Possibly... even probably... at least it would have been deservedly so as opposed to a licensing system which attempts to manufacture who goes down and who stays up according to whatever the prevailing agenda might be.

All last night's game does is emphasise the gulf between top and bottom of the SL. The performance Leeds put in wouldn't have troubled any of the serious contenders this season. Don't be fooled by the points scored, Wakey were worse than a pub team.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=16414980#p16414980[uIndeed![/u[/url

The missus and I were having this exact conversation last night. Wakefield had absolutely nothing to play for and hardly turned up. Further evidence that the 1 up – 1 down system gives us a more fiery season’s end.



I’ve not really been a fan of the franchise system (although I do appreciate what it is trying to achieve) and when the geriatrics at Red Hall handed Wakefield a three year lifeline my feelings towards franchising have hardly improved.

Thanks for highlighting that





I now have coffee over my keyboard

The biggest surprises of the night were that Smith appears to have shrunk over night from a teletubby to a Rob Burrow clone, & the size & strength of Hardaker. The latter had a poor game but he is going to be huge, reminded me of Senior in his Eagles days.

I did approve of the licensing system initially... it appeared to be based on several reasonable propositions... stadium facilities, business performance, commercial/marketing, junior production and development, etc... but it's been taken over by an agenda to serve the interests of expansion, even when it's clearly obvious that particular expansion club ventures aren't working, aren't ever going to work and are doomed to failure.



I didn't approve of a club like Wakefield being sacrificed for a failing expansion club just down the road from Widnes in North Wales, but that was the agenda. The supreme irony is that Wakefield have now been saved by the same system intent on removing them. Now they've got a 3 year pass in the top division enabling them to toss it off if they so wish, like several other clubs with a SL license. I agree with you... a return to 1 up and 1 down.

A licensing system would work if the criteria were publically available, consistent, and the scoring for each club was open to scrutiny by others. While ever the RFL say that they will not discuss the results of any club with any other, there remains a black cloud over the whole procedure.



The principle is sound, in that it gives clubs a chance to build for the future rather than concentrate solely on one season survival, which is in the longer term interests of the game.



If you go back to 1 up 1 down, don't you just get the same set of players from the relegated club, playing for the promoted one the following season.



The problem is not with a licensing system, it's with the people that operate it...

Haven't Widnes already signed 3 Crusaders players who have effectively been relegated?



What's the difference?



Licensing operates in order to facilitate expansion clubs first and foremost. RL Expansion hasn't succeeded in over 100 years at the top level and I see nothing in the SL vision which will alter that.

I like this guy....somebody with even more "imagination" than I have





'Village Idiots' should unite and take over the world (it's either us or the beetles).



Where do the annointed intellectuals think '0.83' should end up then ? I think FB (others might suggest HKR).



In the meantime (after my successful campaign to enlighten the unbelievers that Delaney was much the better second rower and should at least be swapped in his role with Ablett - who [iis[/i the better centre of the two).....my latest campaign is to get Hauraki to left centre, which might just allow Ablett to claim his best position at LF. Job done.)

Which is precisely my point. Lets say, for arguments sake, that next season we had P&R. Do you expect Widnes to stay up given the squad they are assembling? I wouldn't, they have signed some real dross, but because they have 3 years to build a squad capable of being at least "bottom third" competitive, they have a fighting chance. With P&R they would know already that they were gone the following year. The knock on effect that has on the ability of a club to remain solvent is horrendous.



Giving a team only part of an off season to put together a squad to stay up isn't the answer to improving the playing standards, which is what I think we both ultimately are looking for.



I agree completely on your point about expansionism.

Three years for a team to build a squad consisting primarily of overseas has-beens and never-were's plus a selection of out-of-contract English players who constantly yo-yo between contracts at sundry whipping boy rabble clubs? How does giving a club 3 years to assemble a squad together so that it can compete among the whipping boy rabble in the "bottom third" equate to an improvement in SL playing standards? It doesn't.



There is no improvement in SL playing standards or competitiveness under licensing. It's a smokescreen. A manufactured and unfair behind-closed-doors system of selecting who gets a SL gig and who doesn't according to whatever 'expansion' agenda happens to apply. Given there's no difference whatsoever and no improvements, I'd rather have a system of P&R with 1 up and 1 down each season... it's fairer, it's more inclusive and the criteria applied is crystal clear to everyone.



The main issue WRT lack of competitveness and playing standards in SL is the Salary Cap which is set at a level which only the select few clubs can operate successfully. Therefore the seeds of potential insolvency are already sowed for those clubs already stretched by a salary cap they cannot compete with. Unless they can find a committed sugar daddy or two who are prepared to take a significant and personal financial loss.



Licensing has not delivered on it's promises. It provides clubs with a safety net licence for remaining crap on the field and off it. Clubs are still uncompetitive, still becoming insolvent, still calling in the administrators and the expansion clubs are still going to the wall.

We've had it 3 years. I think it would be fairer to judge it after two more rounds of licensing. We chop and change things too quickly in RL without giving them time to take full effect.



So far, I must admit, I am disappointed with results shown in production of junior players and movement on stadium improvements but that is more the fault of certain clubs than the principal of licensing (we saw one of those clubs last night).



If licensing grows some teeth next time around other clubs might get the message.

I understand that there is currently a smokescreen about improved playing standards, and when added to the bluster that we get (again understandably) from the Sky team about this being the most competitive season ever, then that gives the "intelligent" supporter a message which is completely at odds with what they see on the pitch.



The current Licensing system is far from perfect, and is supporting an overall agenda rather than providing a fair and consistent process for access to the top level in this country. This combined with the number of clubs we currently have in the top division is exacerbating the problem of static (or falling) playing standards.



If we had 12 clubs in the top division, and a top 5 play off system, then the intensity would improve and therefore playing standard with it. Also we need to improve the coaching education as with one or two obvious exceptions, most of the coaches in SL are poor in comparison to their peers in the NRL.



The clubs who have previously made promises regarding grounds etc should be under no misaprehension that if their promises are not fulfilled prior to the next round of licenses they are out and others will be given a chance.

Whilst I accept franchising hasn't addressed many of the issues it was supposed to I am not sure how KS thinks P&R will be an improvement.



With P&R all you had were lower teams full of very average NRL players in an attempt to avoid relegation, stadiums were a disgrace and youth development abysmal how will P&R improve these issues?

With regards to playing/club standards, P&R won’t give us anything less or more than we have with the current licencing system - a club loses its franchise - players from that club sign for its replacement – standards stagnate.



What P&R will give us is teams giving their all to stay in the top flight instead of the poor performances that we will have to endure from the bottom feeder clubs that know they can write off their season 2 or 3 games early, safe in the knowledge that they’ll be back next year.



Example – last night at Headingley.

Without doubt the quality of entertainment value in SL has been in decline for several years. The franchise system has not halted this decline however it has given possibly a better chance for some of our youngsters.



I would like to see a return to P&R but linked with some changes to the salary cap rules and a reduction to no more than 12 teams in SL.



A few ideas off the top of my head:



If, say, a restriction was placed on the number of high earners that are allowed at each club together with a rule that allowed a quota of youngsters not to count in the salary cap we would increase the chances of a greater end of season competition and a greater opportunity for honours to be spread more evenly whilst still encouraging young talent.



Technology should be allowed for judging on forward passes. Ok camera angles do not always give the definitive answer (in which case the VidRef would pass the decision back to the ref) but in at least 50% of the cases they do so it is worth it. A return of the camera on a crane would assist in this.



With such a poor standard of refereeing serious consideration should be given to a 2nd ref so that responsibility is spilt for the key areas.



I know RL is guilty of making changes too often but something should be done to arrest the decline in entertainment value. Defenses have become too strong with the ruck something of a mess. A team getting a short but vital period of momentum can now kill a game off too early.

mcshane was following instructions

I enjoyed the cup final much more despite the result compared to last night's game, despite the result.

The fact that not all clubs have positively grasped the concept of the franchise system is not entirely the fault of the RFL.

P&R will not work as long as there is a fulltime SL & a largely part time championship.

clubs with new grounds include salford , saints , and poss cas



wakefields has to be the poorest in the league, is hull kr's up to standard?



which others need demolishing?

Apart from some improvements in stadia... the same recurring issues apply under licensing, do they not? Clubs are still (and shall remain) chocka full of very average NRL players and youth development remains a disgrace at most. It's also introduced a tangible perception of elitism, it reeks of outright unfairness in it's selection criteria which remains unavailable to open scrutiny and it's alienated a significant proportion of the RL community who shall remain excluded... in most cases, forever.



Surely the onus is on the licensing system to deliver rather than the other way around? If you are going to introduce a system for determining which clubs are in the elite comp and which one's are not on the basis of value judgements, criteria and agenda, then it simply must deliver on all those other issues and alleged benefits. It has failed to do so and little has changed. Right now, it's serving to protect the interests of the chosen few, safe in the knowledge their inclusion is guaranteed, and as a fast-track gateway for the next almost-guaranteed expansion club failure.

Indeed. How many SL clubs implode after Easter and pretty much write off the rest of their season? There's no incentive to keep trying at all. The threat of finishing bottom and getting relegated would change that.

would a promotion/relegation match work?



Bottom side faces top placed side or National League Grand Final winner?

I agree with all of the above but I cannot see how a return to P&R will be a step forward. I think we need fewer clubs, very strict limits on overseas players and the criteria by which they are allowed in the comp, some incentive to clubs to improve their youth development rather than rely on the likes of Saints and Wigan to do it for them.



By reducing the clubs by 4 next time it will be like P&R and the likes of Cas, Wakey who still will not an appropriate stadia will be dropped. Something needs to be done about Harlequins, things cannot continue in this vein forever. A better structure with a definite focus on the international side is required. NL clubs should be linked to elite clubs and used as an opportunity to gain experience at all levels i.e. playing, coaching, administration etc.

Firstly no doubt wakefield were abysmal although the terrible first 20 and last 20 really made the score a little more flattering than it should have been. There was a key call at 28-14 where Leeds knocked on in their own 10 and Thaler waved play on and Leeds went up field and scored. At that point in the game if wakefield had scored then it could have been a whole different score, although i am not saying wakefield would have won the game.

Wakefield since administration have had a patched up side mainly of kids where Leeds have internationals all over the park so lets be realistic, there should have only been one winner last night.

Finally although the result shows the gulf in class of the personel on both sides....your quote of difference in class between top v bottom ?? Your not top your mid table and your certainly correct that your performance would not have had any affect against many of the top sides. Your team of champions are on the slide (similar to the Bulls fall from grace) you have a coach that will only help with the slide and also if your signings for next season (for a top Club) are anything to go by with the likes of Richard Moore and Darryl Griffin then good luck.