Quite how reducing the competition by two teams spreads the pot thinner I'm not sure. You'll have to explain that to me.



Sport is not a normal business. Rugby league has no divine right to its fair share of the sponsorship pie.



Frankly, I'd rather listen to what Brian Barwick has to say about running a professional sport than what some SL chairmen, who frankly have demonstrated that they couldn't run a bath, might say.

Read the Hull board and see what Pearson has to say about Hetherington at a fans forum, also the Wigan Chairmans' name is Lenagan.......

Lenagan, Moran and Davey are all successful businessmen who have made money running their own companies



Hetherington was a double glazing salesman, McManus a banker.



I'm guessing that the big argument is about leadership and governance of Superleague, just as much as the emperors new close fixture format.

Yeah it's quite tragic how some of the Hull fans are pitching tents in their pants because their saviour and god Pearson said "Hetherington can ask for all the apologies he wants, he isn't going to get one".



Ignoring that GH hasn't actually asked for an apology, doubt he will do, and doubt he's looking for one especially from Pearson.



Still, small victories and all that.

Businesses doing what?



Hethrington also took a failing rugby league club and transformed it into a profit-making operation with 6 league titles in 9 years.



There's the age-old "significant experience" dichotomy here: do we mean a significant amount of experience, or experience which is significant?



We could argue in circles all day. I still don't think it's even the right argument when the process by which the group makes and ratifies decisions appears some way short of being fit for purpose. Until that is resolved then arguing over individuals is a bit irrelevant.



Personally, I suspect if they ALL shelved their egos for a few days they might well find that their varied experience could actually be complementary. Then we could also stop the parochial d!ck-measuring about whose got the most acest CEO.

So do we think Pearson is more bitter over the Briscoes' desire to play for Leeds RLFC or his apparent failure to do proper DD when Kath mugged him for Hull FC?



Either way, until he comes up with some solutions rather than pointless backbiting his positions have zero credibility.

Agreed



Also from reading that thread on the hull board he made a comment along the lines of hetherington has had 17yrs trying to run the game time to step aside. Then a few posts down he mentions we (Leeds) opperate at 150k below cap and they are looking to try and replicate the Leeds model.

And your point ?

The Saints representative wasn't there and by all accounts neither was Castlefords. With Bradford currently not being allowed a vote, the 6 that walked out we're actually in the majority and not the minority.

That Pearson's mouth is 5 seconds ahead of his brain.

The RFL get a vote don't they?

I'm not sure to be honest. Even if they did and saints and Castleford voted against the 6, it's not really a solid majority to build something on. I'm not sure walking out was the right option but I'm not in possession of any of the facts so I'm not siding with my chairman or siding against another teams chairman.

Was it actually a vote that would've meant the result was concrete and set in stone.........or was it effectively a show of hands to see where ppl stood ahead of the 'after the WC' proper final vote just to gauge the mood and opinions and 'see where everybody stood' ahead of that?



Seems unlikely if one of the biggest clubs (Saints) weren't represented properly (if at all) that the final vote would be the one taking place the other night........can ppl avoid the lazy and pre-agenda "yeah they tried doing it on the sly" replies.

Saints and Cas didn't attend and Bradford were ineligable to vote. So only 5 clubs could have voted. Seems like the 6 that left were in the majority