Im sorry SB but in this case I have to disagree with you as an example P&R screwed Hull City over completly.

The previous chairman spent money they didn't have on players that were 'ok' for a premiership club in a vain effort to sustain them in the Prem.

It was a s..t or bust move.

They are now in the championship and they are deeply in the s..t again.

It has happened 3 times in 20 odd years (and for the last seven years, two clubs have gone up). All three affected clubs have since been promoted to the football league. Such criteria can prevent promotion at multiple points in the pyramid, not just between the conference and league 2.



I don't see the relevance to a discussion of franchising, though. When RL had promotion/relegation to the top flight, Dewsbury & Hunslet both won the NFP but did not get promoted due to lack of a suitable ground etc. There's a huge difference between:



- having promotion/relegation decided by league table position, but sometimes disallowing promotion to clubs who don't meet minimum criteria



and



-having no promotion or relegation but simply having the sport's administrators decide which clubs play in which division.

I was just using the promotion to the football league as an example.

Also I have made no metion of you other points just commenting on 1 of your points.

Roverswall, he/she has destroyed your theory accept it, P&R to SL always had caveats.

You will never stop over ambition as per Hull City, the difference being in RL SL contracts are not valid in the championship and we have a salary cap.

The withdrawal of P&R impacts mainly on Cas, Wakey, Hudds, Salford, Widnes, Leigh and Fax. It protects half and punishes the other. Give each of the clubs a similar run of success and SL handouts and all would be fairly equal over a period of time.

Ringfence expansion, ie Wales, London and France, and let the rest live dream.

WTF are you on about?

What theory?

I made a true statement.

The fact you don't like it now just gives me extra pleasure.

How did P and R ' screw over ' Hull City ? , it was their choice to spend the money they did or to offer the contracts they did , I often hear how Leighs one year holiday in SL caused us financial difficulties , we actually made a profit that year despite making some terrible decisions with regards merchandise and the like , maybe Hull should have tried to emulate Bolton and bounced up and down a couple of times until they got it right

Look at the Prem apart from the few exceptions its awash with high dept.

Also why did the prem/FA install the parachute payments if not to stop clubs going pop when they left it?

You quoted Bolton as an example of how to do it that was a diffrent period of Prem football IMHO the footballing world has been changed massively since Chelsea and just of late Man City have gotten hold of it.

You only have to look at the Derby situation they bought almost nobody in for their 1 year because the prem money went on existing depts and they ended up with the worst points haul in Prem history.

Unless you want to be embarased almost weekly you have to spend plenty of cash and even then it promises you bugger all.

So the answer is what ?

Salary capping, and a P&R system that looks at a club as a whole rather than simply the results of a team over a few months.

and dumb ass sport would do that, the fans would be marching on parliament

Not really it doesn't take Albert Einstien to work out that football is going to go bang in a big way if controls are not put in place at some point

I think the controls we had were enough, Clubs were never going to get into Leeds or Hull debts, relative or not, the banks simply wouldn't lend that kind of money to RL, picking up the peices would not be of Risdale proportions, financial constraints of clubs were and could still be tightened further, and the whole debate seems to run at a complete paradox to the expansion process i.e. money from a central pot is dished out to clubs failing under an umbrella of expansion, franchising isn't about security, consolidation or youth development, its about agenda and marketing, were all paying for it while the product is diluted and devalued. The system must be revamped, and will be, no doubt, its just a case of when people smell the coffee and wake up.