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).