Isn't the eventual vote to be on which structure to be implemented? I thought there were 3 proposals? The split, a 12 team with P&R and a 10 team.
It seems the RFL favour the split. But wasn't the vote at this meeting to agree a reduction from 14 to 12 teams? So all it would do is count out the 10 team proposal rather than deciding which proposal to go with?

But yes I think they want the split passing eventually. But that has to be done through a vote, in which clubs can vote for or against it, and as far as I know, this meeting and vote wasn't that.

The key words I used were 'saving their own skins'
Put it another way if the RFL agree to a real change to the governance to the RFL tomorrow I will bet a pound to a bucket of pig **** that the rebels will be back around the table by Tuesday and an agreement would be found.

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?

As mentioned I have no sympathy with Saints or Cas if they didn't send a representative at all. Bradford is tricky I agree.

Have they? I haven't seen what they've wanted with regard RFL governance etc or the league structure for that matter other than they're not happy.

I'd agree that for any system to be successful the RFL governance and commercial activities have to be right. In which case what's the harm in picking the best structure, whatever they think that may be. And then deal with the RFL. IIRC the RFL spelt out what the split of monies would be under the 8-8-8 proposal on their website. I still don't see why the 2 issues need to be conflated.

I definitely agree its a mess. One compounded, at least, by a weak RFL. This should have been sorted months ago and whatever system agreed upon (whether I agree with it or not) so we can move forward united in to the World Cup, and everyone knows where they stand. It's ridiculous that we don't yet know how many, if any, teams will be relegated next season or things like salary caps and funding for 2015 making it difficult for clubs to commit to expenditure.
I know, for instance, Leeds have held off some refurbishments until it's sorted and they know what they'll be getting in funding. Which might, at least in part, explain some of Darth's exasperation.

It's not clear that they didn't send representatives at all, just that the Chairmen were absent or not in a position to vote. And any substitute attendee would not have been prepped to vote on structure as [iit wasn't on the agenda[/i.

You can't just drop a vote of such significance on a meeting with zero notice, no matter what business you're in. It's unprofessional at best.

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?

Furthermore is it true Sky are offering the sport more money if the two twelves split into 3 x 8 format is implemented?

Neither. Next.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.