Relegation From Super League

Relegation From Super League

Post by Phil Arundel » Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:00:00


I've just read that Gateshead have been given a three year guarantee of no
relegation from SL, but Wakefield have no protection. Does anyone know if
relegation will apply to other clubs in SL, and what will happen if a
"protected" club finishes bottom - is no-one relegated, or does the bottom
non-protected club lose out?
 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by KBowen91 » Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>I've just read that Gateshead have been given a three year guarantee of no
>relegation from SL, but Wakefield have no protection. Does anyone know if
>relegation will apply to other clubs in SL, and what will happen if a
>"protected" club finishes bottom - is no-one relegated, or does the bottom
>non-protected club lose out?

and also does this mean the season continues until LEEDS top the table?!!!:-)

regards

Keith - Cougar Fan

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by Tattooed Millionair » Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
> I've just read that Gateshead have been given a three year guarantee of
no
> relegation from SL, but Wakefield have no protection. Does anyone know if
> relegation will apply to other clubs in SL, and what will happen if a
> "protected" club finishes bottom - is no-one relegated, or does the
bottom
> non-protected club lose out?

Relegation does come into force from next season and only Gateshead will be
exempt for 3 years.  I do not know, however, what will happen if they
finish bottom - perhaps you are right about the 13th placed team being
relegated.  Who knows, they seem to change the rules yearly!

No doubt one team will be relegated to make way for another expansion team
unless of course they increase the numbers again next year.  The only
problem with having more teams in SL is the News Corp monies are spreading
further, now Wakefield have joined the Clubs who were already there will no
doubt have to split their share again having already agreed to give
Gateshead a portion.

--
TM

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by NJASHT » Sun, 15 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>Tattooed Millionaire"wrote

No doubt one team will be relegated to make way for another expansion team

No the Ist Grand Final winners will be
promoted.

Steve

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>I've just read that Gateshead have been given a three year guarantee of no
>relegation from SL, but Wakefield have no protection. Does anyone know if
>relegation will apply to other clubs in SL, and what will happen if a
>"protected" club finishes bottom - is no-one relegated, or does the bottom
>non-protected club lose out?

That's a good question!! Typical RL, one rule for one and another rule for
another.

As far as I'm concerned it should be no relegation or full relegation.

Lloyd

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by Andy La » Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Yet again Super League change the rules to suit them. With the salary cap
and overseas players dispensation, then they should be offered no get out of
jail clause. If they agreed to play on a level par with other teams then
fine give them a hand. It all seems a bit unfair on teams promoted from
Division 1. In this case Wakefield.
 Perhaps they'll put a rule in stating that if Gateshead finnish bottom,
Wigan get relegated (that'll please most of you out there).

Andy Law


Quote:
>I've just read that Gateshead have been given a three year guarantee of no
>relegation from SL, but Wakefield have no protection. Does anyone know if
>relegation will apply to other clubs in SL, and what will happen if a
>"protected" club finishes bottom - is no-one relegated, or does the bottom
>non-protected club lose out?

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by NJASHT » Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Yet again Super League change the rules to suit them.

SL have to be given credit for at least allowing
Wakey to go up.
However , I agree regarding Gateshead why
should they be treat more favorably than others?.It realy beats ,me why new
teams cannot begin in Div 1 and at least earn promotion on the field
Steve Ashton
 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by Chris Hardstaf » Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Yey!
- - - - -
Chris Hardstaff

ICQ# 8920635
(To join the ICQ community visit www.icq.com)

Quote:
> Perhaps they'll put a rule in stating that if Gateshead finnish bottom,
>Wigan get relegated (that'll please most of you out there).

>Andy Law

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by stev » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

>>Yet again Super League change the rules to suit them.

>SL have to be given credit for at least allowing
>Wakey to go up.
>However , I agree regarding Gateshead why
>should they be treat more favorably than others?.It realy beats ,me why new
>teams cannot begin in Div 1 and at least earn promotion on the field
>Steve Ashton

Do you want to encourage or discourage development?

What kind of incentive is a potential drop after one year to invest time
and money in a new francise. If there were quality applicants and
sponsors queing up fine set what conditions you like, whilst in the real
world a new francise needs time to get established, a three year
contract is going to be much more attractive than a one year contract to
most players.
--
steve

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by The Hooded Cla » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:




>>>Yet again Super League change the rules to suit them.

>>SL have to be given credit for at least allowing
>>Wakey to go up.
>>However , I agree regarding Gateshead why
>>should they be treat more favorably than others?.It realy beats ,me why
new
>>teams cannot begin in Div 1 and at least earn promotion on the field
>>Steve Ashton

>Do you want to encourage or discourage development?

>What kind of incentive is a potential drop after one year to invest time
>and money in a new francise. If there were quality applicants and
>sponsors queing up fine set what conditions you like, whilst in the real
>world a new francise needs time to get established, a three year
>contract is going to be much more attractive than a one year contract to
>most players.
>--
>steve

Its blindingly  obvious to all but the most rabid Wakey supporter that they
will return whence they came at the end of the 1999 season as they haven't
been given immunity from relegation a la the Newcastle Browns.....  Which
makes one wonder whether it really is worth Wakefield spending all that
money on adhering to the terms of their franchise.

Their acceptance despite all the odds to Super Duper League is only to
balance the league until this time next year when another expansion
franchise will be accepted as there aren't any suitable ones just now.  That
is why the South Wales franchise was turned down despite them jumping
through hoops yet Wakey were allowed in.  Of course, Wakey may just upset
Maurice's plans and actually do well this year, then who knows?

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by stev » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00



Quote:





>>>>Yet again Super League change the rules to suit them.

>>>SL have to be given credit for at least allowing
>>>Wakey to go up.
>>>However , I agree regarding Gateshead why
>>>should they be treat more favorably than others?.It realy beats ,me why
>new
>>>teams cannot begin in Div 1 and at least earn promotion on the field
>>>Steve Ashton

>>Do you want to encourage or discourage development?

>>What kind of incentive is a potential drop after one year to invest time
>>and money in a new francise. If there were quality applicants and
>>sponsors queing up fine set what conditions you like, whilst in the real
>>world a new francise needs time to get established, a three year
>>contract is going to be much more attractive than a one year contract to
>>most players.
>>--
>>steve

>Its blindingly  obvious to all but the most rabid Wakey supporter that they
>will return whence they came at the end of the 1999 season as they haven't
>been given immunity from relegation a la the Newcastle Browns.....  Which
>makes one wonder whether it really is worth Wakefield spending all that
>money on adhering to the terms of their franchise.

>Their acceptance despite all the odds to Super Duper League is only to
>balance the league until this time next year when another expansion
>franchise will be accepted as there aren't any suitable ones just now.  That
>is why the South Wales franchise was turned down despite them jumping
>through hoops yet Wakey were allowed in.  Of course, Wakey may just upset
>Maurice's plans and actually do well this year, then who knows?

Well good luck to them, I hope trinity prove a few people wrong, who
else is there who could drop?

--
steve

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by Simon Sherbur » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:




<snip>

Quote:

> Its blindingly  obvious to all but the most rabid Wakey supporter that they
> will return whence they came at the end of the 1999 season as they haven't
> been given immunity from relegation a la the Newcastle Browns.....  Which
> makes one wonder whether it really is worth Wakefield spending all that
> money on adhering to the terms of their franchise.

Remember Paris had the same immunity and look what happened to them.

Quote:

> Their acceptance despite all the odds to Super Duper League is only to
> balance the league until this time next year when another expansion
> franchise will be accepted as there aren't any suitable ones just now.  That
> is why the South Wales franchise was turned down despite them jumping
> through hoops yet Wakey were allowed in.  Of course, Wakey may just upset
> Maurice's plans and actually do well this year, then who knows?

Merge with Castleford to make room for Wales.  8-)
Or form a Super Super league with all the big and new clubs.

Do you really think that Maurice and friends plans things?  With all the
twists, changes and
reversals the RL makes I am not sure.  We sometimes get 'panic rugby' at
the end of a match,
it seems the RL runs on 'panic management'.  

--

All comments are mine and mine alone.  So there....

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by Andy La » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00

I do believe in development, but not at the expense of existing teams. You
have to run a league on a fairly even level, otherwise the league becomes a
joke. As I said teams should be given a choice, either adhere to the same
rules as everyone else (i.e. same salary cap and player limitations) get
relegation dispensation, or have the salary cap and overseas quota
limitations and run the risk of relegation.
 The dispensation the Thunder Pants have been given gives them no incentive
to perform except their own pride. If they don't perform then they stay up
anyway. They are getting the best of both worlds. This didn't do Paris any
favours in the past, a long term they could not cut the mustard.

Quote:



>>>Yet again Super League change the rules to suit them.

>>SL have to be given credit for at least allowing
>>Wakey to go up.
>>However , I agree regarding Gateshead why
>>should they be treat more favorably than others?.It realy beats ,me why
new
>>teams cannot begin in Div 1 and at least earn promotion on the field
>>Steve Ashton

>Do you want to encourage or discourage development?

>What kind of incentive is a potential drop after one year to invest time
>and money in a new francise. If there were quality applicants and
>sponsors queing up fine set what conditions you like, whilst in the real
>world a new francise needs time to get established, a three year
>contract is going to be much more attractive than a one year contract to
>most players.
>--
>steve

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by jon_ma.. » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00


Quote:




> <snip>

> > Its blindingly  obvious to all but the most rabid Wakey supporter that they
> > will return whence they came at the end of the 1999 season as they haven't
> > been given immunity from relegation a la the Newcastle Browns.....  Which
> > makes one wonder whether it really is worth Wakefield spending all that
> > money on adhering to the terms of their franchise.

> Remember Paris had the same immunity and look what happened to them.

Absolutely not true. If Paris had been given immunity, they would not have
needed to go out and import a team full of aussies to avoid finishing last.
They were given immunity from relegation by uncle mo *after* the season had
ended.

Most of the difficulties at Paris could have been avoided if they had been
given a couple of seasons to find their feet. French players would have been
more prepared to give up their day jobs and move north if they'd had more
than a 12 month contract on offer.

Remember that Paris were still the fifth best supported team in the year they
were disbanded.

--jon

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

 
 
 

Relegation From Super League

Post by jon_ma.. » Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> Well good luck to them, I hope trinity prove a few people wrong, who
> else is there who could drop?

Too early to say until we see how the teams line up in March. Warrington &
possibly Salford would be the only other contenders, IMO. Warrington seem to
be losing players at a rapid rate and no-one seems sure if DVDV will be back.
Salford slumped alarmingly last season and don't seem to be replacing an
aging team, but don't appear to be quite the rudderless ship that Warrington
do.

Wakefield did not look that much better than the rest of div 1 and much will
depend upon whether they can afford to assemble an all-new squad and get them
playing as a unit in the next few months.

--jon

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own