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 fredie, Roofs and vastman.)

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.