top six chances

[lionmmark]

After the win against the Catalatic Converters does any one think it could turbo charge us up into the top six before the end of the season.

[num lock]

No

[stevocod]

lionmmark posted:
After the win against the Catalatic Converters does any one think it could turbo charge us up into the top six before the end of the season.

Depends if we put enough work in the engine room and use the speed in the outside lane and if we don't run out of petrol towards the end. Phew i'm exhausted after thinking that up....erm not!

[waterside glens]

no

[Fraggle]

lionmmark posted:
After the win against the Catalatic Converters does any one think it could turbo charge us up into the top six before the end of the season.

I think I'd rather us worry more about getting off the bottom first. 11th is still a long way off, 6th might as well be on the moon...

[stevocod]

Fraggle posted:

lionmmark posted:
After the win against the Catalatic Converters does any one think it could turbo charge us up into the top six before the end of the season.

I think I'd rather us worry more about getting off the bottom first. 11th is still a long way off, 6th might as well be on the moon...

Well 10th really is our target if Les Cats finish 12th.

[Fraggle]

stevocod posted:

Fraggle posted:

lionmmark posted:
After the win against the Catalatic Converters does any one think it could turbo charge us up into the top six before the end of the season.

I think I'd rather us worry more about getting off the bottom first. 11th is still a long way off, 6th might as well be on the moon...

Well 10th really is our target if Les Cats finish 12th.

Well...

Lots of people have been saying that if Wigan finish bottom but don't get relegated then it will show the game up in the eyes of the world as being ridiculous. If your sport says you have promotion and relegation, but a team finishing bottom does not get relegated because of who they are, then I can see why people might think that odd.

Whilst I'm aware that the rule apparently says that the next-to-bottom team will go down if Les Cats are bottom, would that not give the same image to the world of our sport being somewhat ridiculous? What other sports are there where can you not finish bottom but still be relegated, whilst a team below you does not? I'm sure Wigan must have agreed to this (or, at least, the majority of the SLE board were in favour), it does seem to be one of the most ridiculous rules I've ever heard of.

If we're bottom, then we deserve to go down. But the fans of any team who finish 11th yet still get relegated are going to be incredibly angry, and if the rumours of Sky perhaps suggesting they would like Wigan to be in SL next year are to be believed, then I would not be totally surprised to see a rule change if we did find ourselves in that situation.

Relegate the bottom team, by all means, but I feel we can't really expect to be taken seriously as a sport if we start to relegate teams who are not at the bottom whilst keeping the worst team in the league. That is far more stupid than merging teams to keep them up, or making up some inconsistent rules about ground standards to stop teams being promoted, all of which has happened in the last few years.

[stevocod]

Fraggle posted:

stevocod posted:

Fraggle posted: I think I'd rather us worry more about getting off the bottom first. 11th is still a long way off, 6th might as well be on the moon...

Well 10th really is our target if Les Cats finish 12th.

Well...

Lots of people have been saying that if Wigan finish bottom but don't get relegated then it will show the game up in the eyes of the world as being ridiculous. If your sport says you have promotion and relegation, but a team finishing bottom does not get relegated because of who they are, then I can see why people might think that odd.

Whilst I'm aware that the rule apparently says that the next-to-bottom team will go down if Les Cats are bottom, would that not give the same image to the world of our sport being somewhat ridiculous? What other sports are there where can you not finish bottom but still be relegated, whilst a team below you does not? I'm sure Wigan must have agreed to this (or, at least, the majority of the SLE board were in favour), it does seem to be one of the most ridiculous rules I've ever heard of.

If we're bottom, then we deserve to go down. But the fans of any team who finish 11th yet still get relegated are going to be incredibly angry, and if the rumours of Sky perhaps suggesting they would like Wigan to be in SL next year are to be believed, then I would not be totally surprised to see a rule change if we did find ourselves in that situation.

Relegate the bottom team, by all means, but I feel we can't really expect to be taken seriously as a sport if we start to relegate teams who are not at the bottom whilst keeping the worst team in the league. That is far more stupid than merging teams to keep them up, or making up some inconsistent rules about ground standards to stop teams being promoted, all of which has happened in the last few years.

Well all that albeit specualtion with Sky and the possible change of rules is just speculation and we as a club have to realistically challenge for 10th.

If we finish 11th we will go done with current RFL rules and we will have to obligingly go down. The Super League Chairmen voted for an expansion for a franchise in France and would exempt them from relegation for 2 years to expand the game in Europe and while i personally remain cynical about these moves, i.e like Paris St. Germain, it is what the clubs agreed to and unless it changes we will need to finish 10th.

Also if they were thinking of changing the rule i think Mr Whelan would have brought it up in his Sky interview, unless they were trying to hide an ongoing topic within RFL headquarters or amongst the clubs.

[Fraggle]

stevocod posted:
Well all that albeit specualtion with Sky and the possible change of rules is just speculation and we as a club have to realistically challenge for 10th.

Agreed, this year is the worst ever for rumours about different things. I've lost track of what's got even a shred of credibility!

If we finish 11th we will go done with current RFL rules and we will have to obligingly go down. The Super League Chairmen voted for an expansion for a franchise in France and would exempt them from relegation for 2 years to expand the game in Europe and while i personally remain cynical about these moves, i.e like Paris St. Germain, it is what the clubs agreed to and unless it changes we will need to finish 10th.

I'm totally happy with expansion, I think RL in Europe will benefit enormously from expanding into other areas with a strong heritage for the game (which is where Perpignan differs from Paris), but expansion should have meant not only a geographical expansion but also an expansion to the league. Instead we've got silly rules to ensure we keep 12 teams whilst retaining some element of promotion and relegation yet preserving a new team. Having 14 or even 16 clubs could have helped achieve that same aim and they could have suspended promotion and relegation for a couple of seasons (as has happened before) by promoting the likely teams from NL1 and letting them all stabilise for a bit. Instead, we might do what I suspect no other sport does and perhaps relegate a team who are not at the bottom whilst keeping the bottom team. That, to me, is just ridiculous and does not show RL in a good light.

As for the SL Board, all we know is that at least 7 clubs must have voted in favour with maybe upto 5 clubs against the arrangement. I suspect we'll never know which way ML voted.

Also if they were thinking of changing the rule i think Mr Whelan would have brought it up in his Sky interview, unless they were trying to hide an ongoing topic within RFL headquarters or amongst the clubs.

Well, he was careful to only answer speculation based on what Wigan might do or not do, whilst saying nothing about possible rule changes by SLE. It may be the case that ML would have enough influence to swing things his way in a vote, but ultimately any rules changes have to be approved by at least half of the 12 clubs rather than anything DW can have direct influence over.

[stevocod]

But if something of this nature is being discussed then im sure the chairmen would be arranging this now and not right at the end of the season as this would only enrage the winner of the NL1 playoff final and we all know it would be a detriment financially of the interest of that particular final consequently if these rumours were found true before the end of the season.

The RFL and SLE have to keep tightlipped otherwise Sky and supporters with incoming revenue will become disinterested in the NL1 final leaving a farce of a situation.

It just goes to show it's not just the refs who are amateurish as mentioned by myself in a previous thread, but at the very top as well and the sooner we have a complete professional outlook on the game the better.

I agree Super League should be expanded with the salary cap raised to allow more squad depth for more wear and tear detrimenting the players fatigue levels towards the tri nations at the end of the year.

Something needs to be done but with the greatest of care and part of the reason Clarkey left as GB assistant was because of the way the game is run at the highest level and whereas i don't always agree with him, i do in this case.