No surprise to me- as I have said many times they couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery.

Brill idea love goats especially in a curry

Looks to me like heads have been got together prior to this meeting.

I work for an organisation in Sydney, who changed ownership about 2 years ago.

Up until then it was a monolithic, ego centric, self obsessed bureaucracy. Every decisiion had a political (small p) agenda.

upon the change (and this is where i give the game away to sydneyites) the strap line... 'the customer is the centre of everything we do', things began to change. We have become outward facing, and every decision we make, every policy we implement, every strategy we execute has the strap-line as its driving motivator. And it's working! change is happening, customer needs are being addressed and perceptions are improving.

Rugby league customers are the fans and spectators who support the game. they are the ones who pay their hardearned monies each and every week to be entrertained, enthralled and excited. Yet it seems that the fans are ignored in the planning of the future of the game, they are treated as a mere side affect of playing the sport professionally.

In 40 years of watching the game I struggle to remember an occasion where the fans have had an influence in strategy,

WHAT DO THE FANS WANT? its a simple question... but the RFL, the clubs... even Trinity; dont give a poo... 'we will decide what we sell you and we expect you to be happy with it!'

this proposed change epitomises my concern... neither side of this divide has my support. they have got the basic premis of the change wrong! Nowhere have I seen the question asked

'what do our customers want?'


in the 21st century you ignor your customers at your peril.

well said Andrew

I want what's best for Wakefield Trinity and our future long and short term

So nearly half the clubs walked out. What more do you need to know? As far as I see it, the vote on the way forward appears to be: "choose which one seems like the least worst idea".

I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to successful, forward-thinking business people, as opposed to career committee men. Nigel Wood is simply a man who you would hate to be behind in a buffet queue, and Brian Barwick is just ex-FA dinosaur. Compared to those who run those clubs, they just don't measure up.

Interesting times ahead, but I don't see it as self-interest. Those clubs know that it is in everyone's interests to have a vibrant game, not just their own clubs, and it only takes Leeds and Saints to join those clubs and the RFL have got a real problem.

The same forward thinking business men who have run the SL clubs with a combined loss of 8 million pounds for 2012, why would you give chairmen like Glover a say in what is best for the game. No disrespect to our new chairman MC but he has been in the job for a few weeks only and that gives hin the right to cast a vote on the future of the game ? Keep the chairmen away from any decisions about the game. The game needs a few good people from outside RL to run it. The problem for me is that if I was Trinity Chairman I would vote on what was best for Trinity not on what is best for the game. That said I presume that as Trinity did not walk out that MC is in favour of 2 x 12 and 3 x 8 ( without consulting his customers ). This format would see the end of Trinity as a top flight club as it will only result in us becoming a secong or third tier club.

I can understand Wigan's and Warrington's and to some extent Hull's child like tantrum but what does baffle me is :-

Hull KR - relatively new to SL and wanting a 10 team competition ?
Hudds - Protected by the RFL (Birthplace of the game and all that)
Catalans - RFL bent over backwards to get them up and running in SL

I just hope the governing body remember these clubs for what they have done by walking out of the meeting.

Whilst the clubs racked up substantial losses, the likes of Davy and Leneghan (Wigan may even have made a profit) can afford it due to the money they have made outside of RL. Those losses are part of the business plan, especially at Huddersfield. Right now we have a bloke who nearly killed off Halifax running the game, is it wrong to want someone better at the helm of the sport? I may be wrong but isn't this the primary reasoning behind the walk out, wanting a stronger more commercially savvy RFL who can generate money for the sport. Wood et al have shown they're not up to it.

I would've stuck with licensing - I read an interview from Gary Hetherington who said that the sport doesn't have the ability to sustain P+R like the PL does due to not enough money and the fact it doesn't work it RL. Yes it might give clubs like Fev and Fax a chance to play in SL but they would end up being relegated again. Also licensing has seen a lot more young players coming through. Personally I would've increased the competition to 16 teams and more investment from Sky - how on earth is cutting the competition down to 12 or 10 going to help in the long run?

I would've retained licensing too, but split the top flight into two conferences. Backwards step to increase non fed players and reduce the homegrown requirement.

I agree Willzay.
I would also increase to 16,which would increase the number of youngsters coming through.
Reducing to 10 or 8 will surely be perceived nationally and globally as sport withering away.
Clubs who want the reduction are only thinking of their own short term gains and not what is best for the sport in the next 20,30,40 years.

Wonder if there is any truth in this about London asking for exemptions in signing overseas players. Here :- viewtopic.php?f=22&t=560489&tsmp=1382612115&start=10

Wonder if there is any truth in this about London asking for exemptions in signing overseas players. Here :- viewtopic.php?f=22&t=560489&tsmp=1382612115&start=10