I accept the argument that we obviously could have done better in SL than we did and that would have obviously then been a different story. What about all the clubs throughout the 14 years (or whatever it is) who've finished in the same position, 2nd from bottom, that caused us to be relegated yet have survived. wWat about clubs who've finished bottom yet not been punished? What about clubs who acheived nothing on the field to be given a SL Place? Criticise ourselves for previous lack of acheivement on the pitch yes but don't fool ourselves that plenty of other clubs have been included despite as bad or worse acheivements.
I agree with you though about 2 leagues and P & R. All this comes down to the fact again that everything is levelled up by allowing promotion and relegation. i.e. let's stop going on about proximity of clubs, stadium, support, favour over 'expansion' clubs - we need to keep asking for the return of P & R.
The 2 properly funded leagues idea is a great one. Forgetting the debate about whether protection of specific clubs is fair or not, the RFLs argument is that by protecting those clubs in SL from relegation they allow the clubs to strengthen and thus the national game to strengthen. SKY already get great benefit from the co-op, if you think co-op games don't come close to SL in terms of entertainment I'd strongly disagree with you but that's not the point, co-op games are still much more entertaining than a lot of other sports you get on SKY, there's something seriously wrong if the RFL don't feel the same way and aren't at least pushing for a better deal from SKY for the co-op. If there was that better deal then teams being relegated from SL wouldn't be such a big deal they'd still get decent funding. I'd also strongly disagree with anyone who didn't feel the entertainment factor itself of relegation battles and promotion battles in the lower league is a completely different level of entertainment than say who gets the wooden spoon or who manages to squeeze into the play offs and gets to play one extra game.
I don't neccessarily mean while we were in Super League, I was more thinking that we failed to get promoted twice (2006 and 2007), when had we done so, it would probably have secured our Super League status. If Hull KR had not survived in 2007, then they would not have got a franchise, simple as. But as it were, they made it impossible for the RFL to kick them out. Likewise, Castleford got in in the perfect year, and although they didn't have the best of time on the field, there was not three clubs better than them in the licence process.
The licensing system is required if rugby league is to expand to two full time leagues in the mid to long term. Come 2012, there will be a fair few clubs aspiring to SL standard (there was already 19 from last years application, well add Toulouse, Gateshead, Doncaster and more to that list). I think that when we get to 2015/2018, there will be serious scope for two leagues. I hope so anyway. At that stage, promotion and relegation will be re-introduced, and the continuation of the licensing process will drop from SL to SL2 (so clubs like say Swinton, if they won the third tier, would have to apply and meet criteria or whatever to be able to replace the bottom team in SL2). There would need to be further support for the RL Conference National clubs to move up to the National Leagues, so you would then have a four-tier professional structure of the two full time leagues (SL1 and SL2) and two part time leagues (NL1 and NL2), with a genuine pyramid structure (like in football and rugby union) finally being adopted by rugby league.
Trust in Widnes
Author