You wont get shot down by me mate, I agree 100%, the next 6 months may well see RL become what it should be, a truly World Class sport administered by professionals, not a blazer club presided over by old men with old fashioned ideas.

we have a fantastic product on the pitch (as showcased by the World Cup matches this weekend) - it is is just criminally undersold by the RFL when there are people willing to invest in our sides and market the game in more effective ways!

Completely agree.

On the sponsorship issue and the problems associated with aligning with a betting company, simply donating a percentage of the money to a gambling awareness charity could have been an easy feel good fix and helped to fend off criticism. Too many other sports have jumped into bed with the gambling industry to be judgmental about it. Like it or not it has become a big part of sport in the last decade.

You wont get shot down by me,spot on post.

Beggars can’t be choosers and all that, we need sponsorship badly and add to that the additional publicity that a betting company can add to the sport with advertising ‘specials ‘ and the like. We should have jumped at it.
There are very few sponsors that won’t have a moral no go to them and if we’re being that choosy then we are completely lost.

I do fear for the game and adding the 8x8x8 will only make the sport into more of a novelty sport than ever. It just pangs of desperation and amateurism.

Meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday).

.

hetheringto pleading with the rebel clubs to change their minds and accept the proposals, i do hope Pearson and the other 5 chairman hold out and tell him to do one!

I completely agree both RL Papers have now consulted with the fans and found a vast majority against but the fact is they'll take no notice of us, we'll get no chance to have our say, Pearson, Hudge and Co have fought a good fight but Gary and Kath will I believe win the day in the end.

they need at least 10 members to vote it through.
so if Wigan,Warrington, Hull and Hull KR hold firm they only need one other defeat the proposal. that could be either Huddersfield or Salford as i think Saints will fall in to the so called line.

How did the papers phrase the question? If it was only for or against, then it isn't necessarily very meaningful - as the 1up-and-down and franchising vote might be bigger together, but smaller individually. If it was a choice between the 2 options on the table or 3 8s only got 20% or something, then fair enough.

I think they've already agreed that there should be a change, which was clearly necessary. I think it might just be a straight majority/most votes thing.
The options being...

3 x 8
1 up and 1 down
Abstain

not according to the voting rules of the super league there has to be at least 10 votes in favour,
Its the same voting structure that scottish football has when they had issues on restructuring last year when 2 clubs stopped everything been sorted for nearly 4 months.

Quote ="sparky1963"not according to the voting rules of the super league there has to be at least 10 votes in favour, Its the same voting structure that scottish football has when they had issues on restructuring last year when 2 clubs stopped everything been sorted for nearly 4 months.'" To make a change, I think. But that was agreed last July. www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... ut-2043728 That articles and others indicated that it was just which of 2 changes the sport should go for, and the only sensible way to do that without risking stalemate (which we can't afford either), is a simple most votes approach. While it is an important battle, as I reckon NH and AP are genuinely very ambivalent about the system and deeply unhappy with the proposed division of Central revenue, there are other ways to bring about some of the changes in governance they want to see.

Quote ="sparky1963"not according to the voting rules of the super league there has to be at least 10 votes in favour, Its the same voting structure that scottish football has when they had issues on restructuring last year when 2 clubs stopped everything been sorted for nearly 4 months.'" To make a change, I think. But that was agreed last July. www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... ut-2043728 That articles and others indicated that it was just which of 2 changes the sport should go for, and the only sensible way to do that without risking stalemate (which we can't afford either), is a simple most votes approach. While it is an important battle, as I reckon NH and AP are genuinely very ambivalent about the system and deeply unhappy with the proposed division of Central revenue, there are other ways to bring about some of the changes in governance they want to see.

[url=http://s802.photobucket.com/user/pj761/media/Mobile%20Uploads/7CA2EA26-A030-4AA9-AB47-D38DE5C53483_zpsflfe1p2z.jpg.html[/url

I've got abad feeling about this tbh

Quote ="ccs"Meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday). .'" That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393

Quote ="ccs"Meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday). .'" That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393

Quote ="The Dentist Wilf"That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393'" To have got that first on the agenda is something of a result for Hudgell and Pearson. Personally I'm glad it is two separate meetings. Apparently if there is failure to agree a new structure, the temporary default is to stay at 14 with 2 up and 2 down. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... the-agenda

Quote ="The Dentist Wilf"That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393'" To have got that first on the agenda is something of a result for Hudgell and Pearson. Personally I'm glad it is two separate meetings. Apparently if there is failure to agree a new structure, the temporary default is to stay at 14 with 2 up and 2 down. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... the-agenda

Humberside this morning were suggesting that Pearson has changed his stance and will vote with the RFL!

Heard that as well and couldn't make sense of it. Even if not true it still looks like the 8 x 3 is going to get the green light. So many issues that I just don't see what the clubs think will be the benefit.

If AP has changed camps I would be very surprised, seemed so set on trying to force major change at the RFL. This wouldn't be the way to do it, would probably make the RFL stronger as again they will have gotten there own way.

Just my opinion but I think that's a distinct possibility he spoke strongly against it at the last forum but there are a lot of folks who are relatively new to the game who think its the best thing since sliced bread, they might be right, only time will tell, I support Hull FC whatever competition we play in and we have to get on with it, because one things for sure the Clubs in general and the RL were never going to consult the fans.

However if we do go to a 8x8x8 split, it will be hard one to sell and however much we all appear to embrace it many have bought seasons this year as one last throw of the dice to support Adam in whom everyone trusts but we had better have a well above average season because with the uncertainty about who you play at the end of the season in 2015, I can see a lot who are looking for an excuse to pick their matches doing just that, rather than buying seasons, then again I might be wrong too.

All you can do is stick by your Club I guess and hope we finish outside the bottom two this year and the bottom 4 next!

Or more likely, the issue itself wasn’t ever the structure, which should benefit a club like Hull if they perform to their potential but more about the governance structures so that when this structure inevitably fails in 3-5 years and makes Wood and Rimmers positions untenable, the SL clubs can call for a root and branch restructure of the RFL and seize more control for themselves. This seems a battle the SL clubs were always prepared to lose to win a larger war. The agreement on it will be unaninamous. It was always going to be.

It just should have been handled better by all sides in that there was no reason or benefit to the clubs setting themselves against each other when there doesnt seem much, if anything that wasnt a common goal. We just saw some wierd fist-banging, foot-stomping, pointlessly aggressive agreement.

I am very much more in favour of the 12 x 2 8 x 3 structure as opposed to boom and bust straight P&R. I do recognise that there is far more to it than simply saying this is the way its going to be. Financially the top 4 in the Championship need some leeway or assistance in order to compete with the bottom 4 of SL. But I do feel its far better than winning a competition in October and expecting to put together a competitive squad that will avoid relagation by February. I know its been done in the past, but more often than not the promoted team gets relegated. Even when we have had more than 1 promoted. I recall 1976 when we were promoted as champions with 3 other clubs. We were all relegated the following year.
I believe the 8 x 3 allows the top championship sides to develop over time in order to establish themselves in the top flight. But hey I know that I am in a minority.

Moving on though, I think the issue that AP and Hudge etc have with the RFL is the promotion, marketing and general commercial value of the competition. It is so badly under valued and needs better direction. In order for that to happen agreement has to be made on the structure be it P&R or 8x3 and from there the brains in all the clubs get working to maximise the commercial revenue. Hopefully any compromise that may have been reached will lead to the commercial side getting better and the sport being able to progress. With that progression we can hopefully get to a situation where we don't have to back clubs that go into administration as we will let them fall behind and promote the stronger of the championship sides who can run proper businesses.

Just can't see that making any sense. Why throw away 5 years and risk the whole sport going bust when you could push for changes now if the clubs stayed strong as a collective. To few clubs with to much power and influence in the sport I'm afraid. Things need to change.

I agree with a lot of what you have said. Particularly think the way the game is marketed and run is not what it should be. The fact that the governing body are financially sound enough to regularly prop up and help struggling clubs would suggest that the balance is to far in the direction of the RFL in terms of how what revenue is available is split.

If 8 x 3 gives the sport and clubs a solid base to push for change and improve the governance of the sport I can see it working long term. There will be lots of issues in the near future though and can't help but think that the strongest voices in support are the ones with the most influence at present and the most to lose. That would suggest little will change.