So you would suggest in a general election the majority of those who vote should be ignored and the minority should get their preference instead???

I'm sure had the vote gone the other way with the same number of votes you would not be suggesting the majority should be ignored. Nope you would be saying the right choice was made and the ones who did not vote for it should get on board and stop causing fuss.

People always set aside a vote when it does not go their way.

Fair play, I thought I'd read that on here.

Big Mac has made himself loud and clear this time! perhaps he has joined the exclusive club of Big Nige and Hetherington.

Strange how Swiss football adopted the same structure, due to falling attendances, lack of major sponsors and TV problems, a little similar, but they had to drop the plan as it was a complete failure!

I'm not convinced that discussions have been held with Sky about the new structure, as it is rumoured talks are going on with BT, who just want to get everything to try and insure there system takes off.

Our new major sponsor for Super League, how many people have heard of them, yes they are the largest independent company, the same that made increases of 18% last year? and this year said people should take less showers and not drink as much tea and coffee to save power and money, we seem to like the desperate haha

Did Catalan abstain or just not turn up?

Swiss football used the system for 15 yrs i believe so hardly a complete failure

And of course the RFL have talked to sky about the new system, they both want the most marketable system and Sky have alot bigger marketing department. I'd be surprised if BT werent told too as negotiations will have begun even if Sky have a contract until the end of 2016, who has the deal for the championship and the P/R playoffs?

And finally, yes the new sponsor isn't Nike on 2 billion a year, but coming from a position of zero its ok considering the RFL have let all potential sponsors know they have been willing to give our sponsorship away for free

Someone posted that it had been scrapped after one year due to the poor attendances in the "2nd eight"
What else I find strange is that the coaches of Widnes and Bradford have come out against the plan, but their clubs voted for it.

It does make you wonder if the clubs have been offered a sweetener that is so good they would be foolish to refuse.

Return of reserves (ish), homegrown cap cap, and potentially marquee signing rule at a guess.

And for the lower clubs, increase from 5 to 7 for off quota.

I think the threat of relegation is what worries the coaches, much more pressure on their jobs! The chairmen can see the sense in it, and in Bradford's case their landlord may have suggested they vote for it

If we are saying that coaches should decide the structure then we would be in trouble.

Players and coaches have a vested personal financial interest in the outcomes of these decisions, so whilst their opinions are valid, they shouldn't be used as the foundation of any strategic decisions.

Not everything the RFL does is great, and not everything they do is incompetent, but they do have a recent track record of major decisions in each category.

From my view point, something had to change - not sure that system 888 achieves the outcomes that were needed, but I am prepared to give it a chance. I do suspect that in 3 years we will be going through the same process again, however.

If they (the RFL and the clubs) have the ability to market the additional 888 games properly there is no substantive reason why the system cannot work.

The difference between now and then is probably how the dosh is split between SL and the Championship i.e. last time SL was being asked to give up too much.

The Swiss FC gave a similar league structure a chance, to try and improve on attendances and sponsorship, but quickly changed back when it failed, I just wonder how long we will give it a chance, clubs should do what is best for the game, not just their own club and what Nigel wants, I still say with his failure over the past few year he should never been asked to do the report in the first place. I still feel that it should have been one club relegated and one promoted, that club should then keep their place for two season's, otherwise we are going to see clubs go bust, just trying to gain promotion!

Quickly changed back? I read it ran from 1988 to 2003. 15 yrs is hardly a quick change is it?
I do worry how London will go in the new structure. Is it better for them in the long term?

I feel that the move away from franchising and back to a form of promotion & relegation is a retrograde step, and will bring back the sort of panic-buying of journeymen plodders we used to have, at the expense of the bringing through of young players, which we've increasingly seen this last season.

Good news for the sort of player that big clubs tend to release in their early 20's because they're not good enough to make it at the top.