I said

To which you replied



Now despite the fear that this makes me agree with Wrencat.


The Club and team who won the qualifying comp were the same. There was no difference. The answer to the question which club won the qualifying comp is Fev, the answer to which team won the qualifying comp is Fev.

The club and team who won the entire comp were also the same, there is no difference. The answer to the question which club won the entire comp is Sheffield, and the answer to which team won the entire comp is also Sheffield.

As both myself or Wrencat were talking specifically about what had happened on the field, to differentiate between the club and team was not only pedantic but completely irrelevant.

Hey, never mind agreeing with me, do you think that Sheffield are worty of promotion now that they have won the GF ?

No, i think it is pretty clear it would do more harm than good to them right now.

Its great to see them being stable and successful though, and i would love to see them back in SL one day.

Perhaps a club should be automatically promoted to the league above only if it both finishes top of the league AND wins the play-offs Grand Final in the same season?

Using that criteria, Fev would already have been promoted, its not how things are done in the modern era, well, at least not as far as Super League is concerned.
It's almost a closed shop.

Promotion (and relegation) can happen without too much fuss between Championship and Championship 1 at the moment as the playing budgets required are not massively different and the teams in both divisions have semi-pro players. This means that a club can move up or down and retain most of its squad (if they so wish) with slight tweaks to the amount of money they can expect. As both divisions are semi-pro a team coming up also stands a better chance of being able to compete enough to avoid going straight back down if it retains essentially the same playing roster as the difference between the bottom of one division and the top of the next is not too stark.

For a club looking to move up from Championship to SL it needs to increase its playing budget by 3 or 4 times to even stand a chance of competing. Whilst proportionately that may not be much different than between the two semi-pro leagues (100K to 300K) in the case of a step up to SL instead of a couple of 100K you are looking at 1 and a quarter million pounds (London spent full cap and couldn't compete). The club heading down faces the opposite problem in having to downsize its costs by 3/4 to comply with the rules. Also moving from pro to semi pro means that players have to leave as they can't earn what they want from RL alone and don't have (perhaps never have had) any other job (and would be uncertain of getting one to supplement earnings at the moment). Whilst for a club moving up they will have players that would have to give up their day job to stay as the club needs them to train full time. Why would they give up the security of their job for the rugby when come season's end they could be heading back to the championship (and having to get a second job) again. So that club loses a chunk of its successful team as they can't take the risk. Would the chairman, facing a possible relegation want to risk staying loyal to his semi pro squad, or would he ship them out and bring in 'big names' to try to stay up. For whatever reasons in terms of individual players etc. the clubs moving up and down between SL and Championship would have to line up for the following season with a playing squad that bore little if any resemblance to the one that completed the prior season just as was the case when we still had P&R. For that reason the fact that they won on the field in one season should not result in promotion as the players that earned it would not see the reward for it. They would (currently, due to finances) be playing themselves out of a job. The club, but not the team would go up. Until the disparity in playing budgets is reduced to the extent that a club could move up and down without the need to demolish its squad due to finances unfortunately then P&R at the end of every season (by any method at all) is not feasible.

Given the massive gap in finances and what it necessitates some form of security is needed for teams moving up so that they can if they wish reward and retain players that helped them go up without risking going straight back down. With a 3 year cycle they get that, knowing that they don't have to risk it all in season 1 but can steadily build and improve over 3 years to get to the point where they can compete and make playoffs, cup finals etc. The licencing process is far from perfect but the 3 year cycle is the best way to manage movement between those two levels given the financial chasm.

Here is a possible alternative that keeps security but rewards on field success. If over the three years an aggregate Championship league table is formed with all league points for each club plus points added for playoff performance in each season (GF winner=10pts, GF loser=8, ESF loser=6, QSF loser=4, 1st round loser=2). Then when looking to promote a team start with the team that tops the aggregate table first, if they meet criteria then they go up, if not look at 2nd place and so on until someone meets criteria and they then go up. Only consider the top 6 in the aggregate table (just like for playoffs) and if none meet criteria then none go up. Team that is bottom of aggregate table for SL is replaced by promoted team, then start new 3 year cycle. An aggregate table could feature in SL papers, fans could easily see where their club was in the pecking order and consistent performance would be rewarded whilst the need to meet clear criteria would mean that whole clubs rather than just first teams would need to be built for success in reaching the SL to be achieved.

Decent post Wiganermike

If there is to be promotion from the CC into SL, it must be transparent and equallt if teams are to be relegated from SL, the same applies.
This is the problem with the current licence system. Although clubs are graded based on certain criteria, the grading has proven to be worthless.
Far simpler to set minimum criteria in the important aspects of the game (whatever they need to be) and then allow the comp to be run within those guidelines.

So, if there are a number of clubs that are eligible for promotion, based on non-playing criteria, ie ground, attendances, junior development etc, then give them a big grren
tick and then allow promotion at the appropriate time, but this should be based around success on the playing field.

If we are to have relegation to make way for a promoted club, again, this should be based on playing performance.

You've just completely contradicted yourself by introducing a needless and arbitrary measure for seemingly no reason.

There are no current clubs in the Championship that are anywhere near ready to move up to a licenced SL, the criteria required realistically is far too high for any club to achieve without years of difficult work

And you are essentially just telling us what everybody already knows about the problems associated with yearly P and R, but it is the only other realistic option

Sorry old lad, I was assuming that "promotion" would not be an annual event, which Wiganermike was alluding to and in those circumstances there would have to be some system of deciding the top club, over a 3 year ? period.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19842714

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19842714

[i "We've got the team on the field who we feel can compete in the Super League but we need to build a fan base."

He added: "We don't want to just be there as a passenger - we want to be competitive and we're not quite there yet but we hope to be in two years time." [/i

Thanks, now maybe the idiots clamoring for a return to automatic P&R will shut up.

Sheffield winning is the perfect example of why we shouldn't have automatic P&R!

Those with overseas avatars seem to have no idea as to what's best for RL in this country.

Automatic one-up, one-down promotion and relegation betwen the leagues is needed. (In conjunction with scrapping the salary cap, and penalties for insolvency events).

On the question of who goes up; concensus seems to favour the team finishing the season top of the league, rather than the grand final winner (or there could be a requirement to win both in the same season). Either way, Sheffield wouldn't have won the right to promotion this year if that structure had been in place.

Even where a club wins the right to promotion, it would be open to the directors of that club to opt to stay in the division they are in - in which case the bottom club in the league above would not need to be relegated.

How can Sheffield survive in Superleague with 250 fans?Sorry but there attendances are poor.How could they afford without help of rfl or sugar daddy like London.

They can't, they would spend one year in SL, get hammered most games and drop back down with huge debts. Apparently this is good for the game according to some?

"On the question of who goes up; concensus seems to favour the team finishing the season top of the league, rather than the grand final winner (or there could be a requirement to win both in the same season). Either way, Sheffield wouldn't have won the right to promotion this year if that structure had been in place."

Even if a team wins the right to promotion, it would be open to the directors of that club to opt to stay in the divsion they are in, in which case the club finishing bottom of the league above wouldn't need to be relegated. - But that's not for you or I to worry ourselves about in advance; club directors can decide for themselves what's best for their club when the time comes.

We've got a few more than 250 fans. Attendances were up again this year. There were nearly 2000 people at a game against Swinton earlier in the year, and the Lions will have brought 200 max.

We do need to get a lot more regular spectators and build the fan base, but the club is working on that.

Incidentally, our average attendance last time we were in SL was around 4,000. Not amazing, but comparable to the poorer sides in the league.

There is only one club in SL without a sugar daddy and that's Castleford and they are in trouble. Big investors are the norm in the SL. Sheffield would just need to find one and Sheffield is a big place to look even though there are already two soccer teams in town.

That is the problem two teams and City interested in football more.It is like Salford in Manchester too.Anyway i think Sheffield have done well due to buying bargains from overseas and a good coach.Next year they may not be as a good as Leigh and Fax are strengthing their teams.Agree Castleford may struggle soon.

'Overseas avatars'



I've already responded to your post once, as have several other people, and you choose to ignore these posts, preferring yet again to blindly repeat your ridiculous non-arguments. If you want to debate the points raised then do so, if not then stop wasting our time.