the initial thoughts based on the article are 3 clubs propose changes, but then 2 of them vote against it??

it feels like yet another case of tail wagging the dog

i'll be honest looking at the points, i dont like them all, however, surely there must be some debate and opportunity to accept / reject or modify each individual element within a clubs board meeting. For example on point 3, is 6 weeks really going to make that much difference when it comes to the cap. Yes, if the player is out for a full season / rest of the season, then i can understand that, but 6 weeks seems too short and unlikely to have an material impact. Point 4 i would assume the clubs would want something from the RFL for releasing players, not the ability to increase their spend, so i can sort of understand a rejection on that one

so IMO there must be debate, and acceptance to move the cap forward, even if there is modification or rejection of individual points

The RFL drew this paper up after consultations with SL Clubs.
Then the clubs voted against it bar Wigan.
So what is the difference between what was discussed then drawn up in the proposals. Have the RFL overstepped themselves or have the clubs backed out after verbally agreeing with the proposals.

Small clubs voting to stay small

Wholly true Ted, BUT those consultations were (as usual) with ONLY SOME of the SL Clubs!!!!

The world should know if you also support those cheats Manchester Arabia.

More needs to be done to enable those who are willing and able to increase their financial contributions for the benefit of their clubs and players. If the rest want to stay small then so be it but we shouldn't close the door on ambition.

With that said if there hasn't been the requisite consultation period then we can't expect these changes to be accepted. And why should the clubs be proposing anything? If we had an effective governing body they should be driving the changes but as ever they make a mess of it.

i think most fans are in agreeance that the SC is not fit for purpose, but equally something like this doesnt help the game / look at all

if they had said, there has been a proposal for discussion, and it was being taken away, with the option that the points could be approved, rejected or amended, then it would have been better taken than, it looks like Wigan want to make changes, and no other clubs are interested, and thus rejected it

Clubs who fill their squads with other teams academy players were never going to vote for changes that lessen their chances of sitting back and letting other people do the work for them. I'm surprised at Warrington, Saints and Leeds not wanting voting these changes through but maybe they will revisit them and change their minds down the track. If you looked at Wigan currently as an owner/leader of one of those clubs and and thought that a) they're the best side already b) they have a great academy and c) they have the wealthiest owner in the sport, you can understand why they'd be a bit dubious at the minute.

A number of the other clubs would not and will never vote for change like this. They're the clubs that have ensured the whole sport has been run on the basis of 'leveling down' for the last two decades and we've got to be a point now where there is no money in the game and everyone wants to keep the costs down.

Just to prove your point.
Tomkins, Charnley, Gildart, Hanley, Davies, Williams, Mellor, Bullock, McIlorum, Partington, Hughes, McDonnell, Rushton

Plus the likes of Burgess, Bourouh, Russell, Halsall, Shorrocks etc

A full team playing in Superleague, plus Sutton and Nicholson playing in the NRL.

What are the rest doing?

Come on Brian you're better than that

Makinson, Swift,Thompson, Gaskell, Simm, Foster, Ashurst at Wakefield who has only just retired, others I've probably forgotten about, Dodd in the NRL

Not comparable though is it?

Not a million miles away and I've probably forgotten some.