I’m really at a loss to see what the six SL clubs that walked out are hoping to achieve with this action. All they’ve done is further alienate themselves from the rest of the SL, not to mention the championship clubs. They might be under the impression that they can operate in a vacuum but they can’t. There has to be a consensus that the majority can agree on.

As a group they’ve not publically expressed clearly what their issues are and their potential solutions either so I looks from the outside like a big hissy fit.

While they might have perfectly understandable concerns I don’t think this action has done anything but damage their position and has made them look unprofessional. They may feel as if they’ve been backed into a corner but I believe the RFL’s proposal has been “on the table” for a long time so I’m a bit baffled as to why it’s come to a head so late.

All clubs seem to be more keen than ever to push their own interests whether that be the top 6 who want to have the chance to do their own deals for sponsorship of the competition or the championship clubs that aspire to SL status. Cool heads need to prevail so as to ensure the self interest doesn’t take over.

The problem with the 'self interested' theory is a number of these Chairmen are funding their clubs and therefore the game as a whole from their own pockets. If I was asked to stump up between 200k - £1m a year it would focus my interest. They are also of the view that as SL brings in the TV money and the TV money funds the RL, that indirectly through continually picking up losses in order to put a product on TV, it is they, not the RFL who pay the piper. Quite why they have waited this long to call the tune I don't know.

How many clubs are affiliated to the RL? Why do all these clubs have to bow down to the greed of the few. Let the SL clubs split and join with RU, in time it will make for a stronger, better, more honest game. Let Championship and Amateur clubs move the game along. I am sick of hearing of SL clubs Charitable Foundations (ha,ha) and also how they have produced so many players through their academies. The only players they get into their academies are produced by local amateur clubs who get sweet FA for 10 years of coaching and nurturing young players.

Just a question how as a club would we been able to vote seeing the RFL have not rubber stamped the change of ownership. This would suggest that any vote would have been flawed in the outset.

I'm I mistaken, but wasn't the vote on how the restructure was to happen due to take place after the World Cup as previously reported? Was this the RFL trying to push this through early - if that was the case, it seems unpalatable to me that they tried to railroad this through.
For the record, I'm very much against the 3x8 League format for 2015.

As redeverready says how could Bulls vote in any case and if they could which way would it be.
6 clubs walk out + Bulls unknown status = 50% of current SL clubs.
If a vote did take place we could end up with a similar situation to the government(s) of the UK - i.e. not representative of the majority and incapable of understanding what is best for the majority.

I don't know the exact the wording of that vote but it could it be that they were expected to vote to be either shot or hung and they would prefer neither.

What about the clubs that didn't even then up for the meeting ???

Maybe they didn't want to be shot of hung.

It really wouldn't surprise me if the RFL attempted to push this through prior to the Bulls being accepted for next year, as they may have put increased pressure on the new owners to vote for the option set by the RFL (almost like a condition of ratification).

If they had waited until after the World Cup, the Bulls would have already been ratified, and the new owners would be able to vote as they wanted.

I would be extremely surprised if this was the case, but the RFL do work in mysterious ways!

What about the clubs that didn't even then up for the meeting ???Maybe they didn't want to be shot of hung.

Anyone about to translate this?

While we're expected to break even on half the central funding despite being a new venture these greedy b'stards can literally go and f themselves for the damage this is causing. Simpy to feather their own clubs nests

Very interesting interview with Hetherington on Radio Leeds, it's still available on catch up apparently. In his damning indictment of the 6, among other things, he said all Championship, Championship 1 & SL clubs had agreed to the changes they had been discussing for the last year. The 6 also want a place on the independent executive or governing body of the RL.

Any chance of a rough idea of day, time, show, etc?

audioboo.fm/WestYorkshireSport

audioboo.fm/WestYorkshireSport

Quote ="tigertot"Very interesting interview with Hetherington on Radio Leeds, it's still available on catch up apparently. In his damning indictment of the 6, among other things, he said all Championship, Championship 1 & SL clubs had agreed to the changes they had been discussing for the last year. The 6 also want a place on the independent executive or governing body of the RL.'" Yes, but unfortunately, Hetherington is not exactly renowned for telling the truth is he ? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5754990

Quote ="tigertot"Very interesting interview with Hetherington on Radio Leeds, it's still available on catch up apparently. In his damning indictment of the 6, among other things, he said all Championship, Championship 1 & SL clubs had agreed to the changes they had been discussing for the last year. The 6 also want a place on the independent executive or governing body of the RL.'" Yes, but unfortunately, Hetherington is not exactly renowned for telling the truth is he ? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5754990

I'm struggling to see anything in that article to be critical off GH about.

This is on the Wigan board,

[i"Pearson said that the meeting was called at short notice and the clubs weren't expecting the restructure to be on the agenda as all had agreed it should be delayed until after the WC. McManus was away, the Castleford CEO was 'very ill', Bradford had no vote as the new owners haven't been ratified yet, and it was clear that Heatherington had the Leeds, Wakey, and Widnes votes in his pocket.

It was a dead-set ambush attempt and the 6 who walked out were having no part of it. Kath Hetherington appears to have been representing Wakey in some way, although it's not clear how. James Rule, a very close friend and confidant of the above 2 was representing Widnes. And in case you missed it, Pearson wasn't alone with his concerns. There were 6 clubs who felt they were being set up.

Even if you want to dismiss these concerns as paranoia it seems inappropriate at best to spring a vote on such an important issue at a meeting where it wasn't on the circulated agenda and 3 clubs (Saints, Bradford, Castleford) weren't in a position to to make a decisive vote - one not being able to vote at all."[/i

Civil war!

Is it me, or does Hetherington look pretty bad on this issue, it's almost like he knew the agenda prior to the meeting, and the quotes after the 'walk out' are beginning to make him look like a bitter child?

Hull FC had a fans forum last night, interesting comments from Pearson on their forum thread...



Interesting that Hetherington's previous comments state that there was a minority of 6 SL clubs that walked out of voting, but refused to mention that Saints we're not present, a Cas owner was not present (very ill) and Bradford did not have a right to vote.

So, potentially the 6 v 8 (minority vs majority) could easily become 9 v 5 (assuming Bulls, Saints and Cas vote no). I mentioned earlier that Hetherington and the RFL are playing with words in the press, looks like they fail to paint the full picture to the tabloids.

I don't believe there will be any winners in this fiasco, just one loser - RL.

I don't believe the situation is black and white either. The RL chairmen will undoubtedly be biased towards their own clubs fortune. And some chairmen appear to act in a rather 'bizarre' fashion, to put it mildly. The RFL does take a 'whole game' view, which is essential for the sport, but they do not come out of this well either. The sport desperately needs more cash and they have singularly failed to get a sponsor for SL - that is a shockingly bad result.

So what I am saying is that simply taking a 'two legs bad, four legs good' view on this situation and picking a side is not helpful. Neither is Hetherington's mouthing off to the press, at a time when all sides need to be staying well away from the media and concentrating on finding a solution - at the very least it's highly unprofessional. If he is genuinely concerned about RL then he should be quietly talking with the other chairmen, persuading and cajoling them of his viewpoint.

I would personally be in favour of the current RFL proposal if there was more money available in the sport. But my concern is that in 3-4 years time we will end up with the two interlinked divisions, both short of cash, and both turning semi-professional as the Sky pot of money is shared out across both divisions by a governance committee comprising reps from both. The trouble at the moment, is that the available money is insufficient for SL as it stands; Salford nearly disappeared this year, Wakey are in a bad way, Cas are selling players and struggling, Hull KR are losing money, Widnes are looking for more directors (cash injection), London is not viable and Bradford are hardly cashed up.

Surely we need to fix what we currently have before moving on to a 'whole game' view ?

Quote ="Winslade's Offload"Yes, but unfortunately, Hetherington is not exactly renowned for telling the truth is he ? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5754990'" Read all about it - "businessman economical with the truth" -shock horror...

Quote ="Winslade's Offload"Yes, but unfortunately, Hetherington is not exactly renowned for telling the truth is he ? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5754990'" Read all about it - "businessman economical with the truth" -shock horror...

www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Revealed ... story.html

www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Revealed ... story.html

I am not a legal expert but words such as [isources, perceived, has been told, feel, understands, understood, uncomfirmed, suggestions, believed, believe[/i do not constitute reasons.

My post was in general interest to the title of the thread and not in response to your post.

No, but the combined investment of Davy, Moran, Hudgell, McManus plus what Lenagan probably waved goodbye to in London doesn't quite equate to my understanding of selfish and self interested either. Some of these guys have picked up important member clubs from years/decades of decline and shovelled money and time into them. They can't be treated and spoken of as a bunch of ******s.