As redeverready says how could Bulls vote in any case and if they could which way would it be.
6 clubs walk out + Bulls unknown status = 50% of current SL clubs.
If a vote did take place we could end up with a similar situation to the government(s) of the UK - i.e. not representative of the majority and incapable of understanding what is best for the majority.

I don't know the exact the wording of that vote but it could it be that they were expected to vote to be either shot or hung and they would prefer neither.

What about the clubs that didn't even then up for the meeting ???

Maybe they didn't want to be shot of hung.

It really wouldn't surprise me if the RFL attempted to push this through prior to the Bulls being accepted for next year, as they may have put increased pressure on the new owners to vote for the option set by the RFL (almost like a condition of ratification).

If they had waited until after the World Cup, the Bulls would have already been ratified, and the new owners would be able to vote as they wanted.

I would be extremely surprised if this was the case, but the RFL do work in mysterious ways!

What about the clubs that didn't even then up for the meeting ???Maybe they didn't want to be shot of hung.

Anyone about to translate this?

While we're expected to break even on half the central funding despite being a new venture these greedy b'stards can literally go and f themselves for the damage this is causing. Simpy to feather their own clubs nests

Very interesting interview with Hetherington on Radio Leeds, it's still available on catch up apparently. In his damning indictment of the 6, among other things, he said all Championship, Championship 1 & SL clubs had agreed to the changes they had been discussing for the last year. The 6 also want a place on the independent executive or governing body of the RL.

Any chance of a rough idea of day, time, show, etc?

audioboo.fm/WestYorkshireSport

audioboo.fm/WestYorkshireSport

Quote: tigertot "Very interesting interview with Hetherington on Radio Leeds, it's still available on catch up apparently. In his damning indictment of the 6, among other things, he said all Championship, Championship 1 & SL clubs had agreed to the changes they had been discussing for the last year. The 6 also want a place on the independent executive or governing body of the RL.'" Yes, but unfortunately, Hetherington is not exactly renowned for telling the truth is he ? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5754990

Quote: tigertot "Very interesting interview with Hetherington on Radio Leeds, it's still available on catch up apparently. In his damning indictment of the 6, among other things, he said all Championship, Championship 1 & SL clubs had agreed to the changes they had been discussing for the last year. The 6 also want a place on the independent executive or governing body of the RL.'" Yes, but unfortunately, Hetherington is not exactly renowned for telling the truth is he ? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5754990

I'm struggling to see anything in that article to be critical off GH about.

This is on the Wigan board,

[i"Pearson said that the meeting was called at short notice and the clubs weren't expecting the restructure to be on the agenda as all had agreed it should be delayed until after the WC. McManus was away, the Castleford CEO was 'very ill', Bradford had no vote as the new owners haven't been ratified yet, and it was clear that Heatherington had the Leeds, Wakey, and Widnes votes in his pocket.

It was a dead-set ambush attempt and the 6 who walked out were having no part of it. Kath Hetherington appears to have been representing Wakey in some way, although it's not clear how. James Rule, a very close friend and confidant of the above 2 was representing Widnes. And in case you missed it, Pearson wasn't alone with his concerns. There were 6 clubs who felt they were being set up.

Even if you want to dismiss these concerns as paranoia it seems inappropriate at best to spring a vote on such an important issue at a meeting where it wasn't on the circulated agenda and 3 clubs (Saints, Bradford, Castleford) weren't in a position to to make a decisive vote - one not being able to vote at all."[/i

Civil war!

Is it me, or does Hetherington look pretty bad on this issue, it's almost like he knew the agenda prior to the meeting, and the quotes after the 'walk out' are beginning to make him look like a bitter child?

Hull FC had a fans forum last night, interesting comments from Pearson on their forum thread...



Interesting that Hetherington's previous comments state that there was a minority of 6 SL clubs that walked out of voting, but refused to mention that Saints we're not present, a Cas owner was not present (very ill) and Bradford did not have a right to vote.

So, potentially the 6 v 8 (minority vs majority) could easily become 9 v 5 (assuming Bulls, Saints and Cas vote no). I mentioned earlier that Hetherington and the RFL are playing with words in the press, looks like they fail to paint the full picture to the tabloids.

I don't believe there will be any winners in this fiasco, just one loser - RL.

I don't believe the situation is black and white either. The RL chairmen will undoubtedly be biased towards their own clubs fortune. And some chairmen appear to act in a rather 'bizarre' fashion, to put it mildly. The RFL does take a 'whole game' view, which is essential for the sport, but they do not come out of this well either. The sport desperately needs more cash and they have singularly failed to get a sponsor for SL - that is a shockingly bad result.

So what I am saying is that simply taking a 'two legs bad, four legs good' view on this situation and picking a side is not helpful. Neither is Hetherington's mouthing off to the press, at a time when all sides need to be staying well away from the media and concentrating on finding a solution - at the very least it's highly unprofessional. If he is genuinely concerned about RL then he should be quietly talking with the other chairmen, persuading and cajoling them of his viewpoint.

I would personally be in favour of the current RFL proposal if there was more money available in the sport. But my concern is that in 3-4 years time we will end up with the two interlinked divisions, both short of cash, and both turning semi-professional as the Sky pot of money is shared out across both divisions by a governance committee comprising reps from both. The trouble at the moment, is that the available money is insufficient for SL as it stands; Salford nearly disappeared this year, Wakey are in a bad way, Cas are selling players and struggling, Hull KR are losing money, Widnes are looking for more directors (cash injection), London is not viable and Bradford are hardly cashed up.

Surely we need to fix what we currently have before moving on to a 'whole game' view ?