Going to put the stick into the hornets nest here, but are we seeing this year the beginning of the benefits of franchising?



We're a long way from challenging the Aussies, but this year could be the first year where anyone from the top five could win it (that being Huddersfield, Warrington, Wigan, Leeds and Saints), and the only reason perhaps some of the other hopefuls are out of the mix is because of just a bad season (Hull FC and Hull KR). You don't have to go back too far to see when it was only ever between two clubs.



I'm discounting Cas at this stage, because they've only had one tough game, Huddersfield, and that was at home. I don't expect to have to revise that forecast.



We all slate it, but are we seeing the beginning of a more even competition, particularly if Hull eventually get a decent a coach and Bradford pull the fans in again?

I think it's more to do with the salary cap and import/home-grown limitations than franchising per se. Franchising may allow a longer-term view to allow development of local talent, but a single 3 year period is probably not long enough to do this.



To me the only positive effect of franchising is the improvement of spectator facilities, which is essential to attract the next generation of fans, but has probably cost Trinity their place at the top table .



The negatives are the reduction in importance of on-field exploits and allowing the RFL take a lazy and ineffective route to their expansionist policies.

no it isn't. You mentioned 5 clubs wigan leeds and Saints are still up there and always have been over the last decade.

I agree they have now been joined by wire and shudds. The reason has nothing to do with franchising but all to do with the very deep pockets of messers Davey and Moran.

It will be shown to be working if/when Salford/Widnes/Quins/Crusaders/Wakey are up there challenging the 'big boys'.

We did in 2009

All the 'lesser' clubs are capable of troubling/beating the top sides on the day, look at Catalans in the last six days.

No we weren't we had a very good season and finished 5th we never looked like finishing top or winning the play offs. We had a much better chance in 2004. Maybe I should have added on a consistent basis.

It isn't franchising that has seen this season play out as it has so far this year. It is as said before purely and simply down to salary cap and teams having sugar daddies with deep pockets, to pay out decent wages on good players. If it was franchising surely the likes of Hull KR and Crusaders would be fairing so much better this season.

It is also crazily enough down to Rugby League being a sport and as with all sports franchised or not you still can't predict what will happen on the field. Hull KR have the money as well but losing Dobson has left a big gap in their team.

Nice of you to discount Cas,I hope all other SL teams do the same.

What really......you don't say.



Nobody is questioning the sporting aspect, the thread is about the improvement due to franchising.



As far as not being able to predict what it is going to happen on the field has always been the case and is not exclusive to now. It is true in a season there will be results that will be eye openers, but ultimately over the season of any team sport (franchised or not) the more 'powerful & financially stable' clubs will win out.

All very true. The point I was trying to make/question I was asking, admittedly very badly, was how will we know when franchising has improved things? Some clubs will always be more powerful and have better finances than others. As has already been said the salary cap, quota restrictions and sugar daddies have shaped this season more than franchising has. We've been waiting 20 years for expansion to take off could be an even longer haul for franchising.