I have to say I am very impressed with todays statement from the RFL clarifying the changes around partnerships. They have had the guts to provide a very honest and open history as to how this mess started, and subsequently unfolded. If you require a black and white answer to the title, it's the SL chairmen.

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/27 ... -timelines

For those who do not wish to read the entire article;

1) In April, RFL asked to come up with a plan for the SL Academies.

2) "The recommendation from the Performance Department was that from 2014 Super League clubs adopt a clearly defined player development system featuring an under-23s reserve team and an Academy at under-18 or under-19 level. For 2013, the RFL Executive recommended that Super League continue with an under-20s Academy to provide adequate preparation for the new structure".

3) In July SL clubs reject the proposal. Only 3 support it (we know Wire, Saints but not 3rd club).

“The view of some Super League clubs was that the costs of running an under-23s Academy would be prohibitive whilst others stated their opinion that it was not an effective way of developing their players.

I assume the likes of Hull Kr and Salford couldn't afford it, and am almost certain that it was Hetherington who opposed it as a 'way of developing their players'

4) In September, by the time the RFL got around to talking to the Championship clubs;

" it emerged that many clubs had already entered into discussions – and in some cases made formal arrangements - with Super League clubs about partnerships".

5) November;

"A Guide to Partnerships’ detailing dual registration, partnership and the salary cap was circulated to all clubs in early November. This document highlighted some of the risks identified by the RFL Executive, including the possibility that some Super League clubs would have players who had nowhere to play".

In other words, the RFL were warning SL clubs that these changes would cause problems and should not be rushed through - but they ignored it.

I have to say I am very impressed with todays statement from the RFL clarifying the changes around partnerships. They have had the guts to provide a very honest and open history as to how this mess started, and subsequently unfolded. If you require a black and white answer to the title, it's the SL chairmen.

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/27 ... -timelines

For those who do not wish to read the entire article;

1) In April, RFL asked to come up with a plan for the SL Academies.

2) "The recommendation from the Performance Department was that from 2014 Super League clubs adopt a clearly defined player development system featuring an under-23s reserve team and an Academy at under-18 or under-19 level. For 2013, the RFL Executive recommended that Super League continue with an under-20s Academy to provide adequate preparation for the new structure".

3) In July SL clubs reject the proposal. Only 3 support it (we know Wire, Saints but not 3rd club).

“The view of some Super League clubs was that the costs of running an under-23s Academy would be prohibitive whilst others stated their opinion that it was not an effective way of developing their players.

I assume the likes of Hull Kr and Salford couldn't afford it, and am almost certain that it was Hetherington who opposed it as a 'way of developing their players'

4) In September, by the time the RFL got around to talking to the Championship clubs;

" it emerged that many clubs had already entered into discussions – and in some cases made formal arrangements - with Super League clubs about partnerships".

5) November;

"A Guide to Partnerships’ detailing dual registration, partnership and the salary cap was circulated to all clubs in early November. This document highlighted some of the risks identified by the RFL Executive, including the possibility that some Super League clubs would have players who had nowhere to play".

In other words, the RFL were warning SL clubs that these changes would cause problems and should not be rushed through - but they ignored it.