It's interesting that Wigan abstained from all voting. Its an unlike Wigan move so i'd like to hear their motive behind it. Another point is that Wigan haven't acknowledged the change on their social media accounts, like other clubs have. There must be reasons for this but my thought is that Wigan are still pushing for NRL involvement but this would have to be a breakaway as NRL wont deal with Wood. 


In terms of the changes, i think its a year too soon to expand. The league should of stayed in the same format for one more season with a view to add either one or two teams in 2027 depending on the new broadcast deal. Pushing to 14 teams next season will undeniably reduce the quality of the competition. There is a possibility that 3 teams will be promoted next year due to the Salford situation and all now have around 6 months to put a team together. Sky don't care about how many teams are in the competition, they care about the quality.


Removing Magic Weekend is something im not bothered about but i understand the benefits of it, its a way to showcase the game in a different location which is something the game needs to continue to do. Sky get behind it. 


I am absolutely against an 8 team play off system. A team in the bottom half of the table gets the chance in the biggest games of the season? It just rewards mediocrity. We have used this system in the past and had very poor crowds due to the amount of extra games home fans have to pay for as its not part of their season ticket. There is nothing wrong with the top 6 play off system we have currently. 


The changes as a whole just scream as short-termism and I've no doubt the game will be changing the structure again in a few years time because small minded club owners aren't happy. 

Its nothing to do with Sky how the sport is run. 

Hypothetically speaking, if the NRL takeover/involvement happened, what deal are you expecting which will materially change things?

nathan_rugby: Father Ted:   I'm not too concerned about KR at this point. Although we voted Woods in the position the abstained vote on the 14 club League left people not knowing quite what Wigan's view are on it. Hull FC & KR voted against, they said, due to a start date of 2026. That suggests they would have voted in favour had it been 2027 implementation.  Wigan and Warrington were earlier leaning towards an NRL takeover with a 10 club League. Whether this is still a proposal I don't know. When Maurice wanted to expand the game and back then was opposed by Wood and Hetherington he upstaged them by getting the SKY TV deal which every club voted in favour of. Pity the NRL together with SKY can't put forward a deal which would take the sport out of the clutches of the collection of clowns to take Rugby League in the UK forward.  Its nothing to do with Sky how the sport is run.  Hypothetically speaking, if the NRL takeover/involvement happened, what deal are you expecting which will materially change things? Overly simplistic take, but it's to be expected.  Sky don't 'run' the game. They are just it's biggest commercial partner, with a massive say. Thursday night games being an obvious one.   In regards to the deal, Google is your friend. Having options on the table and owners with connections - gives back power (even if it's just a little bit).  Also being owned by a cash rich organisation like the NRL can't ever be a bad thing.  https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/nrl-set-negotiate-record-rugby-1037092

nathan_rugby: Father Ted:   I'm not too concerned about KR at this point. Although we voted Woods in the position the abstained vote on the 14 club League left people not knowing quite what Wigan's view are on it. Hull FC & KR voted against, they said, due to a start date of 2026. That suggests they would have voted in favour had it been 2027 implementation.  Wigan and Warrington were earlier leaning towards an NRL takeover with a 10 club League. Whether this is still a proposal I don't know. When Maurice wanted to expand the game and back then was opposed by Wood and Hetherington he upstaged them by getting the SKY TV deal which every club voted in favour of. Pity the NRL together with SKY can't put forward a deal which would take the sport out of the clutches of the collection of clowns to take Rugby League in the UK forward.  Its nothing to do with Sky how the sport is run.  Hypothetically speaking, if the NRL takeover/involvement happened, what deal are you expecting which will materially change things? Overly simplistic take, but it's to be expected.  Sky don't 'run' the game. They are just it's biggest commercial partner, with a massive say. Thursday night games being an obvious one.   In regards to the deal, Google is your friend. Having options on the table and owners with connections - gives back power (even if it's just a little bit).  Also being owned by a cash rich organisation like the NRL can't ever be a bad thing.  https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/nrl-set-negotiate-record-rugby-1037092

Interview with KR on Alloutrugbyleague YouTube channel where he explains why Wigan abstained, good watch.
Short version the clubs were given zero information especially on the financial implications

Good watch

Lots of talk around the SC....

Kings of Rugby: nathan_rugby: Father Ted:   I'm not too concerned about KR at this point. Although we voted Woods in the position the abstained vote on the 14 club League left people not knowing quite what Wigan's view are on it. Hull FC & KR voted against, they said, due to a start date of 2026. That suggests they would have voted in favour had it been 2027 implementation.  Wigan and Warrington were earlier leaning towards an NRL takeover with a 10 club League. Whether this is still a proposal I don't know. When Maurice wanted to expand the game and back then was opposed by Wood and Hetherington he upstaged them by getting the SKY TV deal which every club voted in favour of. Pity the NRL together with SKY can't put forward a deal which would take the sport out of the clutches of the collection of clowns to take Rugby League in the UK forward.  Its nothing to do with Sky how the sport is run.  Hypothetically speaking, if the NRL takeover/involvement happened, what deal are you expecting which will materially change things? Overly simplistic take, but it's to be expected.  Sky don't 'run' the game. They are just it's biggest commercial partner, with a massive say. Thursday night games being an obvious one.   In regards to the deal, Google is your friend. Having options on the table and owners with connections - gives back power (even if it's just a little bit).  Also being owned by a cash rich organisation like the NRL can't ever be a bad thing.  https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/nrl-set-negotiate-record-rugby-1037092 "Overly simplistic take" and yet you missed the point. Sky do not run the game, the RFL do. Of course Sky dictate a lot of aspects but they do not run the game. I am not sure why you are posting about the potential NRL deal? That's irrelevant. What has that got to do with anything? Unless you think the "NRL" coming in would suddenly result in us getting a materially better TV deal?  There is zero chance the "NRL" suddenly get a materially different TV deal. Whilst its bad for the sport that the Sky deal has come down so much, its a combination of the Sports worth to Sky and the lack of alternatives. So why would the NRL part ownership suddenly change that? Sky know full well the number of viewers, how much they make from advertising etc. Whilst they may be able to get something slightly better, in the short term it will not be materially better. Rugby League's issues are deep routed and any material change is going to take 5-10 years to start making a dent. i.e. more grass routes rugby, more rugby in schools, mandatory academies for clubs, bigger crowds, more advertising etc. Rugby is barely thriving in the hotbeds, nevermind trying to flog York, London and other championship clubs who only get 1-2000 fans at a game.

Kings of Rugby: nathan_rugby: Father Ted:   I'm not too concerned about KR at this point. Although we voted Woods in the position the abstained vote on the 14 club League left people not knowing quite what Wigan's view are on it. Hull FC & KR voted against, they said, due to a start date of 2026. That suggests they would have voted in favour had it been 2027 implementation.  Wigan and Warrington were earlier leaning towards an NRL takeover with a 10 club League. Whether this is still a proposal I don't know. When Maurice wanted to expand the game and back then was opposed by Wood and Hetherington he upstaged them by getting the SKY TV deal which every club voted in favour of. Pity the NRL together with SKY can't put forward a deal which would take the sport out of the clutches of the collection of clowns to take Rugby League in the UK forward.  Its nothing to do with Sky how the sport is run.  Hypothetically speaking, if the NRL takeover/involvement happened, what deal are you expecting which will materially change things? Overly simplistic take, but it's to be expected.  Sky don't 'run' the game. They are just it's biggest commercial partner, with a massive say. Thursday night games being an obvious one.   In regards to the deal, Google is your friend. Having options on the table and owners with connections - gives back power (even if it's just a little bit).  Also being owned by a cash rich organisation like the NRL can't ever be a bad thing.  https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/nrl-set-negotiate-record-rugby-1037092 "Overly simplistic take" and yet you missed the point. Sky do not run the game, the RFL do. Of course Sky dictate a lot of aspects but they do not run the game. I am not sure why you are posting about the potential NRL deal? That's irrelevant. What has that got to do with anything? Unless you think the "NRL" coming in would suddenly result in us getting a materially better TV deal?  There is zero chance the "NRL" suddenly get a materially different TV deal. Whilst its bad for the sport that the Sky deal has come down so much, its a combination of the Sports worth to Sky and the lack of alternatives. So why would the NRL part ownership suddenly change that? Sky know full well the number of viewers, how much they make from advertising etc. Whilst they may be able to get something slightly better, in the short term it will not be materially better. Rugby League's issues are deep routed and any material change is going to take 5-10 years to start making a dent. i.e. more grass routes rugby, more rugby in schools, mandatory academies for clubs, bigger crowds, more advertising etc. Rugby is barely thriving in the hotbeds, nevermind trying to flog York, London and other championship clubs who only get 1-2000 fans at a game.