It seems that our poor relations in the other oval ball game are making a mess of trying to contrive the top flight.
Although they have promotion and relegation, at the end of each season they usually find a way of not relegating the bottom team or ,usually finding
a reason that their second tier champions are not worthy to be promoted.
This season they decided that London Welsh didn't meet the minimum standards and refused to allow them to be promoted.
However following appeal, they are now "worthy" of promotion and their ground has been passed as meeting the minimum standards.

Sport used to be about the best team prospering but now the main "sport" takes place away form the field of play and competition is agreed in an office
at HQ or in the courtroom.

In this case there may well be an appeal against the appeal but it more and more seems that winning counts for nothing.

Erm the RFL did this for many a year to keep Shuddersfield in the top flight. Wonder how Keighley felt at the time?

We're talking "professional" sport. It's not just about winning, it's about adding to the competition.

This is people's livelihoods here. It works both ways. Denying a club that's not fit for purpose may deny people their moment in the Sun, but including them and downgrading the competition because of it affects the competition as a whole.

There are standards for a reason. If it was only about sport, we wouldn't need to pay players.

And of course it wouldn't happen in any other sport would it. Football has set standards. Stevenage and Scarborough two examples of teams refused promotion to the 4th division. some teams refused entry to FA cup if their ground doesn't meet minimum standards.

US sports administrators would think we are all nuts. This romantic ideal of promotion and relegation based purely on performance on the pitch is as stupid as militant amateurism.

Then SL is set , and will not change, or should not change

Its not perfect, but automatic relegation is worse.

The Usual bull from folk like

Correct, the promotion bit isnt the problem , the relegation bit isnt the problem for any club just promoted, its the long standing ' protected ' clubs that are the problem

I know there are standards for a reason, but it does seem in this case that the standards had been met and that it was the governing body trying to manipulate the make up of the top flight.
Regarding the peoples livlihoods, at least the players involved had the chance to directly affect their own futures, this is not the case for most ordinary folk !

Yes all their "world series" games are against "American" teams.

I never had a problem with ground minimum standards as a promotion condition, but the RFL changed them to suit Cas's lack of seats. Deep down Dewsbury and Hunslet knew they couldn't get in before the season started - which is when the decision should be made ie before the event.

I think its this sort of thin that annoys the average punter.
If the clubs dont meet the minimum standards to allow promotion, then this should be made public as far in advance as is reasonable.
This would remove any doubt surrounding perceived preference and stop the cynics amongst us from crying "fix" etc.
There is no problem with setting a benchmark, but the goalposts shouldn't then be moved to accommodate certain clubs or moved in the
opposite direction to preclude others.
The "romantic" view would be that regardless of facilities and numbers of seats etc, promotion should be based on sporting performance.
Back in the real world all that is needed is transparency without any hidden agenda.

Whatever happened to that shiney new stadium Celtic Crusaders were having built ?

Oh dear ,