So the IMG Proposals have been passed with 33 clubs voting for them. 6 against. And 3 abstainees. Passes with a total of 86%.

So what are your guys thoughts on that?

Featherstone, Batley, Hunslet, Keighley, Barrow and Dewsbury voted against.

West Wales, Whitehaven and London Skolars abstained.

Catalan and Toulouse had no vote.

What are their proposals exactly, besides regurgitated franchising?

Why have Wakey suddenly done a u-turn on the vote?

I’m intrigued by this as well. If they go down this season there’s no guarantee they will finish top of the Champ in 2024 as it is very competitive. So as for performance they may not rank well.

I’m more surprised at the likes of Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton etc voting for the changes. As neither of these have any real scope for growth like York, Newcastle, Bradford etc have. I genuinely thought they may have voted against the proposals.

Very intriguing Bull Boy. Only reason I can think of is they didn't want to be classed as the black sheep in the RL family so to speak.

Possibly but even Cas I think were considering voting against the proposals. The only SL clubs that were going to vote against the proposals were those directly in danger of losing an SL place.

With the Championship. The only ‘big’ team to vote against it was Fev. Fev look likely to go up this season at a canter. They’ll struggle in the top league next season and probably come back down (if they replace Wakey). But then in 2025 they might have had a chance at coming up through promotion again. However, in the slim chance they manage to stay up their place could be in jeopardy if a Champ club ranks higher (for example Wakey, Toulouse, Bradford etc). So I can understand them voting against it.

It seems that the common theme for accepting the proposal is this:

“We’ve brought in IMG to reshape the game. What is the point of IMG if we don’t give their proposals a try”.

Which makes complete sense.

Greater transparency required already!
The BBC have done a fair job of explaining the proposals but a useless job at talking to the clubs and explaining their views, but maybe that is the fault of the clubs.
Bulls boy has come up the the voting data but I have no idea how he did it, I can't find anything published anywhere!

Surely it would be better for the clubs and IMG to be totally tansparent at this stage so we can see who voted for, against and abstained,but, more importantly, it would be good for each club to give a summary of why they voted the way they did and for this info to be published centrally.

Just my thoughts

All the information I have posted has come directly from two RL Journo’s twitter pages. Matthew Shaw’s and John Davidson’s. If you have twitter it’s readily available there. Although I would have thought todays meeting was to late for todays paper/online news. More than likely be a available tomorrow so that people actually buy the news.

John Davidson (10 hrs ago)

Breaking: 'Hunslet are among the clubs that have opted not to vote in favour of IMG’s proposals for `Reimagining Rugby League’ in the northern hemisphere at today’s Rugby League Council meeting.

The Parksiders, who are the only professional supporter-owned club in the country held a meeting last night (Tuesday 18 April 2023) at which not a single vote was cast in favour of IMG’s plans; there were two abstentions.

One of the south Leeds outfit’s contentions, which is shared by others, is that the Rugby Football League, which has instructed clubs to decide, in a four-week consultation period, their stance (following some six months during which IMG collated its investigations) has so far declined to submit its internally-published booklet in which full details of IMG’s plans and proposals are contained.

Hunslet are therefore among those who do not feel able to rationally support an initiative into which they would be `voting blind’. In addition, there are major concerns regarding what has actually been ascertained so far. IMG’s plans concern off-field matters, several of which Hunslet accept need to be addressed.

But while the Parksiders, as a Betfred League 1 outfit, are not currently directly affected by a key aspect – that promotion from the Championship to Super League would not be solely dependent on winning the Championship Grand Final – that factor, it is felt, is not for the benefit of the sport as a whole. Nor, indeed, would it be for any spectator sport. It was stressed, at the meeting, that clubs playing in a Championship Grand Final could quite feasibly go into the game aware that a side lower down the table had already secured the Super League berth through amassing more rating points in the Club Grading System, which relates to such as ground suitability and catchment area.

“How,” asked one delegate, “do you explain to a potential new supporter that although your team is ten points clear at the head of the table, you might not get promoted through not having enough off-field points? It’s not designed to attract more fans, in my view, in fact it could drive them away.” Hunslet already have direct experience of the negative impact of being denied promotion through issues other than achievements by players and coaches, their dreams of Super League membership being thwarted, in the aftermath of their Grand Final victory in 1999, on the basis that their South Leeds Stadium wasn’t deemed suitable for the top flight. Home attendances subsequently plummeted from an average of around 2,000 to 500 as supporters, disillusioned with Rugby League, deserted in droves.

Probably because they realised they would be the only SL club to do so and not want to alienate themselves further. Plus, looks better if they vote for it so if by a miracle they actually get a license, they could potentially try and sell it. Have they ever tried to do that before…..?