes, Barrow & Halifax, and Leigh could if they get to the GF.

The all new purpose built to get into Superleague Leigh Sports village stadium with it's fanch HD floodlights etc isn't big enough.
Minimum capacity is 12,000, they built a stadium with a capacity of 10,000. Muppets

[GeoffN]

I think it is important and I cannot believe Championship clubs have not kicked up a fuss to compare things fairly. I think an everage attendance of 2,500+ in the Championship equates to 10,000 in SL. Likewise turnover is largely determined by an unequal share of SKY TV money. You are actually better off not having an existing club in order to secure a franchise whereas that was not the message last time. Hence, rumours abound that Toulouse will withdraw from the Championship.

That's why they've done it the way they have, with a minimum 2.5k for a NL club to qualify (compared to a 10k average for a SL club to score a point). Similarly with turnover - £1m for NL, against £4m for SL. That's why Carney's idea of direct comparison doesn't work.

Same applies to the "playing strength" criterion. Again it would be unfair to compare NL & SL directly, but the criterion for NL of reaching a final covers that one.

The full Championship criteria are:

1 Club has reached a Championship final or won the Northern Rail Cup in 2009 or 2010.

2 Club has a stadium with an operational capacity of 10,000.

3 No insolvency event has occurred during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.

4 Club has turnover of at least £1,000,000 in financial year ending 2009 or 2010 (turnover of charitable foundation can be included in this figure).

5 Club has an average attendance of at least 2,500 in 2009 or 2010.

At present, only Widnes meet those criteria, I believe, plus possibly this year's two Grand Finalists might join them.

[cpwigan]

You missed my point Geoff

Points 1 to 5 are what Championship club require JUST for the right to apply for a franchise. Now IMO the average attendance figure is unfair. We / rather the RFL are asking Championship club to achieve an average attendance figure that is simply unfair. The equivalent for SL IMO would be 10,000. If I was being conservative 7,500. So in the sense of existing clubs it is unfair.

You also have new frachise bidders. Originally new bidders / slubs were encouraged to join the Championship. Now the indications are that they are being told don't do that because if you are in an expansion area you do not need to meet any criteria. Again that is unfair.

I think you agree a process and bar minor alterations you stick with it. Personally, I think promotion / relegation is a better idea than what is being suggested now.