....Lock, Stock and Barrel.



Controversial? yes, I was listening to Martyn Sadler on the London Rugby League podcast last week and he made some valid points. Most franchises which start out in a new or unsuccessful catchment area become popular when the governing body puts the full weight of its resources, power and influence into making it a success. AFL and the Sydney Swans are a perfect example, the AFL done everything in their power to make them a success and they were.



Being owned by the RFL would make the club unpopular and some would question the RFL's ability to be impartial, however pro rugby league needs to be rebranded and it needs that X factor and at moment we haven't got that.

I completely agree. And they should be allowed 14 players on the pitch at once, should get 6 points for a try instead of 4 and should get 3 league points for a win.

Brilliant idea!

Yes , with a franchise system in place there is no reason it should not happen

If the RFL just admitted that London is exempt from franchising and will always be a permanent SL team, sponsors, players, top quality coaching staff etc would be more inclined to get behind them, as they would be part of a long term, top flight project. Same with Crusaders. This would then lead to the sides being able to compete at the top end on a regular basis. Will never happen though.

So no change there then

It would be funny to see Quins have so much favouritism that they would be able to put a team out with the quality to win the Grand Final! The big 4 would see their cosy monopoly under threat! That’s why it would never happen, it's ok to bend the rules a little to gain an edge over the likes of Wakey, Cas and Salford but threaten the big boys and all hell will be let loose!

The problem is that the RFL do not have the funds to replace the money that is currently poured in every year by David Hughes. If they took over ownership and Hughes' input was lost then you'd have an even worse situation than the current one. The RFL are not a cash rich organisation, certainly not to the extent where they could inject ~£1.5m per year just to stand still. At least the current situation is being sustained by someone else's money.

Only problem is, the RFL would be skint within two years.

instead

It would be a help to all concerned if SKY either comfirm or not that the expansion clubs are the essential part of the TV rights deal. If that is the case then some of the money should be spent on promoting the game & special deals to get punters in the seats. I somtimes wonder if they are that interested as they dont even promote Super league on thier own channels & media outlets (compare the endless drivel about soccer). I am sure the RFL want to help expansion but they are strapped for cash & the sport England money has to be spent accross the board not just at the top level. The real example of how to promote a sport is the NFL it was dying in the 1950s but TV took it on built up the game & the rest is history, our only problem is that they only had to contend with (at the time) basketball & ice hockey plus they had the basic game in schools & collages. I just dont think there is one easy solution I just hope that the self interest of clubs is ignored & the expansion experiment is stuck with for the long term good of the game.

The "endless drivel" about the most popular spectator sport on the planet and Sky Sports biggest single source of subscriptions? That's like complaining that Volkswagen spend all their money advertising the Polo and the Golf and not enough on the Passat.



As for the governing body owning even a stake in one club but not in others - no thanks. There are enough things about the sport already that make it look ridiculous to the outside world (the two bites at the cherry play-off system, the tiny international game, the inability to appoint neutral match officials) without adding more for the conspiracy theorists to play with.