Nate...as an outsider looking in what are your opinions on relegation vs ringfencing/franchisation?
For us promotion & the drop are part of our culture but North Americans just don't have it. Do you reckon it's a good thing to mix things up each year or does the franchise system bring stability? It seems to me that the only way to de-stagnate a league without relegation/promotion is to rip the team up by the roots and move it to a new city.
[/b]
In the end it's all about money. Let's look at the NFL (American Gridiron Football). Houston Texas had a team called the Houston Oilers...the owners weren't happy with the franchise and moved to Tennesee rebranding them the Tennesee ***ans (they actually kept the same team colors). 2-3 years ago the NFL wanted to add another franchise and guess which large southern Texas city got the bid? Houston...so now we have the Houston Texans. It's all about money with these guys. Franchises = Financial decisions vs. decisions based on tradition and what's actually best for the city, club and sport.
On the other hand I'm not a big fan of the current relegation situation within the GP. While the Premiership Clubs are "clubs" it seems they are run like a coporation (just like our franchises are opperated). So, I think the trend you have seen recently will continue...get relegated, spend a year "slumming it" in the lower league, and then make it back. If the relegation/elevation system is in place to give hope to the lower division teams, I'm afraid it is going to dramatically lose it's affect.
I think their should be a set number of teams that comprise the GP. If it's successful, in a few years they can consider adding other teams or forming conferences (east/west or north/south) within the GP. Teams should, however, still be allowed to play their old grudge matches (I think you call them darbys).