I can understand from a club point of view that if they have made medium / long term business planning & financial decisions (both infrastructure & on-field) based on a continuation of licensing, then they are right to question any change.

Perhaps 50% of SL clubs still live year by year and therefore aren't too bothered by any changes.

It's going to be an interesting week. So the RFL has finally realised they're doing a terrible job, but it looks like it's too little too late. The game needs a complete overhaul, not just some new three leagues of 8 rubbish... I do find it interesting that Leeds don't seem to be saying much in all this...

edited for a more true accuracy!

You can't move the goalposts so radically at such short notice. There's a lot of debate going on over the World Cup in Qatar. It's 9 years away. If the RFL were running it we'd probably be having meetings a few weeks before the tournament.

I think you're wrong.
All of the experts on here would have pointed out the pitfalls long before the vote in favour of Qatar, which does seem utterly ludicrous btw.

Whatever the pros and cons, this was just what we DIDN'T need in the build-up to the WC.

Well if the RFL want to press ahead with something several clubs disagree with the clubs didn't have much choice about acting now. If the RFL were hoping they 'd keep quiet until after the WC and thus implicitly accept whatever proposal the RFL want to implement in the meantime it looks like they misjudged that one.

Breakaway my arriss, the sport ain't big enough. It's also not big enough to be divided by policy ie franchising
I don't love the three eights but its better than we have, two tens is logical until we are capable of two twelves etc
I am glad everyone now feels franchising is dead forever

It's no surprise, a number of clubs believe a ten team SL with all the sky money being split between the lucky ten is the way it should be.

Whilst it is hard to argue the rfl are doing a good job running SL it is equally hard to have any faith in clubs who can't run themselves successfully having much more success!

A split in the game is the last thing we need, a new set up at rfl with some fresh ideas and new blood is the better way to go.

My tens would be £1.2m and 700k 27 games

Interesting.

Will sit back to see how it unfolds. What I find intriguing is the clubs that are allegedly unhappy. Nearly all the top clubs, in fact it is all the bg guns.

...Except for leeds.

What is Hetherington's agenda?

Aparrently Ian Lenegan has announced that the prize money for winning the Grand Final was £30k. Wire got £15k.

I'm not sure I get the point about prize money though. If IL wants more money for winning the GF, I can't see him getting 50% of RL chairmen to agree with that, so does he want a league of 4???

If the issue is the way the RL is being run by the RFL, well again what do they disagree with and are they prepared to see more SKY money go from the clubs into marketing??

I don't think there will be a split, although I can see them stopping reforms.

But if there was a split how would it market the game any better???

I'll wait to hear more, but if it's anything beyond clubs (my own included) serving more than their own self interest I would be very surprised.

£30k for winning super league ! It won't even pay the players wages for 1 week !

That statement from the RFL is ludicrous.

Whatever your views on licensing how on earth can they blame being too busy with licensing for their failure to market to game properly and obtain a main sponsor?

It is a very lame excuse and the two things are completely separate tasks. You have (or should have) a marketing and commercial department tasked with marketing the game and a separate compliance department that deals with the day to day running of the game.

And if they were so busy with licensing and micro-managing clubs how come this didn't prevent Bradford going bust?

I't just an excuse and if this is what the are coming out with no wonder some clubs want a vote of no confidence.

That document should be a resignation letter. Regardless of the pro’s and con’s of franchising, regardless of whether it is good or not or which side of the fence you are on with it the RFL’s competency to administer it should not be a consideration. That document is an admittance that the game may need to choose what to do not on what is the best format, but on what the RFL is competent to administer.

I was under the impression that the licensing system was meant to go toward ensuring clubs didn’t get themselves into difficulties in the first place. One could be forgiven for thinking that if that was the purpose it’s been a failure as far as number of clubs (including my own) have been concerned. The return of P&R would probably still see clubs go to the wall but it would I think leave that pathway open for clubs from lower divisions in a more transparent way. The arguments for P&R have been done to death and it’s not perfect but nor is the current fudged system where we seem to have the worst of all worlds with clubs still going out of business but with the top tier divorced from the rest of the game.

As for the possibility of a breakaway by SL clubs I’d hope that was just a scare tactic. The last thing the game needs is more fragmentation and self interest. The game needs to work together to ensure that commercial interests are maximised. That means clubs working with the governing body and international set up to agree a proper international calendar that is complemented by a well thought out, logical club fixture list and a cup competition that is the right time of the year to maximise supporter numbers and commercial opportunities. Self interest by clubs buggered up the international game and the cup and has left the game with its lowest profile ever. I’d say the clubs have rather a bad record on this front.

Then again, as somebody once said..."no such thing as bad publicity". Seriously, in our case, I don't see how this row will do much harm. Even if the press coverage is all about delighting in the 'turmoil' in RL, at least the fact that a World Cup is about to happen gets itself in the paper somehow. Not ideal, but not a major issue as far as the RLWC is concerned IMO.

Like it or not, the 21st century media is about image and not substance. Unfortunately this lot have neither.

So of the 7 clubs not potentially involved in a breakaway, London, Bradford, Castleford and Wakefield are financially insecure. Catalans probably have significant investment from french sponsors. Salford might jump onto the gravy train when the Doctor judges when the timing is right. That leaves Leeds up against some heavyweight, interesting developments to come to be sure.

Genuinely shocked by that.

That is entirely the point. How on earth can the RFL claim micro-managing clubs has prevented them from addressing the commercial issues the game faces while at the same time this mirco-management has clearly failed several clubs?

The bottom line is they failed to administer licensing properly and that has nothing to do with their failure on the commercial front.

Trying to link the two is pathetic IMO. It's just an excuse to deflect the criticism they can see coming.

Isn't Nigel Wood working for/at Salford in some capacity as well as at the RFL?

I was wondering why the outspoken critic of the RFL, the good Doctor, wasn't part of those in this group but that could explain it.

Wasn't it the clubs themselves who voted against the cold, hard cash from Betfair in favour of the trucks of Stobart?

(Clubs who perhaps were talking about morals or really just wanted to protect their own deals with bookies.)