I have been to 2 RL literature events as part of Ilkley Literature Festival. GH has been a punter in the audience at both. He is the only person from any pro club that I have recognised. To me that says a lot about him.

I'm I the only one who can see what has gone on here.

If the proposed reforms had gone to a majority vote, which is usually the way with these decisions, these six clubs would have been in the minority - proposal accepted, but by walking out of the meeting the vote could not take place, therefore the proposal is put on hold.

It's stalling tactics, that's all.

The thing is, thats what they wanted. Read the statement again. Even the RFL and Brian Barwick admit that the walk out was on the basis that [ithe six clubs blocked a vote to push through those proposals, on the basis that any debate on change should only take place alongside a review of the competition's commercial management and governance. [/i
The RFL tried to bounce them in to the vote, refusing to discuss the wider issues, It the RFL who seem unwilling to talk.

OK, so, on the face of it, walking out to prevent a vote you're going to lose from taking place doesn't seem like good form to anyone.

However, there are things in the background we don't know. What brought them to that conclusion.

What I am a little perturbed by though is how the terms of reference are set up. A simple majority (8-6) seems a fairly weak mandate for a fairly major change. Sometimes when people don't participate in democratic process you have to ask whether you should blame the people or whether some of the problem is created by the process. With more than a third of the parties clearly this unhappy with it, surely it should never have been bulldozered to a vote in the first place.

I would, even allowing for that, like to know whether the commercial management and governance issues are intrinsically linked to this vote, or whether they are separate negotiations - are they effectively doing a Republican Party and refusing to pass necessary legislation unless they get their way on something else.

In short, this all looks like a total shambles which doesn't reflect very well on the sport or any of the individuals from either side who are involved. This is separate from whether the changes themselves are the right changes, the deeper issue is about the process and intractable divisions.

It's also heartening (spot sarcasm) as ever that most fans will just blindly side with the person who runs their particular club.

Reading and from Wigan?

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you think? Genuinely interested as you do know a little bit about the game and are always happy to give your view on the quality of the British game.

I meant the wigan business.He should stick to running wigan

Im sure running one of the top teams, in a modern stadia, with a healthy crowd base and almost rabid fanbase to sell replica shirts etc to, combined with the teams history and brand visability to trade on is a REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY hard job.

Send him to Wakey, Cas etc and he'd be gone in a year.
(burnt at the stake, I reckon)

Not confident, no. But is this really at the heart of the dispute?
One proposal they were seeking to block was a reduction to 12 teams. As it stands, that proposal is currently backed by the likes of Wakey, Cas, Bulls who to me seem most at risk. That they're apparently backing it suggests they're less fearful of the implications than they are from the route the other 6 would prefer. Hetherington's implication is that championship sides are also resistant to the plans of the six; were I a Leigh fan I might be careful what I was wishing for.

from the article I quoted

""The RFL cannot sit in its ivory tower handing out assessments on clubs without also looking at its own performance. This issue should not be swept under the carpet.""

Whilst he is talking about the crusaders, the sentiment is very much the same... that the RFL's performance wasn't upto scratch.

The reason the clubs walked out in the first place was because they believe the RFL'S performance should be reviewed along side any changes made. and I assume that rather than let it get swept under the carpet they have stood up.. How else do they make the RFL listen? sometimes it takes drastic measures..

On the face of it, It's a "selfish" thing for the clubs to do. But we all know there could be much more to this than just greedy old Wigan/Warrington/Hull KR/Hull/Catalan/Huddersfield wanting it all their own way.


As I understand it any vote for the proposed changes was supposed to have been left until after the WC yet here we are a few days before the WC with clubs being hoodwinked into a possible vote. It will more than likely still get passed and this is all just stalling tactics.


Ultimately, We all know that the RFL are constantly making mistakes and selling our sport short at times.

Interesting point to note that the 6 bottom clubs in SL in 2013, who did not walk out of the meeting last night, all have debts with the RFL that could be called in at short notice. I wonder if that swayed their decision somewhat? Leeds didn’t walk out as it’s clear their chairmen is after the RFL top job in the future. Puzzled as to why saints didn’t walk too?

Its a valid point.

You make several unsubstantiated assumptions. You also claim to speak for everyone else. I can make up my own mind, thanks.

Im sorry but im gonna upset a lot of rhino fans but gh is a yes man. if the rfl told him to run through leeds naked he reckon he prob would!

at least our chairman nh is sticking up for our club and not rolling over baclwards and saying yes master to the rfl.

So what would you do if you were in the same position as a club chairman who was put in the same situation? That of having a really strong opposition to the proposed reforms. You honestly believe that the changes will be of a detriment to both your club and the sport as a whole.

What seems, on the face of it, a churlish and childish act may be one of last ditch desperation?

Unfortunately the RFL has deeply intertwined itself with many of the SL clubs to the point that they may influence the decision of such clubs if there were a vote like this. This also prevents all the clubs from braking away from its governing body should they think that it is no longer fit for purpose.

Maybe the RFL isn't as green as it is cabbage looking.

My chairman is bigger than your chairman and is going to duff you up, so there.

Grow up.

That's exactly how it seems to me. Whilst being castigated for walking out rather than talking through the issues, it seems more like they tried and failed with that.

With this coming on the back of the player's vote being quite negative about the way the game is being run, I think it's quite poor form that the RFL just seem to want to ignore the concerns being raised and plough on and force a vote that some are quite clearly not comfortable with.

I've said on the Hull board, I don't personally think that issues of this magnitude should be able to be passed with such a slender majority, anyway.

Thoroughly agree.

Frankly, whatever solution or proposal the RFL come up with it won't get voted through unless Lenegan gets some power and influence as a result.

He seems to be setting himself up as some sort of "saviour" of the game, but I've yet to hear any kind of positive or constructive proposal come out of his mouth. All he's done so far is rubbish the ideas that others have put forward, and that's easy.

It's coming up with a solution that is the hard bit, something Barwick and the RFL are at least trying to do.

How can you discuss commercial issues until you know exactly how your product is going to look come 2015? It is right that the league structure is sorted out first, then the in-fighting can begin over who gets what slice of the cake.

I think you may have over-estimated your capacity to upset people.

You don't upset. We just pity you, as a fool for believing that.

I am no longer a great fan of Hetherington for Leeds, and the reason been what I put on page one, as I believe too many times he puts the game before my club. For the game of Rugby League that's great.

The guy is innovative, has ideas way beyond others, and is prepared to take a risk to back himself on something. He is no way in this world a yes man to anyone or any organisation. He stands up for what he himself believes right, and is arrogant enough to want the credit for it. But that is exactly what the game needs running it.

This is now becoming the issue on the forums.

Ask most fans and they would think the issue is about TV money and the league structure and power. Its not its about how the game is run the new format would have been voted in last night if they also were allowed to discuss the RFL and Wood. Wood is now a dead duck so he should do the honorable thing and go. Some teams are scared for the future so will not break ranks especially the ones who have come out of trouble.

Seems that this was been railroaded in as fast as they could in an attempt to stop any issues of the RFL been discussed. RFL is not running Super League very well and most know this. Even the Salford owner says he has issues with RFL and Wood but is not bothered about the league format.

unlike one of your previous chairmen who liked bend over forwards over the couch and say yes master

I would be inclined to agree with pretty much all of this tbh , it is imperative that Mr Barwick is given the time and backing to put the RL house in order . This is by far the most important appointment in the recent history of the game , This man has forgotten more about administration of a top level sport than the likes of Lenaghan et al are ever likely to know . The sport could do a lot worse than get behind him and give him a chance to turn the organisation round .

Personally I disagree with this. If you wen't to a bank manager for a business loan, they wouldn't even let you through the door without a business plan. And this for me epitomises the problem the RFL have - they seem to be weak in the area of business sense and control. I think many of their proposals look very good on paper, but it all boils down to money in the end, and in particular how the Sky pot is divided out. It already appears to be far too small. Wakey are having to sell players, Cas are doing the same, Hull KR are losing money, Bradford are not exactly cashed up and London - well, London are London. So the danger with these proposals is that the insufficient pot of money is spread even further. That seems very risky to me. And the RFL proposals come at a time when they are not meeting their commercial obligation / commitment of finding a SL sponsor - that hardly inspires me with a great deal of confidence regarding their plans.