I have been thinking about this and there can only be 2 things going on here.

1 Adam Pearson is lying which in itself is a concern as we cannot have one SL club cast false accusation towards another. If this is true the RFL and Gary Hetherington really have no choice but to make at least a statement saying such as mud sticks. So far no statement at all and the longer that goes on the more likely that what is actually going on is.
2 The RFL and Gary Hetherington tried to stitch up a vote at a SL meeting which is quite frankly alarming and should have EVERY logical RL fan's alarm bells ringing loud and clear.
If it is true I cannot understand how the RFL could be so stupid as it pretty much means they have just signed their own death warrant, I mean seriously did they think it would never get out what they did?
Hell even if it had been passed how would it have stood up to any scrutiny at all?

No need to go to BT. If the 6 walk, they'll win, simple as that. Sky would pull the plug on the rump left behind as soon as contracts allowed, so the remaining clubs would see the writing on the wall and start jumping in with the rebels, who ultimately would end up with the Sky deal and control of top-level RL. It won't actually happen, because the opponents of the 6 know deep down that they'd finish up on the losing side, so in the end they'll compromise.

I find it difficult to comprehend the elitist attitude of a few SL clubs. If this was "establishment " RU then it would be understandable but RL???
They are ,IMO, going to succeed where the RFU failed in delivering the final blow to a system already shown to be unworkable .
Successful RLWC or not the game is teetering on the edge and needs radical change at ALL levels. The 3 monkeys approach is no longer a viable option.

Don't think you can have two votes!

In a league of 14, then 5 clubs can't win.

In most situations (and I've heard nothing to indicate the SL meetings would veer from this norm) all parties at the table have a vote. In this case the 14 SL clubs [iand[/i the RFL representative - Barwick. Usually, if all were present, all decisions would be carried one way or another as there are 15 - an odd number - voters. If some parties are missing and the vote is an even split, for example 6:6 as was the likely case on Wednesday, then the Chair - in this case Barwick - has a second, casting vote which carries the motion.

So, alarmingly, you can have a situation such as happened on Wednesday with 2 absentees and an exclusion meaning 12 were round the table, where 5 SL clubs (3 of which are from the same 'stable', so to speak) can, with the support of the RFL, defeat the other 9. That's why the meeting had to be made inquorate via the enforced walkout.

Where were you lot, btw?

Maybe it is survivalist rather than elitist? SL brings in the money to the game. Without ten or twelve or fourteen (whatever is manageable with funds available) sustainable clubs with resources to market themselves, develop players, retain star players and fill stadiums then RL is not going to survive as a prof code. Cut off the head and the body soon dies. Try getting kids to play the game with no SL clubs to dream of one day playing for.

For me ALL of the sky money should go to The running of SL inc it's own marketing and corporate support team. The money the rfl generates from challenge cup, internationals and other funding sources should go to the running of the rest of the game.

What a stupid post.

Your seriously suggesting that six clubs are the be all and end all of the game?

Of the six, one is on it's Harris financially, another had to merge with another club to survive and run by a know not, and another club not even from the UK.

You must have just being fishing.

Which club is on it's Harris?

That is true, but the walkouts didn't want to reject a 12 team league, they want a new structure together with a change in governance. the Hetherington faction sprang a vote whereby both options for and against were not what the walkouts wanted, the strategy was spring a vote where the only option to our favoured option is less acceptable. Had the six stayed and voted against and won that vote then there would be no restructure at all.

Why was this all accelerated when the RFL had written to all Super League clubs confirming the issue was deferred until after the World Cup? A cynic might suggest that while London and Bradford are awaiting RFL decisions then those vote are not going to go against the RFL.

Hetherington gambled and lost, which probably means his influence will be at least temporarily diminished, but he will get on with running Leeds very efficiently. Barwick also gambled and lost, I struggle to see that his position is tenable, he has gone from being a new figurehead that the game could have united behind, to a divisive figure that at least 6 major clubs do not trust, that would be half of a 12 team super league

The Rugby League Council is the supreme governing body in RL in the UK. The Council EGM planned for 9th October to vote on a revised structure/distribution of Sky money was postponed by the RFL Executive until after the World Cup at the request of the Wigan and some other SL club chairmen TO ALLOW FURTHER TIME FOR CONSULTATION.

The SL clubs have their own organisation (SL(E) Ltd) (and they choose to have the same board as the RFL itself (therefore presumably getting the services of Nigel Wood etc for free as they are already paid by the RFL). The SL clubs had a routine meeting last week - so what's surprising/wrong with using that as a consultation forum in advance of a reconvened full RFL Council meeting after the World Cup which is where the final decisions will be made?

If AP is right it wasn't a consultation but a vote and a rigged one at that. Hope this clarifies it for you.

Like it or not AS, that's the formal consultation done. We'll just see how the voting on the restructure/allocation of Sky money goes when the full RFL Council meeting is re-convened in December.

To me that view would show that already the clubs know the lay of the land if survival is the best option. In that case all the professional clubs are teetering on the edge, which was one of my points



If only the clubs could market themselves. I don't think most clubs have a clue about marketing and see it as money that could be spent elsewhere. Also marketing can be done without major financial outlays IF you know how to go about it. History shows that clubs really do not know how



Well some clubs do but to train and develop players is hard work and it is easier to sign "the finished product". When the SL clubs cried that they couldn't afford to run their reserve/academy teams and could they send their players to the championship clubs it blew that idea of really meaning development out of the water IMO.



I suppose that depends on what you class as a "star" player. A successful team is one that can balance the abilities and weaknesses of all the players. If they all pull together to create a winning team who is the "star". IMO no one player is bigger than the team or club they play for but I also realise that there are a great number of mercenaries in most sports.



"If you build it, he will come"- Field of Dreams.
All the clubs with nice shiny new bogs, corporate facilities, ease (difficulty) of access and yet the stadia are not full. This is in spite of clubs quite openly stating that a new stadium would bring in the crowds. Again another example of clubs missing the key point of the game.



A fair comment but with without roots and a solid foundation to build upon then the whole edifice can come crashing down and it is the top that has the most inertia and hits the ground fastest and hardest.


Well as long as the SL clubs bend over backwards to find passport exempt players, have no development scheme of note, ignore completely their own amateur clubs in the area with no planned progression scheme then the clubs are making a rod for their own backs. The comment above regarding develop players is applicable



Well since 1996 they have had the chance to market their product and still............
If they are aiming for the corporate market, and no reason why not, they should still keep in mind the people who "invest" in the club on a weekly basis. They are not cash cows to be milked regularly and dismissed, which seems to be the case at a lot of clubs. That also ties in with the elitist attitude.



That is basically how the game was funded before the Sky deal. Money from media was comparatively small but RL still had clubs going to the wall, clubs with limited attendances, minimal marketing, player development etc. etc.
The game, IMO, somehow has managed to get and keep its priorities chaotic without a real plan that encompasses the WHOLE game in this country.
The whole game starts with a group of mums and dads getting a few children together and helping them play and understand the game. It goes through the years of development of the players and training /coaching into the ultimate pinnacle of representing your country.

We don't have that system, or if we do it is not well "marketed". The facilities that amateur teams and players play in are at times disgraceful. The coaching development scheme is blown out of the water by employing overseas coaches at the top level so where is the incentive? So much money has been WASTED on never were, never would be, 2nd rate, crocked, holidaying, pension seeking oceanic's the game lost what ever sensibilities it had but still continues down that road



Yes I am angry that the game I was brought up with is in the situation it is. It never has been perfect and probably never will be but others have redeveloped and moved on, other sports have done the same but RL seems to be going the other way. It has had so many opportunities and failed.

This latest "restructure" of the game in this country is a great opportunity again to make RL live up to "The Greatest game on Earth". My worry is that they will make a total Horlicks of it again.

This is the major problem the RFL have their own governing board, whilst the SL don,t have any club representation on there own governing board, giving the public view that the 2 boards are as one.....the RFL.
Its time for the club owners to administrate and control there own governing body, if last weeks meeting was a SL one then the clubs have walked out on themselves.

No it isnt, the rebels want on paper details of exactly how all this will work, not just a quick chat at a meeting

The RFL s record on dealing with loopholes is very poor , it is that what the rebels want sorting , the RFL have offered the Championship Clubs an extra 300 K for making next years GF, is that extra money from the SL pot or does it mean the other cChampionship Clubs will hen get less?

Lots of questions, no answers, that is the issue here

I think you need to go and look up what a consultation actually is.
What it isn't is one party saying 'Oh you know that thing we are not going to talk about? Well we are going to have a vote NOW' and the other party just getting up and walking out.

is interested, but 6 is no good, we'll do it only if you've got 10 clubs minimum" ) other clubs would join a rapidly growing 6, and basically, it would almost certainly end up back with Sky. With Leeds in it of course - they're not seriously going to hold out and play in a weak competition with no serious TV rights.

Nobody is suggesting a 6 team comp is viable - what I'm saying is that 6 teams at this stage is a good start in the mission of taking control away from the RFL (which isn't actually what I want to see - I want to see control taken away from the *current leadership* of the RFL, and a reformed RFL) and if the RFL don't budge, then I know who my money's on when it comes to who wins the battle of nerves. Of course, there's no need to take control away from the RFL if they make the changes so badly needed, which is what I actually predict will happen, hopefully with new leadership.

So far as I am aware, the only change the leader of the SL clubs' revolt is alleged to want is Rimmer to replace Wood as CEO.

Then again you also seem to think that one party dropping a surprise vote in a meeting and another party walking out is a consultation so.....

Who's this leader ?

Sorry to pick on this post but having flicked through this thread its obvious that barely anyone commenting has any idea of what the Corporate Governance structures are for 'the RFL' and 'Super Leage Europe' and then the relationships between the different structures never mid the path dependency hat has formed those structures. Each will have a constitution and most likley, some form of scheme of delegation defining what the executive function can or cannot do. More so, how many people commenting here have any experience of how a Corporate Governance landscape like this actually functions...???

When people on here talk about 'the RFL' they mean the executive most of the time - but at other times they're refering to them as a 'Board' - in Corporate Governance terms we are talking about two very very different things! In 'rugby league land' it seems we've got to the point of a shared executive serving multiple Governance stuctures for different bodies, each wanting different things; in my view, it is always exceptionally difficult for the executive in this scenario. I'd add its not uncommon for Board members, as is their right, to raise things at a Board even when the Executive believe it's not something for the agenda on that occasion.

One other thing to add is that people need to think back to how Governance structures came to be...the current 'settlement' betwene the top clubs (constituted as Super League Europe?) and the wider game (which includes those Super League Europe clubs as members) was presumably on the basis that there was some form of sharing of resource between one aspect and the other. If that was constituted then its the responsibility of some people to protect it...they could have a different personal view (and this is often the case for Executives in organisations) but they hold a position requiring them to maintain what was constituted.