But is that not the outcome of waiting to after the WC is we are waiting until December? Im not really being selective there, im not sure what difference it makes.

Look im not criticising clubs for walking out of a meeting or not voting for one structure or the other. What I am criticising is the fact these 6 clubs seem to have decided to walk out of that meeting, disrupt the restructure process, without actually clearly knowing what it is they want.

By all means we need restructure of the RFL, and to repeat myself (for a change) im not in favour of the changes proposed. I think they will be terrible. These 6 seem however to have somehow created an even worse situation and all sides seem to be ramping up the confrontation. I would have a lot more sympathy for the rebel 6 standpoint if they came out not now, probably not even a couple of weeks ago at the original postponed meeting, but 2/3 months ago when they got the detail had they come out and said
“we are in favour of this restructure in principle but we feel there needs to be an additional restructure of commercial decision making at SL level and also feel a place on the RFL board for SL would be appropriate, we do not feel that this proposed restructure can be successful without these additional changes and do not feel in a position to vote for them until that is the case”

That would be fine, everyone knows where the stand, everyone knows where they are and what needs to be done, everyone knows the hurdles to overcome and there is time for negotiations. Instead what seems to have happened is that we got 9/10ths of the way there, to what the RFL felt (rightly or wrongly) was a rubber stamping exercise only to find some clubs vehemently opposed to the changes, not because they don’t like the changes per se, but because they want something else, and that something else isn’t particularly clear, seems to change depending on who you talk to.

Whilst yes its entirely wrong for the RFL to push this vote on clubs this week, lets not pretend that the clubs waiting until this point to voice their demands wasn’t politicking in exactly the same way. I also think this escalation is pretty self-defeating from both sides because I expect that more than the 6 clubs who walked out actually agree with the demands of those clubs, they just differ in their attempts to get them.

Exactly this.

It seems irresponsible for the RFL to publicly state that the key decisions have been postponed until after the WC, yet then to try to force an unannounced vote through, and I can't understand why anyone would fail to see the fundamental problem with that. The word "setup" has been used and it looks that way to me, though it is much worse given the absence of the Saints and Cas chairmen, and the fact that while it substantially concerns Bradford, yet if a vote were taken before ratification, they cannot participate.

If anyone can support the ambush method of trying to force a vote on something formally put on the back burner just the other week, and in these circumstances (to say nothing of the concerns regarding just how much of that vote the Hetherington faction might control, then it is they who are being unreasonable. This decision and vote deserves the due process and discussion and consideration that the magnitude of the subject matter deserves. It did not justify the RFL trying to sneak through a plan, just because they smelled a serendipitous opportunity. And however much the proponents may whinge and moan, it would have been so plainly wrong for the RFL to perform such a volte face that I have to say anyone who says they don't see this point is just being disingenuous.

Can anyone answer if a vote at a SL meeting can change the structure of the whole game? If it can't then why did they walk out?

This is brilliant. what fantasy world do you live in?

1. Read your own post! They did not refer to a 'prefered' approach 12 months ago. as a result of Watkins Wood was to do a review. No detail nor indication of anything until May... So SL clubs and others had no idea what Nige would come up with until May so saying SL clubs had 12 months is daft.

2. they agreed on the implementation of Watkins. No three time vote as you claim. No formal recording of a SL vote only an informal indication of support for 12 teams - this has been interpreted by the hard of thinking as an endorsement for the whole sorry plan.

3.The SL clubs did not see the final proposal until Sept 27th. And early in the report it admits that many details will have to be completed later!The RFL were inept or trying to manipulate the process. its good practice to allow a decent amount of lead time before a significant vote, something the RFL struggle with.

Broadly only SL clubs can change the numbers in SL. As the RFL have this whole game monstrosity with a 12 team sl they cannot implement the plan without SL club agreement. Some SL clubs want changes in corporate governace / RFL decision making. (though people like GH are happy to leave to his mate Nige).Some SL clubs think these issues should be addressed now rather than left with Brian and Nige

Press reports say Barwick agreed to leave things for a month or so and then went back on his agreement. hard to 'leave things' with a person who flipflopped so quickly.

You are wasting your time.
They cannot see that actions of the RFL have just proved the point of the '6' in so much as it proves beyond doubt that they cannot be trusted to even stick to their own statements so how can they be trusted to run a sport.

Clubs were part of the investigations in to differing options post Watkins. They were aware change was coming immediately post Watkins because they were part of it. They then received the detail on or prior to May 13th.


In what is great irony. I actually only said that the 3 votes had been done on the reduction to 12 not the whole plan. and it was a formal but not binding vote on this in May, June and July.

Also, the constitution of Super League delegates the decision on its structure to the RFL but it needs a vote from SL(europe) to change the numbers. Because of this the vote on numbers has become in effect a vote on the whole plan. It was a vote on numbers which was put to clubs this week. This is why they walked out, not because they have a problem with the change to 12 (which they in the main agree) but because once that vote is taken they have no power over the restructure. The reason people see the vote for 12 as the vote for the whole plan is because in effect it is.

That doesn’t make any sense. The final proposal is always going to be completed near to the voting date. Why would there be a long lead in time for the final proposal? The initial proposal would be given a long lead time, but that lead time would be made up of discussion on the initial proposal to create the final proposal. Once the final proposal is complete what would you be waiting for? The bulk of the proposal would have been with you for a long time and you had part in discussion towards the final proposal. Once a final proposal is complete the time for digestion and negotiation is over, by its very definition the final proposal is final.

Well Warrington certainly raised its concerns back at the start of August. www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ney__RFL_/ I've seem nothing to suggest that the RFL have sought to address these concerns in the intervening three months. The RFL could hardly be surprised that Warrington are taking the stance they are.

Well Warrington certainly raised its concerns back at the start of August. www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ney__RFL_/ I've seem nothing to suggest that the RFL have sought to address these concerns in the intervening three months. The RFL could hardly be surprised that Warrington are taking the stance they are.

Quote ="Paul Youane"Well Warrington certainly raised its concerns back at the start of August. www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ney__RFL_/ I've seem nothing to suggest that the RFL have sought to address these concerns in the intervening three months. The RFL could hardly be surprised that Warrington are taking the stance they are.'" I said on another thread that credit to Wire they have been quite vocally in opposition to these proposals the whole way through. Another problem it highlights is that Wire’s problem with it doesn’t seem to be the same as Wigan’s problem with it, nor Hudds, Hull’s problem with it seems to be that Pearson hasn’t got over GH getting a couple over on him, Hull KR don’t seem to have been public about what their issue with and I assume Les Catalans just enjoyed storming out with some Gallic flair. From the other side we have seen Wire throw up some problems with it (things I agree with) but not a lot of solutions.

Quote ="Paul Youane"Well Warrington certainly raised its concerns back at the start of August. www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ney__RFL_/ I've seem nothing to suggest that the RFL have sought to address these concerns in the intervening three months. The RFL could hardly be surprised that Warrington are taking the stance they are.'" I said on another thread that credit to Wire they have been quite vocally in opposition to these proposals the whole way through. Another problem it highlights is that Wire’s problem with it doesn’t seem to be the same as Wigan’s problem with it, nor Hudds, Hull’s problem with it seems to be that Pearson hasn’t got over GH getting a couple over on him, Hull KR don’t seem to have been public about what their issue with and I assume Les Catalans just enjoyed storming out with some Gallic flair. From the other side we have seen Wire throw up some problems with it (things I agree with) but not a lot of solutions.

The RFL had agreed to delay an RFL vote until after the World Cup hadn't they?

Breakaway would be the best thing for all 14 clubs. Let the RFL build up the rest

Yep, that’s the spirit, I’m alright Jack.

Established fact? What would that be? Your opinion?


Err, no they haven't. Plenty has happened since then. The vote had been delayed until after the RLWC. You can't just go back on that and come out credible, and then further to that slate the clubs for being unhappy about this massive U-turn.


What have I made up exactly?

The established fact is that is that gary hetherington didn't appoint either kath hetherington nor James rule to their positions. Independent business owners did. And that Gary hetherington has publicly criticised the rfl

That their appointment and as such participation in this meeting was part of conspiracy from Gary hetherington to push through an RFL structure is, in my opinion laughable and childish. This is my opinion based on the established facts above.

What do you think Steve O'Connor and the board at Widnes think about allowing James rule to be told what to do by Gary hetherington? What about the board at Wakefield? They have appointed kath hetherington and paid her a good wage to be Gary's stooge? Or even Paul Caddick? You think he built a quarter of a billion pound empire by allowing people to use his businesses to forward their own ambitions?

This conspiracy doesn't even pass a little critical thought.

Plenty hasn't happened since the Vote was delayed. In fact post the delay until yesterday nothing happened. The delay, which you fail to mention was entirely down to these clubs refusal to participate in the established process, something they only decided two days before the rubber stamping and 4 months after they had been supplied with the detailed proposal.

First thing is to put a time limit on this - say 31st December 2013. If no agreement then the 6 should be excluded and the top 6 in the Championship promoted. The 6 walkers then will form the Super Duper League and court BT for TV rights. Simples.

Nowt, unlike Smokescreen who has fantasized this:

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in that he's not thick, merely being deliberately obtuse. Each club's individual preference for the format of the new structure is irrelevant - this was not the reason for the walkout. This action was taken because it was the only way to stop the Hetherington/RFL coup that was unfolding. The decision to defer the debate until after the WC was not a gentlemans' agreement. Each club Chair had been independently written to by the RFL confirming this postponement officially. The carpet was then whisked away barely a week later in an unprecedented volte-face. For the RFL to renege on this was clearly considered unconstitutional by the 6. Particularly as 3 teams were excluded from voting. Sneaky, beyond the pale and not the actions of a reputable organization.

Abstaining from voting would see the unethical 5 win, the only way to stop the bulldozing was to make the meeting inquorate. By leaving.

That's the issue, Smokescreen, see? Ah, but of course you do.

I wouldn't be surprised that by walking out of the meeting the six clubs took the number present at the meeting below the quorum required in Super League's constitution for a vote to be allowed. In so doing stopping the rail-roaded vote in it's tracks without being forced to either vote against the re-structuring proposals or abstain when in truth the clubs may actually be in favour of the proposals in isolation.

Quite a smart way of addressing the problem they faced from being "ambushed" with the vote without being forced to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Haha, yeah can see that happening.

In seriousness, wait until the clubs that arent happy release their statement and make their pitch, then pass judgement.

The one thing that is a certainty, is that the RFL has failed at many things, many times. No sane fan of RL in Europe would want things to carry on the way they have been.

Where have I said otherwise?


But I haven't said that's what happened, so for you to say that's what I have said has happened means that you've either thought it up yourself or heard it somewhere else.


[i"[uA majority of Super League clubs[/u have indicated an interest in further consultation on the detail of the proposals in order to reach the best solution.

These discussions will continue to positively progress [ubut all parties involved are unanimous in their belief [/uthat the key focus for Rugby League at this moment is staging a successful Rugby League World Cup 2013 and this should be the focus of the sport."[/i

Are these clubs the majority?

And if all clubs were unanimous in their belief that the World Cup should be the focus of the sport at the moment then why did they bring this up now when it wasn't agreed?

That is the RFL statement.

Exactly what happened.

I assume and hope a vote of no confidence in the RFL management will be on the agenda at next month's 'routine' SL meeting as a result of the Ethical 6 being forced into such extreme action to avoid this coup.

How would they have been 'railroaded'? Bradford, St Helens and Cas weren't there according to reports, so as a group of 6 they were in the majority.........

Edit. Stupid tablet - double post, sorry.

Ethical 6 against, 5 for plus Barwick's RFL casting vote - 6:6. Casting vote decides it, Heths and Co have it.

As I understand it, the SL clubs asked for more detail of how the proposed new structure will work, now having seen how poor the RFL have been in the past in dealing with new rules ( the salary cap both at SL and the Championship, springs to mind, let alone licencing from start to finish ) I think it is imperative that proper ' risk assessment/due dilligence is done this time

Ultimatley if this involves everything being put back a season, then so be it , RL cannot afford another failure