they need at least 10 members to vote it through.
so if Wigan,Warrington, Hull and Hull KR hold firm they only need one other defeat the proposal. that could be either Huddersfield or Salford as i think Saints will fall in to the so called line.

How did the papers phrase the question? If it was only for or against, then it isn't necessarily very meaningful - as the 1up-and-down and franchising vote might be bigger together, but smaller individually. If it was a choice between the 2 options on the table or 3 8s only got 20% or something, then fair enough.

I think they've already agreed that there should be a change, which was clearly necessary. I think it might just be a straight majority/most votes thing.
The options being...

3 x 8
1 up and 1 down
Abstain

not according to the voting rules of the super league there has to be at least 10 votes in favour,
Its the same voting structure that scottish football has when they had issues on restructuring last year when 2 clubs stopped everything been sorted for nearly 4 months.

Quote sparky1963="sparky1963"not according to the voting rules of the super league there has to be at least 10 votes in favour, Its the same voting structure that scottish football has when they had issues on restructuring last year when 2 clubs stopped everything been sorted for nearly 4 months.'" To make a change, I think. But that was agreed last July. www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... ut-2043728 That articles and others indicated that it was just which of 2 changes the sport should go for, and the only sensible way to do that without risking stalemate (which we can't afford either), is a simple most votes approach. While it is an important battle, as I reckon NH and AP are genuinely very ambivalent about the system and deeply unhappy with the proposed division of Central revenue, there are other ways to bring about some of the changes in governance they want to see.

Quote sparky1963="sparky1963"not according to the voting rules of the super league there has to be at least 10 votes in favour, Its the same voting structure that scottish football has when they had issues on restructuring last year when 2 clubs stopped everything been sorted for nearly 4 months.'" To make a change, I think. But that was agreed last July. www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... ut-2043728 That articles and others indicated that it was just which of 2 changes the sport should go for, and the only sensible way to do that without risking stalemate (which we can't afford either), is a simple most votes approach. While it is an important battle, as I reckon NH and AP are genuinely very ambivalent about the system and deeply unhappy with the proposed division of Central revenue, there are other ways to bring about some of the changes in governance they want to see.

[url=http://s802.photobucket.com/user/pj761/media/Mobile%20Uploads/7CA2EA26-A030-4AA9-AB47-D38DE5C53483_zpsflfe1p2z.jpg.html[/url

I've got abad feeling about this tbh

Quote ccs="ccs"Meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday). .'" That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393

Quote ccs="ccs"Meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday). .'" That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393

Quote The Dentist Wilf="The Dentist Wilf"That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393'" To have got that first on the agenda is something of a result for Hudgell and Pearson. Personally I'm glad it is two separate meetings. Apparently if there is failure to agree a new structure, the temporary default is to stay at 14 with 2 up and 2 down. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... the-agenda

Quote The Dentist Wilf="The Dentist Wilf"That's to start a series of discussions on governance but the actual structure meeting is on Friday. Looks like Koukash is on the turn! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/689841859?-4338:2393'" To have got that first on the agenda is something of a result for Hudgell and Pearson. Personally I'm glad it is two separate meetings. Apparently if there is failure to agree a new structure, the temporary default is to stay at 14 with 2 up and 2 down. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... the-agenda

Humberside this morning were suggesting that Pearson has changed his stance and will vote with the RFL!

Heard that as well and couldn't make sense of it. Even if not true it still looks like the 8 x 3 is going to get the green light. So many issues that I just don't see what the clubs think will be the benefit.

If AP has changed camps I would be very surprised, seemed so set on trying to force major change at the RFL. This wouldn't be the way to do it, would probably make the RFL stronger as again they will have gotten there own way.

Just my opinion but I think that's a distinct possibility he spoke strongly against it at the last forum but there are a lot of folks who are relatively new to the game who think its the best thing since sliced bread, they might be right, only time will tell, I support Hull FC whatever competition we play in and we have to get on with it, because one things for sure the Clubs in general and the RL were never going to consult the fans.

However if we do go to a 8x8x8 split, it will be hard one to sell and however much we all appear to embrace it many have bought seasons this year as one last throw of the dice to support Adam in whom everyone trusts but we had better have a well above average season because with the uncertainty about who you play at the end of the season in 2015, I can see a lot who are looking for an excuse to pick their matches doing just that, rather than buying seasons, then again I might be wrong too.

All you can do is stick by your Club I guess and hope we finish outside the bottom two this year and the bottom 4 next!