It's the support of these people who you so denigate that has sustained and nourished this game since it's inception both here and in Australia.

The fact that the demographics of the game's supporters are changing somewhat to a more affluent social strata is proabably due to the sons, daughters and grandchildren of these original supporters who have become upwardly mobile due to their own efforts and the support of their parents and are taking their sporting preferences with them as they rise.

As a descendant of the denizens of a former mining town which was destroyed by the Grantham grocer who has ammassed a certain wealth, I would rather live there than Tunbridge Wells. The qualities of decency and moral fairness are so much better.

Given that you had a ready made supporter base around 14,000 and were gifted a brand new stadium by DW and are located in the middle of the most prolific group of amateur teams in the country, he was hardly starting from the depths of where, let's say, Featherstone, have had to build from.

Not easy, but one of the easier, clubs to lead to success than most. As I said, let me see him hand over Wigan to someone and take on a struggling team and transform it to a top class organisation and i will eat humble pie and bow to his leadership acumen.

It seems this debate is now the refuge of those who were hoping and praying for the down fall of the WC.

Now that's in the clear, it seems hoping and praying for the downfall of RL in the UK is the next best option.

The main sabateur of the WC would appear to be the said Lenagan with his ill timed rebellion getting the headlines just as the WC ticket sales and marketing and media efforts are getting into full flow.

Well Ken Davy took over tier 2 Huddersfield who have since 2006 reached 2 CC Finals + been in play offs for 5 years + produced 2 Man of Steels since2009 + won the league leaders shield shares ILs view. As does Hdgell who took HKR from tier 2 to 4 (?) consecutive play offs. As does McManus a very successful owner, As does Moran taking perennial under achieving Wolves to 3 CC wins + 2 GFs and LLS. Plus others!

There won't be a breakaway.
What there might be is a "Super League" corporate body, similar to the Premier League in soccer. They oversee the League and market it too.
IL and his colleagues believe SL can produce far more revenue than the RFL have been doing the past contracts with braodcasters, mostly SKY.
To set up a "Super League" with obvious links to the RFL seems the obvious way to go. Surely the RFL can't say they have done well in promoting RL and SL as the idea is preposterous. Whether IL and his fellow chairmen can improve the deals and revenue remains to be seen.
It does seem pretty improbable that Mr & Mrs Hetherington will be joining the other SL chairmen who want to improve the game.
They can't do any worse than the RFL has done in the past and probably will do very much better.

That is completely unfair, the so called rebel clubs could hardly raise concerns before recommendations were made, the timing of the release of the recommendations was down to the RFL, the a majority of SL clubs have raised concerns with seven putting their names to the Lenaghan letter. That does not make the staus Quo correct, but it does mean a different solution is required.

Despite stating they would say no more until after the World Cup the RFL have published the recommendation document, you should read it. I have read it and was surprised at the lack of reference to supportive data to findings and the number of unsupported opinions and speculation, often utilising phrases to the effect of "it can never be determined, however it is believed" with regard to key issues. Those opinions may be right or wrong, but in my work (with a US owned multi-national) we would never be allowed to make significant decisions based upon opinion rather than data.

I have always taken with a pinch of salt stories of RFL incompetance, but given the importance of the decision to be made I find that report unfeasibly poor, it simply does not stand up to scrutiny. I would add that lack of evidence does not make the recommendations wrong, it makes them unsupported opinions.

Frankly proper data is required, I think the best way forward would be an interim arrangement next year of 1 up 1 down whilst competant professionals are commissioned to collate reliable data and resulting proposals brought through at the end of the following season.

I repeat the RFL report is very poor and provides no compelling evidence to support any option.

He's had to make profits out of a club that don't win a stadium and therefore don't get revenue from hospitality, a supporters club, bars, food outlets etc.

He had to put up with several overpaid players on long terms contracts taking up a huge chunk of salary cap space whilst other, more deserving players were being underpaid.

He's made so many positive changes its been incredible and whilst it may be a big club doesn't make it an easy club to manage. The pressure of expectation sees to that and in a lot of ways its more difficult then running a team like Fev (your example).

This guy is a shrewd businessman and whilst everyone may not back him, if he'd been in charge of the RFL for the past few years the game would be in a far better position. He wouldn't be able to please everyone but he'd not try to please every man and his dog and he wouldn't let the clubs that contribute the least call the shots like has been allowed to happen for too long.

If Ian Lenegan is so shrewd and brilliant a businessman, why did he vote for the zero income Stobart sponsorship deal?

I'm no fan of the RFL but wasn't it those very same SL chairmen currently screaming the loudest who voted for the zero income sponsorship deal with Stobart, which has rendered Super League itself a zero sponsorship product?

Any sponsorship deal is better than no sponsorship deal - voting for the best of a bad bunch etc etc - doesn't mean there can't be complaints at the options put on the table

Stobart was not the only deal in town.

The 2x12 / 3x8 was recommended by KPMG.
The clubs voted in favour subject to the RFL Executive proposing a related split of Central funding .

KPMG simply did an analysis of the past no recommended structures such as the childish 3x 8 model. Even Hetherington has conceded that the rfl relied on 'soundings' and could not point to a single vote.

That doesn't mean it wasn't the best, the rfu could of offered £1 to have rugby union on every shirt in league And the rfl could say they had a cash offer on the table but the clubs voted against it

RFL executive very strongly recommended Stobart. SL gave them their backing, seems they are not going to repeat this error?

Did I miss the press release regarding 500,000 tickets being sold or the "sold out" signs up at any of the games? The last I heard was the RFL were postponing their EGM so they could concentrate on the RLWC...
As for the downfall of RL in the UK? I don't think anyone wants anything other than maybe a change at the RFL....fat Nigel has to go and he should take a few of the long term guys with him...the sport needs a major shake up.

The Wigan chairman is complaining about the lack of sponsorship income in the game and blaming the RFL, yet he voted for the zero income Stobart deal ahead of the £750,000 Betfair offer. Does Lenagan ever take responsibility for his own actions when it goes wrong? Does he always blame others instead?

Not all SL chairmen gave the zero-income Stobart deal their backing.

However, Ian Lenagan did give the zero-income Stobart deal his backing.

As did McManus of St Helens.

As did all those SL chairman who are currently bleating the loudest and blaming the RFL.

They also rejected 888 for engage (who offered less money), as they did betfair and stobart.

Maybe if the rfl could of convinced engage to renew or in fact any company who wouldn't be perceived to damage the brand of the sport they wouldn't of been forced to vote for a no cash deal!

If the clubs want to break away from the working class image and attract higher wealth sponsors for individual clubs (like Warrington and emirates supposedly), having a gambling company would be a nail in the coffin ...

Why is it so hard to understand brand and money need to be considered when agreeing sponsors - and the clubs can complain when there's not an option that can satisfy a little of both - not asking for a multimillion deal by a global company in a reputable industry - but a decent sized deal with a repeatable company shouldn't of been out of reach

So you want one bunch of not-fit-for-the-purpose morons to take over from another bunch of not-fit-for-the-purpose morons in the running of the game?

Oh, and if you want the sport to become attractive to demographics other than poorly-educated working class, then it might be an idea to express yourself in a fashion more appropriate.

Try... could have... wouldn't have... shouldn't have
instead of
could of... wouldn't of... shouldn't of.

Okay, I don't think at any point any of the clubs have said they want to have total control over the sport, just more of a say over its direction - that said you don't know how well or otherwise one group of people would run the sport over the current regime so for you to automatically write them off as not fit for purpose is merely conjecture

I'm not even going to bother to get into the audacity I had by writing of instead of have, as criminal as that is I didn't know my posts were being used to attract potential sponsors

You were the one who said poorly educated - Liverpool has one of the highest concentrations in the country for degrees, but are still looked upon as a working class city - you can be seen to be in a working class region with highly educated people in it - or are you just going to use my grammar and ignore my point again?

I'm glad you admit the rfl are not-fit-for-purpose and thus totally vindicate the reason why these complaints have been raised by the clubs.

The sport can and should be attracting better sponsorship options then they did - just because lenaghan or McManus or anyone else voted for it doesn't invalidate their point now.

Not true. Given only the Hetherington clubs supported the rfl plan there are plenty of clubs (pro and anti stobart) now blocking Wood's folly'.
As I said it is evident that many SL clubs have learned not to trust the rfl executive after the stobart debacle.( + the rfl buying odsal + the sport England funding losses).

I think some people need to go away and read the policy review document. It takes of whole or all game solutions, something IL appears to not want. Just wants to feather his own nest.

Theres none so blind as SL fans (alot of them anyway)

I'll reword that actually. Theres none so blind as Smokey and Gutterfax who care little for anything beyond their own clubs.....oh a bit like SL chairmen.