Who is confident in 6 'businessmen' who walk out of meetings to lead the charge into change?

It isnt change thats needed, its success and growth

Thing is lenaghan is the only one who has actually change the whole business around and made it a worthwhile business,the rest are not worth a toss.I may be a bit wrong on warrington.

How has Lenaghan actually "changed the whole business?".

He's kicked up a fuss and made a bit of noise, that's happened before it'll happen again, but nothing "business changing" as of yet.

You use the word "current" in a way that suggests you think 'change' is needed though.

So change is needed In your opinion.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.