Seven nights to get four games played with seven players is plenty. Especially as all logged in at some point during that period and at least two offered to sub in.

If we are going to extend then lets always do that in all competitions and have no deadlines at all?

As for not deserving it, they were ahead from games actually played. They didnt win because of the default score. A default score incidentally, that had it been required, they would have won too.

I'll have to point out I was happy to try and get the game played after the deadline (and I did try to get it sorted), but when a League Runner ask's for my list I'll accept that. I have to completely disagree though with the statement that the Ultras will be seen as the side who didn't deserve it (just look at how we performed this season and in previous seasons, we have a pretty good record and I think the best out of the teams who haven't won the Grand Final). If legend_pot hadn't have got that score then this would've have even come into question.

We aren't through because we were ahead by a point and the final game stayed at 0-0. Chris knew the default wouldn't have been won by Pro's A, which means it was completely irrelevant to actually do it and is a waste of time.

The fact that it only affects us is the exact reason why delay should be avoided, the season will finish when this final finishes. So to delay this is to delay the new season. With the way the last match was going, there is no guarantee that 48 hours would be enough to get it done and that is no good to anyone.

The Professionals also had approximately fifteen defaults across the two teams in the Regular SL Season compared to three for Uprising. By no means am I saying that they were at fault for all of them, but all of those matches did have fourteen nights to get them played in.

I see what you're saying but the last fixture were between Imran vs Ollie, unfortunately both busy atm. That's not to say that on any other time/night them being given an extension they could have arranged and sorted a suitable time. (compromised)

As for the previous season, with all due respect Zante, the past is the past - I really couldn't care less about it. Whether legend_pot won his match or not also irrelevant, fact of the matter he did.

I think the 2 players could have been granted a little leeway, it's not like extensions haven't been carried out before (if you want to bring up the past) as it only affected 2 individuals. (Ultimately their teams they represent)

Were a close match up as were expected 20-19 with 1 to play really IMO been given licence to be concluded. Oh well it's not and it's the league which suffers along with Pros for having a player who just unfortunately is snowed under with their work.

Deadline's are deadlines chris and I fully respect that, deadlines have been extended in the past, 2 sides ONLY involved not setting back any other team or league.

It is setting back every other clan though. Well at least those that want another season to start.

I cant see the League has suffered as the two best teams from those two particular matches progressed. As said, it is not that one has progressed because of the default.

I have no issue with anybody being snowed under with work but is that not why there are unlimited subs? You are also ignoring the fact that the subs existed, logged in, were willing to play and were not made. And that from a clan that openly states that anyone is trusted to step in and play for them.

Wales lad was on at snooker two hours before deadline but wasnt on pool, clearly he didnt show any sign of interest toward this game like have all their other subs due to different reasons.
We also did all we could in the last two days of the fixture having Imran, zante and me all ready to play the game if needed. Pros didnt. So it would be unfair to extend the deadline.

That is completely inaccurate, Imran was active the whole set but had football last night and still managed a log in at midnight when I was told Ollie would definitely be online for. Ollie was offline several days, which really can impact on a game and Imran had not heard back from him as far as I know. Just on deadline day alone we had 10am-after midnight covered but not once did an eligible sub from pros appear.

To question whether we deserve the place is to say that we couldn't have got it without the default. The past is relevant because it shows we can beat them without defaults., just like past extensions not working is relevant.

Imran tried his best to play, to say he needs leeway is harsh on him because he didn't need it. The last 48 hours we did a lot but didn't have an opponent around, another 48 hours may do nothing.

We tried for 7 days to arrange a time or get lucky and we couldn't, why have 2 more when it's not like the players have just been missing each other and were very close to getting it played

Edited at 18:33 Thu 13/11/14 (GMT)

Just as a point, Ollie and 2 of the eligible players haven't logged in since Tuesday after nearly half of that 48 hours. Only Richie has logged in today and that was this afternoon, which would've meant I'd have had to play it after work when I wouldn't have been comfortable playing. Hardly fair on Imran and not really ideal to decide a crucial game having to play at an inconvenience when we had tried to sort a convenient time for both. Effectively punishing an active team.

_aquarius12_ has shot his mouth off without being in possession of any of the facts. All he has to do is actually ask mattywellie or myself, and he'd find out that dbno had arranged to get on for 11.30pm last night. Imran very kindly, and much to his girlfriends chagrin - logged in at 11.30, and waited until 12.25. Myself and Matty had also agreed that _wales_lad_ or thegame26 could play. Both players was mailed by myself, on funkypool and funkysnooker. We went above and beyond to try and get this game played, and the fact that no-one in Pro's disagrees - tells the full story.

Ignoring all these indisputable facts , even if the deadline had been extended - dbno still hasn't been online!

Edited at 21:49 Thu 13/11/14 (GMT)

Just an opinion, not an internal investigation, get over it.

An opinion based on fantasy and bitterness.

Bitterness? Why would i be bitter? After chris, zante's and erigert's posts I didn't comment any further. They have supported why what's happened happened, so there is no reason to carry it on any further.

At the time 4 hours ago I made a rash statement which were my opinion. Admittedly I were unaware of all the facts nor really wanted to know. Opinion from a neutral is all it were.

Nothing bitter at all, good luck to Uprising (x2 teams) in the final, real shame it is not Pros vs one of the sides, would IMO made for a better spectacle.

It is what it is.

SL to 5 vs 5, no issue with that, good idea gives more players opportunity to play. Think the teams could be interchangeable throughout though as that's what can cause much conflict with some sides. Restricts the Captains or anyone the flexibility to make a sub.

A 5v5 can work only if u enter 1 team or if u make changes of the 2 teams after each fixture. I think 4v4 is better, but what needs to be changed is the competition format, it lasts too long.

Why Eri? 5 v 5 should still give teams 3 subs per side - which is plenty! No team is forced to enter two sides either!

I think the best change this season was set teams. It gave each team in the competition a genuine, separate identity. I know in Uprising from this final that Ultras do consider themselves a separate team to Uprising - even if I as captain don't!

I know Uprising wont have many problems if it be becomes a 5vs5 as we showed it twoseasons ago. But the fact is the last season teams like Pros, Unbeatables, Wolf Packs who had two teams in the competition had defaults more than usual, and that was 4vs4. So changing it to 5vs5 would only increase the number of defaults

Then those teams only suffer because they entered 2 teams when they should've entered one!

_marc_ and Niall left Unbeats..and i got banned hense our Poor showing..will definatly change this time round i hope

The teams have just as many problems in 4 vs 4 as 5 vs 5, it's more a problem of a team entering two when maybe they should enter one. A 5 vs 5 would hopefully encourage some clans to only field 1 team, which would also reduce the amount of teams in the competition and so shorten the season slightly and keep it in line with the other leagues.

OK if it changed back to 5 vs 5 what are the team list restrictions going to be?

Do you want it to be that, in each fixture period, for any clan fielding two teams they have a max 8 players on each list and other clans with one team maintain the full 16?

Or should the clans with one team also be restricted to 8 players on a list for each fixture period (which could cause default problems).

Or make each clan limited to a maximum of ten players for each fixture period so that there are potentially two players per fixture.

Or finally, not make it 5 v 5 but keep it exactly as it was this season but encourage clans to only enter one team where its felt they cant support two.