Franchise Farce

[cpwigan]

I have always maintained that selection of franchises was anything but objective BUT it has now become hilarious. In today's Monday RL newspapers Blake Solly RFL compliance Manager confirmed the strategy of maintaining and expanding a SL presence in Wales, France and London; the licensing system has been modified with the previous 10 point checklist replaced according to Solly by a more subjective process which promises to strike a balance between past promises, current circumstances and future prospects. Publicised A - C grading of licence applicants has also been scrapped.

I like many fans believed the system was always biased to what the RFL wanted but for a key figure in the RFL to publically state the process will be subjective beggars belief. Unless a criteria driven process is objective then you may as well just scrap it and go the whole hog and choose the franchises minus any criteria because subjectivity (bias) renders the whole process a pointless game.

[gpartin]

Maybe they're admitting what everyone has known all along, that they know who they're going to promote/relegate and all they've done is give points out to fit what they've all ready decided.

[DaveO]

I have always maintained that selection of franchises was anything but objective BUT it has now become hilarious. In today's Monday RL newspapers Blake Solly RFL compliance Manager confirmed the strategy of maintaining and expanding a SL presence in Wales, France and London; the licensing system has been modified with the previous 10 point checklist replaced according to Solly by a more subjective process which promises to strike a balance between past promises, current circumstances and future prospects. Publicised A - C grading of licence applicants has also been scrapped.

This is ridiculous.

One of the main tenets of the whole idea is the degree of certainty franchising gives clubs. If a club scored A or B that gave them 6 years guaranteed SL status so that they could invest without fear of being booted out. If they got a grade C rating then three years to turn it round.

By the sound of it you could be a grade A club by the old criteria but now if your face doesn't fit - out you go.

I like many fans believed the system was always biased to what the RFL wanted but for a key figure in the RFL to publically state the process will be subjective beggars belief. Unless a criteria driven process is objective then you may as well just scrap it and go the whole hog and choose the franchises minus any criteria because subjectivity (bias) renders the whole process a pointless game.

Exactly. How on earth can anyone but the RFL dream up a subjective assessment as a means of deciding who gets a franchise!

Of course it means they can do stuff like promise to NL1 sides they will get promoted regardless because there is no longer an objective measure that says they aren't up to it.

It seems to me this is tacit admission that London and maybe the Crusaders might score less than Wakey or Cas so would, on an objective assessment basis, have to make way for Widnes.

Now we can keep these two and ditch a northern based side even if they measure better on the (old) criteria!

It's also a bit rich to change the rules at this stage as clubs will have been working to the old criteria to improve their chances of getting or keeping a franchise only to possibly find even succeeding in doing so is not enough.

They just can't leave things alone and if they would just have let the old system run properly we'd end up with a strong set of clubs in SL, the game could progress financially and things like the salary cap could be raised. At this rate some tiny French or Welsh side with the budget of less than Wigan St Pats could get a franchise and the cap would need to cater for the weakest link once more.

Dave

[cpwigan]

We also now have a criteria Championship clubs must meet to even apply for a franchise. Only Widnes meet those based on 1 criteria is an everage attendance of 2500 or more. Now IMO that is unfair because the equivalent average attendance for SL would be 10,000+ and that is not met by most SL clubs. It is also open to abuse whereby a club say Leigh gives free entry to 2 games and boost their average.

However, essentially we now have an arbitary subjective system whereby expansion clubs receive preference and the Yorkshire club are more under threat simply because there are more Yorkshire clubs than Lancashire ones in SL currently.

[cpwigan]

I actually do not think stadia is as important as clubs previously thought. Nor is On field achievement. RE Stadia Anybody from a non traditional RL area can have a sub standard stadia and it will not matter. Their geographical expansion role makes them more important than any other club. Stadia and other issues only matter in terms of heartland club and even then it will IMO be a case of this round NOT being the weakest Yorkshire franchise. The round of franchises after that could be brutal. The whole thing is an unedifying mess.

[GeoffN]

I actually do not think stadia is as important as clubs previously thought. Nor is On field achievement. RE Stadia Anybody from a non traditional RL area can have a sub standard stadia and it will not matter. Their geographical expansion role makes them more important than any other club. Stadia and other issues only matter in terms of heartland club and even then it will IMO be a case of this round NOT being the weakest Yorkshire franchise. The round of franchises after that could be brutal. The whole thing is an unedifying mess.

I haven't seen the newspaper reports, and can't see anything online about it, but I do agree it's silly to change what was a reasonably workable concept.