Sign in to follow this  
stevereed100

Just a Thought....automatic Promotion and Relegation from Super League!

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well you can't argue that for Widnes or Bradford because they did not yo-yo.

My whole involvement in this discussion is around yo-yo situations. I am interested in it as it is often quoted as an evil when we have relegation, but my initial impression is that this phenomenon is somewhat overstated.

I am split on P&R, but yet to be convinced on a) why yo-you situations happen, and b ) how bad it is for clubs and c) how bad it is for the game.

On point 1 - I believe a yo-yo situation is a result of a club struggling rather than P&R making them struggle. Not too many strong clubs have been relegated in my time watching. The bottom end of SL is weak enough that you just don't need to be terrible!

b ) There are only three clubs who have been up and down during the SL era - Leigh, Salford and Cas - yet these clubs are all there in different strengths. Some other clubs who have not been subject to yo-yo situations have been far worse off than them. That isn't to say it is a good situation, but maybe the negatives are a touch overstated.

c) clearly we want all our clubs to be strong, and I agree with many of the arguments against P&R, but I don't see yo-yo'ing as a major feature in the modern game. Cas were probably the closest example, as they could have gone down a third time, but what is the threshold for somebody going bust because of it, is it two times, three times ,four? Because yo-yo'ing doesn't appear to have been a major issue for SL or the clubs involved. 

I think if we had 3 or 4 up and down then this could be a major issue, but when you have a 12 team SL with 1 up and 1 down I think it becomes less common. 

Bradford and Widnes didnt get back to the top, but it was the journey up that killed them. 

4 clubs have been up and down during the SL era, Leigh, Cas, Salford and HKR, plus Widnes and Bradford fell at the final hurdle and went bust, Huddersfield would have done if not for the clubs below not meeting the standards and were eventually relegated when one did, which brings us to 7. Considering we have had only 12 seasons with a club(s) promoted and relegated thats not a particularly encouraging total.

The problem with your argument is it ignores the club who had to over spend to avoid relegation and yo-yoing(like Wakefield) or clubs who overspent trying to yoyo (like Widnes) and the clubs who were rescued from yo-yoing by other circumstances (like Huddersfield and to a point Les Catalans and Celtic) the issue is not just the yo-yoing but the two sides of the coin that is the threat of yo-yoing and the necessity of doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Bradford and Widnes didnt get back to the top, but it was the journey up that killed them. 

4 clubs have been up and down during the SL era, Leigh, Cas, Salford and HKR, plus Widnes and Bradford fell at the final hurdle and went bust, Huddersfield would have done if not for the clubs below not meeting the standards and were eventually relegated when one did, which brings us to 7. Considering we have had only 12 seasons with a club(s) promoted and relegated thats not a particularly encouraging total.

The problem with your argument is it ignores the club who had to over spend to avoid relegation and yo-yoing(like Wakefield) or clubs who overspent trying to yoyo (like Widnes) and the clubs who were rescued from yo-yoing by other circumstances (like Huddersfield and to a point Les Catalans and Celtic) the issue is not just the yo-yoing but the two sides of the coin that is the threat of yo-yoing and the necessity of doing so. 

It is just the threat of relegation not yo-yo. The bigger worry is relegation and never coming back up surely?

Its sort of my point, the yo yo element is an overstated phenomenon imho - it is ok to not like P&R but it hasnt been common to just see the same clubs yo yo up and down during the SL era.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

It is just the threat of relegation not yo-yo. The bigger worry is relegation and never coming back up surely?

Its sort of my point, the yo yo element is an overstated phenomenon imho - it is ok to not like P&R but it hasnt been common to just see the same clubs yo yo up and down during the SL era.

We have had 22 clubs in SL, 7 of them have been affected by it, 2 needed protection from it with only 12 years with promotion and relegation. Thats pretty common. 

And it isnt just the threat of relegation, yo-yoing is a specific issue that threatens every club that comes up and affects how they respond to the challenges of promotion.

And yes, the bigger worry is relegation and never coming back up, but thats why we have seen clubs overspending immediately to get back up, it affects how they respond to the challenges of relegation. It oscillates between threat and necessity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We have had 22 clubs in SL, 7 of them have been affected by it, 2 needed protection from it with only 12 years with promotion and relegation. Thats pretty common. 

And it isnt just the threat of relegation, yo-yoing is a specific issue that threatens every club that comes up and affects how they respond to the challenges of promotion.

And yes, the bigger worry is relegation and never coming back up, but thats why we have seen clubs overspending immediately to get back up, it affects how they respond to the challenges of relegation. It oscillates between threat and necessity. 

7 clubs havent yo-yo'd.

It is wrong imho to suggest the threat of yo-yo makes it a bigger issue than it is. The threat of relegation and associated loss of funding is the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

7 clubs havent yo-yo'd.

It is wrong imho to suggest the threat of yo-yo makes it a bigger issue than it is. The threat of relegation and associated loss of funding is the issue.

Leigh, Salford, Hull KR, Cas, Huddersfield, plus Widnes and Bradford.

Im not making it a bigger issue than it is. The threat of relegation is the bigger issue and it affects far more clubs. However yo-yoing and the threat of it and the effect it has on promoted and relegated clubs is a separate and specific issue that within the P+R debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HKR Bob....I profoundly disagree! Bradford are a very special case. They went down with a belief they were too big a club and were badly served by their "owners".

Rovers went down with the experience of several journeys in a lower league and a recognition that we would not get any special treatment from the RFL.

We had ownership and support that was solid based in East Hull. I think a failure to go straight back might have led to an inevitable loss of owners commitment and support but with the history of RSG as an example we were never in deep trouble. 

Bradford are victims of RFL meddling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

indeed most of this happened during licencing 

Cas being relegated and promoted over 4 consecutive years happened during the P&R period .... indeed.

The other issues I identified did happen under licensing but were as a direct consequence of the relegation and promotion period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Cas being relegated and promoted over 4 consecutive years happened during the P&R period .... indeed.

The other issues I identified did happen under licensing but were as a direct consequence of the relegation and promotion period.

Perhaps , although as a result of that , other clubs were given an opportunity , so IYO they shouldnt have ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevereed100 said:

HKR Bob....I profoundly disagree! 

We had ownership and support that was solid based in East Hull. I think a failure to go straight back might have led to an inevitable loss of owners commitment and support but with the history of RSG as an example we were never in deep trouble. 

Nothing wrong with a little disagreement...

It may have gone differently but I truly believe that the investment from sponsors and membership numbers would have waned with another season or 2 in the Championship. Would Hudge and Crossland still wish to fund us on that basis? 

I think the loss of those factors would have left us in deep trouble. The RSG has now reformed, which is good to see, but they can only do so much in this situation. 

Either way everything the club did last year seemed to be successful, hopefullly we can continue that into SL!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Perhaps , although as a result of that , other clubs were given an opportunity , so IYO they shouldnt have ? 

Not perhaps ... definately!

I assume you mean with Cas being relegated it gave the promoted clubs an opportunity.  Yes, no issue with that as that was the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2018 at 7:22 AM, Dave T said:

Can be difficult to use them as an example of a yo-yo club that has been harmed too badly based on their current status.

OK so Cas have been up and down like a fiddlers elbow pre-licensing yet because they were at Old Trafford this year then no harm was obviously done?? Really??

Relegated clubs lose money as they don't get SKY funding to high levels, and they lose fan and maybe even sponsors income. Of course  if they do not have a rich owner they crash and burn if they do then the owner e.g. Jack Fulton at Cas, (Davey at Fartown, Wilko at Salford) may step in and pop a £500K cheque in the kitty, to mitigate very real damage. Where there is no rich owner to mitigate the losses (Bradford, Oldham. Workington etc) then the clubs stay damaged and the effects can be long term

So of course relegation harms and costs clubs, either a rich man covers the costs and the club comes back or they don't and the club sinks. How you and Scotchy both manage to go around in ever decreasing circles and miss the blooming obvious I dunno??

On 16/01/2018 at 3:15 PM, RP London said:

Can you point me to the set of rules for this... if you finish top 3 in middle 8s you are in super league.. then there us the million pound match winner. 

Where is this extra set of criteria please as haven't seen it and am interested...

Can only presume there isn't any as last time I asked you didn't answer. Rfl riles not here say or your opinion please... there must be rules for it to be true

Sorry for the delay I will always answer genuine questions made in good faith. The 22 year history of Superleague is littered with examples where rules are constantly changed or bent. This is often to suit the Superleague clubs, but at times the RFL have swung a trick the SL clubs have begrudgingly accepted. IIRC London & Paris were shoved in and Keighley and Batley who won promotion barred in the first season,. Hunslet and Dewsbury gained promotions they were never given, Huddersfield came bottom four years in a row and were never relegated, Widnes didn't come bottom an were relegated, London and Catalans were invited in without winning promotion, London after terrible financial problems, and Catalans as a brand new club. 

Celtic Crusaders missed promotion yet were promoted, London and Crusaders(nearly) got licenses despite not really meeting the license criteria, Wakey constantly fail the ground criteria and stay in, Widnes showed the money up front but were refused SL entry, London and Bradford were hustled out of SL to accommodate the rushed new SKY deal, Toulouse were told they had to meet special criteria to be promoted or accepted into Superleague other clubs did not have to meet,  guests clubs like TWP can be refused SL  - so the list of "events" is quite long.

They even tried to "invent" a 13th. place in Superleague to be able to invite HKR to take had they not won the MPG!!!!!! How about that one?

Whatever people think about individual examples and want to disagree on the odd point,  in general it's clear to me these do show how Superleague is not going to be bound by any rules if they don't want to be. It suited SL clubs to sit back whilst Marwan Koukash openly flouted the rules as well. Not only that but Superleague is no longer going to be dictated to by the RFL who were not averse to bribing SL clubs for votes for the new system.

This is no criticism, the game is a business that does not make money, it struggles to survive, so of course they will waive or change any rule that it suits them to waive or change. They will invent any rule that suits them to invent. This  is perfectly understandable.

Edited by The Parksider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One persuasive argument I once heard with regards to yo yoing was that clubs would be relegated and then spend a lot of money on players who would be more than good enough to get them promoted from the 2nd division but ultimately weren't good enough to make the club consistently competitive in the 1st. The club would then be stuck with these players who would, of course, be on high wages. I can't say that this still applies, if it ever did, but it always struck me as making a modicum of sense.

Regarding automatic promotion, as I said on another of the threads concerning this issue I think it would be very careless to allow it in our sport as it simply ignores the realities of what we have in the here and now. That's not to say I don't agree with getting rid of underperforming clubs. Maybe "managed" P&R, as Parksider said, is what I'm getting at.

Whilst RU continue with P&R for the time being (I read that they are considering closing the shop again) I think it works for them as outside of the top 12 there isn't really any other club, with the exception of Bristol (who take turns, it seems, to exchange places with another of the weaker pro clubs) who could make a serious case for being in the Premiership. The experience of what happened to London Welsh has probably opened a few eyes, too, as to what unconsidered P&R can do to clubs. 

Anyway, roll on 1st February :) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/01/2018 at 7:56 AM, The Parksider said:

OK so Cas have been up and down like a fiddlers elbow pre-licensing yet because they were at Old Trafford this year then no harm was obviously done?? Really??

Relegated clubs lose money as they don't get SKY funding to high levels, and they lose fan and maybe even sponsors income. Of course  if they do not have a rich owner they crash and burn if they do then the owner e.g. Jack Fulton at Cas, (Davey at Fartown, Wilko at Salford) may step in and pop a £500K cheque in the kitty, to mitigate very real damage. Where there is no rich owner to mitigate the losses (Bradford, Oldham. Workington etc) then the clubs stay damaged and the effects can be long term

So of course relegation harms and costs clubs, either a rich man covers the costs and the club comes back or they don't and the club sinks. How you and Scotchy both manage to go around in ever decreasing circles and miss the blooming obvious I dunno??

Sorry for the delay I will always answer genuine questions made in good faith. The 22 year history of Superleague is littered with examples where rules are constantly changed or bent. This is often to suit the Superleague clubs, but at times the RFL have swung a trick the SL clubs have begrudgingly accepted. IIRC London & Paris were shoved in and Keighley and Batley who won promotion barred in the first season,. Hunslet and Dewsbury gained promotions they were never given, Huddersfield came bottom four years in a row and were never relegated, Widnes didn't come bottom an were relegated, London and Catalans were invited in without winning promotion, London after terrible financial problems, and Catalans as a brand new club. 

Celtic Crusaders missed promotion yet were promoted, London and Crusaders(nearly) got licenses despite not really meeting the license criteria, Wakey constantly fail the ground criteria and stay in, Widnes showed the money up front but were refused SL entry, London and Bradford were hustled out of SL to accommodate the rushed new SKY deal, Toulouse were told they had to meet special criteria to be promoted or accepted into Superleague other clubs did not have to meet,  guests clubs like TWP can be refused SL  - so the list of "events" is quite long.

They even tried to "invent" a 13th. place in Superleague to be able to invite HKR to take had they not won the MPG!!!!!! How about that one?

Whatever people think about individual examples and want to disagree on the odd point,  in general it's clear to me these do show how Superleague is not going to be bound by any rules if they don't want to be. It suited SL clubs to sit back whilst Marwan Koukash openly flouted the rules as well. Not only that but Superleague is no longer going to be dictated to by the RFL who were not averse to bribing SL clubs for votes for the new system.

This is no criticism, the game is a business that does not make money, it struggles to survive, so of course they will waive or change any rule that it suits them to waive or change. They will invent any rule that suits them to invent. This  is perfectly understandable.

So the answer is that you can’t and you are purely speculating... the rules (at the moment) are not based on anything but League placings.

can you show me where the 13h place was officially made and offered and not an opinion piece?

If you could point me in the direction of actual rules then fine but until that changes stop speculating and using your speculations as some form of fact. It isn’t very helpful... 

Btw I have no major issue in bending rules to get the league to work properly and efficiently, if there is proof it happens fine and I am truly interested as a fan of a club in a lower league trying to get up.. I would be happy to have discussions about what they can or should do but it’s this habit of putting out an opinion and discussing it as a “fact” just because “it’s bound to happen” etc that makes any conversation like this almost impossible to have without it getting to name calling.. 

lets get some proper facts and have a proper conversation. Facts MUST be backed up with evidence not opinion, and it’s up to those asserting the “fact” to provide the evidence of said fact not others to disprove it with counter evidence. 

Edited by RP London
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Jan 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here