The restructuring proposals (and related split of sky money) will be put the the clubs at the rearranged RFL Council meeting after the World Cup. Anybody know for certain the voting system? Ie I think SL Clubs get 4 votes and all other clubs in the Championships get just one vote each. I make that 24 votes against (the 6 rebel SL clubs) and about 53 in favour. Do the proposals need just 50% of the votes or is it something like 2/3rds or 75%?

At the Hull FC fans forum Pearson has just said we have concerns with the way game is being run and we won't be pressured into a hurried vote. Says Gary Hetherington has had 17 years helping run game and time other clubs had a say and he won't get an apology

Said 6 of the clubs have grave concerns and another (St Helens were not around to vote. Pick up again after World Cup

Why? Is Pearson going to take Leeds to another tribunal? Then bitch and whine like a tart when he loses?

You're normally quite sensible. This is a little bit silly and childish isn't it?

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.

If you look beyond the talk, and despite the protestations of some, Pearson has hardly shown himself to be a transformational figure in RL club ownership



He appears to be another who can't walk the walk: and it [iis[/i instructional. For all their whining and finger pointing, so many of these people appear to fall into the gutterfax trap of claiming how easy it is to run a Rugby League club, to get sold out crowds or huge sponsorship deals. And, by extension, how simple those same things should be at RFL level. Yet they fail to offer realistic or informed or proven strategies for the way forward.

No doubt there are issues with the RFL and with senior RFL management but the black and white way it is painted by some protagonists, resulting in their childish behaviour, does little to enhance their credibility for being the sources of solutions to the game's age-old challenges.

Was he wearing his tin foil hat?

Gary Hetherington is the Leeds vote.

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.

Probably

I just enjoy having a go at Adam Pearson


But it was a routine meeting, and i thought the reasons for them walking out was that they want a change to the RFL? If it was just a problem with the meeting why did they turn up in the first place?
It just seems like some club owners/CEO's trying to force change in the RFL. Which on its own isn't particularly an issue, I'd probably agree with them. But if that's the case then why haven't they come out and said what they want and why does it need to be tied to the vote on the structure of the leagues? Either the structure is good or it's not. Any structure relies on adequate, fair, appropriate funding from the RFL so I just don't see the need to hold one big decision (whichever way they feel) to ransom.

Answer me a question please.
Do you agree that the RFL want this passing if they can do it whilst saving their own skins?

It was [imeant[/i to be a routine meeting, and then out of the blue a vote was called on league structure - despite it being agreed that no such vote should take place until after the WC. This at a meeting where Saints and Bradford couldn't vote (some doubt over Castleford as well). Is t any wonder that the 6 felt that they were being ambushed?

And they [ihave[/i come out and said what they want. Several times.

The reason for tying it to the vote on structure is that the 6 clubs feel that tinkering with structure without addressing the core issues of governance and commercial activities will achieve nothing. A view I'm inclined to agree with. They're being asked to buy into the new structure with little or no detail on how it will all be financed, despite asking for this several times. And they have zero confidence that the RFL will carry out the requested review once they have the vote on structure that they want.

It's a mess. One that has been brewing for at least the last couple of years. Sadly I have no confidence that a a solution can be found that will actually take the game forward and really address the core issues.

Isn't the eventual vote to be on which structure to be implemented? I thought there were 3 proposals? The split, a 12 team with P&R and a 10 team.
It seems the RFL favour the split. But wasn't the vote at this meeting to agree a reduction from 14 to 12 teams? So all it would do is count out the 10 team proposal rather than deciding which proposal to go with?

But yes I think they want the split passing eventually. But that has to be done through a vote, in which clubs can vote for or against it, and as far as I know, this meeting and vote wasn't that.

The key words I used were 'saving their own skins'
Put it another way if the RFL agree to a real change to the governance to the RFL tomorrow I will bet a pound to a bucket of pig **** that the rebels will be back around the table by Tuesday and an agreement would be found.

So no Bradford and St Helens, so at worst an even split and, if no Cas either, they were surely in the majority? Yet they still walked out?

As mentioned I have no sympathy with Saints or Cas if they didn't send a representative at all. Bradford is tricky I agree.

Have they? I haven't seen what they've wanted with regard RFL governance etc or the league structure for that matter other than they're not happy.

I'd agree that for any system to be successful the RFL governance and commercial activities have to be right. In which case what's the harm in picking the best structure, whatever they think that may be. And then deal with the RFL. IIRC the RFL spelt out what the split of monies would be under the 8-8-8 proposal on their website. I still don't see why the 2 issues need to be conflated.

I definitely agree its a mess. One compounded, at least, by a weak RFL. This should have been sorted months ago and whatever system agreed upon (whether I agree with it or not) so we can move forward united in to the World Cup, and everyone knows where they stand. It's ridiculous that we don't yet know how many, if any, teams will be relegated next season or things like salary caps and funding for 2015 making it difficult for clubs to commit to expenditure.
I know, for instance, Leeds have held off some refurbishments until it's sorted and they know what they'll be getting in funding. Which might, at least in part, explain some of Darth's exasperation.

It's not clear that they didn't send representatives at all, just that the Chairmen were absent or not in a position to vote. And any substitute attendee would not have been prepped to vote on structure as [iit wasn't on the agenda[/i.

You can't just drop a vote of such significance on a meeting with zero notice, no matter what business you're in. It's unprofessional at best.

Is it true that the walkout clubs are looking for a reduction to a 10 team Superleague with all the Sky money split between the 10 clubs?

Furthermore is it true Sky are offering the sport more money if the two twelves split into 3 x 8 format is implemented?

Neither. Next.

It's what I heard that's why I'm asking the questions. I suppose it will all come out in the wash.

Adam Pearson said tonight that he would like 2 leagues of 12 with one up and one down to give championship teams a hope of making it to the top league . He also stated its ridiculous that clubs don't even know how much sky actual pay the rfl ( so no one knows how much red hall keep them selfs)

Presumably Sts had sent apologies (think Chairman is on holiday so this absence would have been expected?), the Bradford non-participation was also expected, obviously. The Cas Chairman's illness may have been unexpected.

If the RFL believed Cas would vote with them (debt?) that leaves six for and six against. The RFL's casting vote would've carried it. Worst case scenario and the Cas absence was also pre-empted then the vote would've been five for and six against. The RFL's casting vote would still have carried it.

Stinks. Vote of no-confidence on the agenda at next month's "regular and routine" meeting would not be out of order.

What makes you think Cas Tigers would vote on the RFL's side ? We owe them nothing.

This is the preference of the Hull KR chairman, which I have to say is risky as if you were to set up a new ten team competition it is very unlikely you would want two clubs from Hull in it.

Thought the meeting was a SL meeting. Barwick is also chairman of SL isn't he and that was the hat he should of been wearing. The walkout was simply to stop the SL clubs voting. If Lenegan had majority support why walk out.

Thought the meeting was a SL meeting. Barwick is also chairman of SL isn't he and that was the hat he should of been wearing. The walkout was simply to stop the SL clubs voting. If Lenegan had majority support why walk out.

I agree that is the hat he SHOULD have been wearing but the info would indicate that he wasn't.
The RFL are desperate to get this through whilst trying to save their own skins.
What better way to do it then whilst all the opponents are not in place, Even better to then slag the 6 off whilst failing to mention key facts (Surprise vote, 2 clubs not in a real position to vote due to not being prepared for the surprise vote and the fact that another club DOESN'T even have a vote).
Also let us not forget that the RFL made a statement in which the vote was going to be AFTER the WC.

I find it hard to believe that some obviously intelligent posters arn't asking a key question.
That being how is it ok for a governing body to stoop to such underhanded tactics to get a key vote through? Exactly what are they trying to achieve?

They want the vote through without a review of themselves because they know damn well they will be out due to their inability to do anything properly.