In reality although we talk in terms of teams being promoted or relegated it is more accurate to say that it is clubs that have been. Indeed it is not at all unusual for a team in the season following a change of status to have a very different line-up than in the previous one as clubs strive to ensure that all their members in general face an acceptable standard of opposition. Clubs that lack the playing resources to do this can often see one of their teams having a torrid season. Kidsgroves promotion to division 2 two years ago saw them pick up a single point in the next season as they went straight back down. Fine if their players wanted the experience, less desirable otherwise.
This changing of personnel on change of status is most conspicuous when a club has a team promoted from one division and relegated from the division above in the same season. Typically the promoted team not only takes over the relegated teams name but their players too. This can result in the anomaly that effectively champions are not promoted, whilst runners-up are, and wooden spoonists stay up whilst the team above them go down.
Promotion and relegation doesn't only create problems for clubs lacking the playing resources to cope with a change in status of their teams but also for clubs that experience a change in their playing resources without a matching change in status of their teams. This is most apparent for clubs based at educational establishments. These may suffer a complete turnover of membership every 3 years or so, with the status of their teams always lagging changes in the abilities of there members. No surprise that Keele disappeared as a chess club shortly after a strong group of players left. However the problem can and does apply to other clubs as most experience a small but steady turnover of members. In a small club, as most of ours probably claim to be, the loss or gain of a couple of strong players at the same time can have a significant knock-on effect to all the teams in the club.
It is not surprising that after a short period of strict promotion and relegation pressure arises to adopt a more flexible approach. Unfortunately this in turn leads to clubs expecting to be able to decline a change in the status of their teams, and a confrontational air at the AGM as clubs strive to get their teams placed where they wish rather than where promotion and relegation would dictate.
For a team to decline a change in status it requires either a balancing one from the appropriate division to do so also, or another team to accept the change in their place. Such negotiations do not affect just the two clubs concerned. If a team that is not promoted is stronger than one that agrees not to be relegated then the other teams in the lower of the two affected divisions will have less chance of winning their division in the subsequent season. Over time more clubs start to feel a sense of grievance as they see other clubs 'manipulating' promotion and relegation for their own benefit, and support switching to a stricter interpretation of the rules.
Thus a cycle form strict to flexible back to strict rule interpretation is established. At the moment although we have a flexible interpretation we have reached a stage where there would be considerable support for a strict one if it could be made to stick with all clubs.
As a final aside it would seem that the best way of doing this (enforcing a strict interpretation) would be to entrust the running of the league to a single person whose decisions would be automatically binding and who could be removed at the end of the season if their performance is deemed unsatisfactory. Removing a whole committee is much harder. Of course whether anyone whose ego is big enough to be willing to play god in this way would be acceptable outside of their own clubs is a moot point.
Introduction
Procedural Proposal
Main proposal
Objections