Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:02 pm  

Wirecutter wrote:

It's what I heard that's why I'm asking the questions. I suppose it will all come out in the wash.

Adam Pearson said tonight that he would like 2 leagues of 12 with one up and one down to give championship teams a hope of making it to the top league . He also stated its ridiculous that clubs don't even know how much sky actual pay the rfl ( so no one knows how much red hall keep them selfs)

Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:06 am  

Mr Dog wrote:

So no Bradford and St Helens, so at worst an even split and, if no Cas either, they were surely in the majority? Yet they still walked out?

Presumably Sts had sent apologies (think Chairman is on holiday so this absence would have been expected?), the Bradford non-participation was also expected, obviously. The Cas Chairman's illness may have been unexpected.

If the RFL believed Cas would vote with them (debt?) that leaves six for and six against. The RFL's casting vote would've carried it. Worst case scenario and the Cas absence was also pre-empted then the vote would've been five for and six against. The RFL's casting vote would still have carried it.

Stinks. Vote of no-confidence on the agenda at next month's "regular and routine" meeting would not be out of order.

Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:03 am  

What makes you think Cas Tigers would vote on the RFL's side ? We owe them nothing.

Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:16 am  

Wirecutter wrote:

Is it true that the walkout clubs are looking for a reduction to a 10 team Superleague with all the Sky money split between the 10 clubs?

This is the preference of the Hull KR chairman, which I have to say is risky as if you were to set up a new ten team competition it is very unlikely you would want two clubs from Hull in it.

Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:17 am  

Thought the meeting was a SL meeting. Barwick is also chairman of SL isn't he and that was the hat he should of been wearing. The walkout was simply to stop the SL clubs voting. If Lenegan had majority support why walk out.

Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:17 am  

Thought the meeting was a SL meeting. Barwick is also chairman of SL isn't he and that was the hat he should of been wearing. The walkout was simply to stop the SL clubs voting. If Lenegan had majority support why walk out.

Re: SL clubs unhappy with RFL : Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:12 am  

DemonUK wrote:

Thought the meeting was a SL meeting. Barwick is also chairman of SL isn't he and that was the hat he should of been wearing. The walkout was simply to stop the SL clubs voting. If Lenegan had majority support why walk out.

I agree that is the hat he SHOULD have been wearing but the info would indicate that he wasn't.
The RFL are desperate to get this through whilst trying to save their own skins.
What better way to do it then whilst all the opponents are not in place, Even better to then slag the 6 off whilst failing to mention key facts (Surprise vote, 2 clubs not in a real position to vote due to not being prepared for the surprise vote and the fact that another club DOESN'T even have a vote).
Also let us not forget that the RFL made a statement in which the vote was going to be AFTER the WC.

I find it hard to believe that some obviously intelligent posters arn't asking a key question.
That being how is it ok for a governing body to stoop to such underhanded tactics to get a key vote through? Exactly what are they trying to achieve?

They want the vote through without a review of themselves because they know damn well they will be out due to their inability to do anything properly.