Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Again Author: Still in favour of playoffs [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10:42:37 05/26/02 Sun Author Host/IP: host213-122-61-135.in-addr.btopenworld.com/213.122.61.135 In reply to: Neutral observer 's message, "Sorry, I believe that you have missed the point. The Difference in funding between Caerphilly and Avon is huge. Additionally, what about the number of games played? One game too many for Avon. AND Caerphilly did not try against Scarlets. Chris Wyatt ran 60 metres unopposed. I was there, believe you me." on 09:18:45 05/26/02 Sun Just like Dunvant stood and watched Averavon run tries past them and made no effort. It works both ways you see. Caerphilly had 3 games in a week - they scored tries the last game of the season. You still cant seriously be saying that its easy and simple to play some of the best teams and get hammered every week where its somehow harder to play against opposition with no effort or will to win ? As for number of games played, 20 league PLUS 6 european shield games. Total of 26. The difference is about 1 extra game per month - hardly earth shattering. Caerphilly have had an abysmal season playing and getting soundly beaten by the best in the country. However they were still FAR better than aberavon so how you can argue they should be replaced by them is a mystery to me. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Again Author: Dave Parfitt(pooler supporter) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:02:51 05/26/02 Sun Author Host/IP: cache-loh-aa07.proxy.aol.com/195.93.32.13 Thank you for your reply. I cannot recall Caerphilly complaining that there were no play-offs when they got promoted a few seasons ago. Anyway surely Aberavon deserves the the chance of trying to do better, given the greater increase in funding ect. No disrespect but Caerphilly have had their chance and I feel it should be someone elses turn. What if Caerphilly end up in the same position at the end of next season with similar results? Would you still say they deserved to stay up?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: We'll never know as there isnt a playoff now. If there was they'd have to lose to the first division team which seems fair. My view is, if you cant beat the you shouldnt replace them. Next season its 1up 1 down and 9 teams. After that who knows but i suspect a cut to 8 teams and no div 1 promotion again. Author: - [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:56:51 05/27/02 Mon Author Host/IP: host213-122-65-188.in-addr.btopenworld.com/213.122.65.188 >Thank you for your reply. I cannot recall Caerphilly >complaining that there were no play-offs when they got >promoted a few seasons ago. Anyway surely Aberavon >deserves the the chance of trying to do better, given >the greater increase in funding ect. No disrespect but >Caerphilly have had their chance and I feel it should >be someone elses turn. What if Caerphilly end up in >the same position at the end of next season with >similar results? Would you still say they deserved to >stay up?