Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

204,010


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:44 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
TBH none of us really know the actually work that he has done. Much of a Chief Exec's work will be behind the scenes and leading the organisation into the future. The RFL certainly seem to be weathering the recession well despite not being the most attractive sport for investors.

I'd argue Lewis put us on a solid footing, Wood hasn't taken the situation anyway forward - coat-tails like I said.

QUOTE
SC review - I was under the impression that this was reviewed and for the last couple of years the clubs have agreed to maintain the cap at it's current level. The Championship clubs went with a lower cap. Just because there haven't been major changes to the SL cap doesn't mean he hasn't instigated a review of it. You may disagree with many parts of it, but clearly the clubs support it, and that is the crucial thing here, not what fans think on this one.

Are clubs always right? - I'm sure you have heard the saying that turkeys don't vote for Christmas - clubs will never vote for anything that undermines their position. The majority vote in this case is with the status quo rather than the innovative and progressive.

You are missing my point about the need for a review - it is not specifically surrounding or restricted to the value of the SC alone, it is about re-evaluating the original focus of the restriction which was to prevent clubs spending more than 50% of their income. The original approach to protect clubs has seemed to evolved into a system to level the competition in SL, which as it is done through restriction will always play towards the lowest common denominator rather than providing an incentive for clubs to grow. Meanwhile RU has gone from strength to strength and is starting to be sensible with money investing in cherry picking young players rather than overpaying for established 'stars'. The RFL having done nothing through the SC to provide incentivise or even prioritise youth development, reward loyalty or give clubs better opportunities to protect themselves in keeping their rising stars out of the clutches of another sport. No RFL club can afford to pay stupid money to every prospect, but neither can we all bury our heads in the sand that the production line will keep on going and do nothing, whilst the trickle out of the game gets ever stronger and the international performances get no better.

QUOTE
Franchising Progress of Clubs - not really sure what your point is here. What should he have done by now? We are in the 2nd year of franchising.

Any planning for future franchising should be done now and the CEO should be strong on clubs that have not started to deliver on all their promises. The whole franchising decision last time lacked transparency and dare I say it was finger in the wind based on Lewis's whims rather than a fair and consistent model. That's fine, as long as you don't try to dress it up as something else, like they did at the time. Wood should now be tackling the issue of franchising and the influence of the economic troubles, as there is clearly an issue of clubs being incapable of delivering on the promises they made at the first round - some through no fault of their own, others due to blatant lies. The RFL needs to be clear how they will handle these situations, the potential lack of economic viability associated to further expansion and whether it will curtail aspirations for the game at the next round. Otherwise I can foresee a situation where clubs get yet another three years good grace just because they happened to be in the right place at the right time in 2008, rather than because of their professionalism, ongoing growth and general contribution to the top level.

QUOTE
Stronger stance against Imports - this has been done to death, and it is going to be a gradual process. I agree with you in principal, but I don't believe any CEO of any calibre would come in and make massive changes in this area.

It has been done to death, but nothing pro-active has resulted - we still have the same old teams looking for the same old substandard imports year on year and getting by on exclusions and loopholes rather than having to focus on youth development. How many clubs still look for quick fixes? How many times were we told that expansion clubs would grow the game in new areas yet two out of three are filled with foreigners? How much was made of franchising as the saviour of SL in allowing clubs to transition and build from within?

There's no doubt in my mind that we are spun a line consistently to justify poor decision making and ill thought through strategies for the game, and it will remain to be the case while people continue to believe that the RFL don't constantly get it wrong or are ever held accountable for the negative outcomes.

QUOTE
MM - they are doing exactly what you are asking for and reviewing it. That's a tick.

Evidence from Edinburgh this year was all you needed to know that MM has had its day due to NW's mistakes regarding the chosen fixtures - yes, it was a fad that promoted the sport and it helped get a SL club in Wales, but is not worth the investment moving forward when expansion will be difficult due to constrained economics.

NW is just looking very indecisive from my perspective.

QUOTE
Internationals - He has been in charge for two years I believe. In that time there has been a WC and a 4N over here. I would love to see more creativity here and agree with you on this one, but realistically this wasn't going to happen as he was a big part of the Lewis regime which went into the safety first option of Wigan/Hudds/Hull/Doncaster etc.

Venue choices of Doncaster and Leigh, together with the inability to fill the latter, tell you all you need to know about the lack of profile of international games and how it is not working having a flat track bully in England hammer France every Summer only to get drubbed by the big boys in Autumn. France need competitive games, but they also have a level to develop from which is the second tier with Wales, Ireland and Scotland. England need strong opponents to test them and innovative thinking - whether that is Probables vs Possibles, Wests vs Easts, England vs Imports I don't know - but hey, I ain't paid 200k a year at the RFL to make decisions and come up with viable strategies to improve the game either. Although I'm probably still as successful at the minute as NW has been.

QUOTE
These are the points that youraise as crucial, and in the main, they have been adressed, just maybe not exactly as you would like them to have been. During his time at the RFL they have been recognised as one of the top sports administrators in the country, the list of sponsors is growing during a recession, and I think he is continuing the good work that he and Lewis started all those years ago.

Coat-tails again for Mr. Wood - where are the positives that he has brought personally? what big decisions has he made or got right? The RFL have only been seen in a positive light in recent times because Lewis was in a no lose situation - Red Hall was a shambles from the best part of three decades and the only way was up.

QUOTE
Sure I think there are things the RFL could do better, but I have certainly seen nothing that says he is doing a poor job.

Thats where we differ - I want a CEO who makes big decisions and is accountable for them, not just manage a status quo without obvious improvement. To an extent Lewis was the former (despite some obvious failings), whilst Wood is clearly the latter.

Edited by giwildgo, 24 July 2010 - 11:49 AM.

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#42 Honor James

Honor James
  • Coach
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 12:16 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Jul 22 2010, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
firstly just want to say it does seem an obscene amount of money to me
pre him taking over there were more clubs in worse financial positions.. lonon and gateshead were strugling along then too.. they are clubs that will strugle for some time and there is little/nothing that can be done about it by people at the top of the RFL.. they cannot magic supporters/sponsors/fantastic rent free stadiums out of the air

there are/were certainly issues with it, IIRC he wasnt in charge of it first time around Lewis was still the top active honcho at the time (thoughi may be wrong) maybe we should wait till the next round before judging wood on this point

surely that contradict the first point of it not being transparent.. if they did start to get promoted it would be odd.. it is a 3 year liscnece, these championhips allow the clubs to apply for a liscnece next time around these are the rules and they are well known.

fans also got fed up with their clubs going bust when they got relegated or pushed for promotion also, and when they were merged with other clubs, and whn they get relegated, then promoted then relegated etc becuase the gap was too large.. you cant please everyone all the time

i dont believe the RFL have been charged with any wrong doing over this, nor anyone at the crusaders.. so at the moment it is the players at fault, unless youhave proof at whih point i suggest handing it to te CPS. Yes the Crusaders were given help by the RFL in he way they were allowed felxibility on the quotas but thi is done for all expansion teams.. the move is contraversial granted but to bring someone in for 2 years at short notice etc.. how easy was that? if crusaders works it could be great for all clubs in RL and may well be worth it.. though understand both sides of hte agument on this one.

you often find things being experimened with at different levels of all games.. i would say that the Bonus Point system is controversial but i woudl debate the word "stupid" as personally i like it and would keep it and i would add i to super League as i think it has made for some great gaes that would have been rubbish at the end without it.

i believe it is.. its lookingat the amateur game heavily and how best to get more kids involved with the move to summer.
It has added things to try and make the championship exciting (Bonus point etc)
It has added a syste of franchising that will help to stabilise afew clubs and change the thinking of others from spend everything on the team to spending money on th grounds, juniors etc.. it will hopefully raise the standard off the field of championship clubs etc which will give more chance for the step up to be less painful if and when they bring people up/reintstate P&R
They help expansion club to try and open new areas of talent up tothe country which will hopefully give us a better chance ofbeating the aussies and winning world cups..
They have put in place a system where by they can build clubs from the bottom up
They are trying to help develop the game below super league (there is also a game outside of the lower leagues too) and they are doing this whilst balancing umpteen balls.

IMO he doesnt have an easy job and he is doing it pretty well.. its a huge amount of money though but if he is pretty much the one man think tank then maybe he deserves it.



With respect - because my association with the game goes back only eight years so I cannot be considered any kind of expert - I agree entirely with everything said by RP London (above).

However, in my eight years of involvement with the game I have been privileged to see it through a wide-angle lens , by virtue of working for the publishers of three very special, rugby league dedicated publications (League Express, Rugby League World and Totalrl.com). And there is no doubt in my mind that in that time, the game has seen giant leaps forward. Massive strides in development from the bottom up, bringing the game for the first time into the lives of thousands of children and young people who had never even heard of it, who, now they have heard of it and played it love it, and are encouraging their friends to come along and love it too.

In administration procedures also the advances are legion. In fact every way you look you will find advances ........... And yes, along the way some wrong turns may have been taken and an occasional U turn have turned out to be necessary but surely, it is only for the convenience of political reporting media that changing one's mind is now interpreted as weakness, wrongness or stupidity. Where I come from, changing one's mind and direction if an outcome, or another suggestion, proves one's original decision was wrong, is a sign of excellently perfect common sense.

Whether, on the other hand, the timing of these announced increases was particularly appropriate is a question worthy of consideration by the RFL board of directors, with a view to avoiding controversy in future. When many of ones clients ( in this instance fans, players, club officials) are facing static or diminished earnings for at least the immediate future (year or years), it seems to me the timing may not have been particularly wonderful.

:-)



“The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.”  Eleanor Roosevelt


#43 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 02:07 PM

QUOTE (giwildgo @ Jul 24 2010, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd argue Lewis put us on a solid footing, Wood hasn't taken the situation anyway forward - coat-tails like I said.


Are clubs always right? - I'm sure you have heard the saying that turkeys don't vote for Christmas - clubs will never vote for anything that undermines their position. The majority vote in this case is with the status quo rather than the innovative and progressive.

You are missing my point about the need for a review - it is not specifically surrounding or restricted to the value of the SC alone, it is about re-evaluating the original focus of the restriction which was to prevent clubs spending more than 50% of their income. The original approach to protect clubs has seemed to evolved into a system to level the competition in SL, which as it is done through restriction will always play towards the lowest common denominator rather than providing an incentive for clubs to grow. Meanwhile RU has gone from strength to strength and is starting to be sensible with money investing in cherry picking young players rather than overpaying for established 'stars'. The RFL having done nothing through the SC to provide incentivise or even prioritise youth development, reward loyalty or give clubs better opportunities to protect themselves in keeping their rising stars out of the clutches of another sport. No RFL club can afford to pay stupid money to every prospect, but neither can we all bury our heads in the sand that the production line will keep on going and do nothing, whilst the trickle out of the game gets ever stronger and the international performances get no better.
As fans, we always think we know best, yet actually the ideas we come up with on here around incentivising youth development in reality may just lead to further financial issues, and my be nigh on impossible to police. I have agreed with you a few times on here around SC incentives etc. but then who is to say that we know best? If most clubs are voting for a status quo, then who are we to say they are wrong? They are voting for that because they can't afford for it to be higher, and if the majority can't afford it, then that would suggest that the game is not ready for it. Union do not have many of the incentives and radical ideas in the cap, they simply have a higher cap, and have more money coming in.

QUOTE
Any planning for future franchising should be done now and the CEO should be strong on clubs that have not started to deliver on all their promises. The whole franchising decision last time lacked transparency and dare I say it was finger in the wind based on Lewis's whims rather than a fair and consistent model. That's fine, as long as you don't try to dress it up as something else, like they did at the time. Wood should now be tackling the issue of franchising and the influence of the economic troubles, as there is clearly an issue of clubs being incapable of delivering on the promises they made at the first round - some through no fault of their own, others due to blatant lies. The RFL needs to be clear how they will handle these situations, the potential lack of economic viability associated to further expansion and whether it will curtail aspirations for the game at the next round. Otherwise I can foresee a situation where clubs get yet another three years good grace just because they happened to be in the right place at the right time in 2008, rather than because of their professionalism, ongoing growth and general contribution to the top level.
The only evidence we have seen of anything happening is the note to the clubs who promised ground developments. I would prefer to wait until the decisions are made on the next franchising round before we accuse him of not making the tough decisions.


QUOTE
It has been done to death, but nothing pro-active has resulted - we still have the same old teams looking for the same old substandard imports year on year and getting by on exclusions and loopholes rather than having to focus on youth development. How many clubs still look for quick fixes? How many times were we told that expansion clubs would grow the game in new areas yet two out of three are filled with foreigners? How much was made of franchising as the saviour of SL in allowing clubs to transition and build from within?
Two out of three expansion clubs are not filled with foriegners, Crusaders are. Quins and Cats aren't, and both are developing and playing local players.


QUOTE
Evidence from Edinburgh this year was all you needed to know that MM has had its day due to NW's mistakes regarding the chosen fixtures - yes, it was a fad that promoted the sport and it helped get a SL club in Wales, but is not worth the investment moving forward when expansion will be difficult due to constrained economics.

NW is just looking very indecisive from my perspective.
Edinburgh still had a very healthy attendance, and whilst Edinburgh may have had it's day, a new Magic next year looks like its on its way, so again, I'll wait and see what actually comes out in the wash rather than criticise people for not rushing into something.


QUOTE
Venue choices of Doncaster and Leigh, together with the inability to fill the latter, tell you all you need to know about the lack of profile of international games and how it is not working having a flat track bully in England hammer France every Summer only to get drubbed by the big boys in Autumn. France need competitive games, but they also have a level to develop from which is the second tier with Wales, Ireland and Scotland. England need strong opponents to test them and innovative thinking - whether that is Probables vs Possibles, Wests vs Easts, England vs Imports I don't know - but hey, I ain't paid 200k a year at the RFL to make decisions and come up with viable strategies to improve the game either. Although I'm probably still as successful at the minute as NW has been.
You know as well as I do that whilst they sound like good ideas on here, there would be 4-5k in the ground, and the RFL would be called a disgrace for staging a game at the same time as Britain's Got Talent.



QUOTE
Thats where we differ - I want a CEO who makes big decisions and is accountable for them, not just manage a status quo without obvious improvement. To an extent Lewis was the former (despite some obvious failings), whilst Wood is clearly the latter.

I think you are judging him too harshly. In around two years you expect him to revolutionise the game, when actually the remit may have been more to steer the game through a very tough and turbulent time for the game and the economy. A couple of your criticism's above are of things which seem far too early to judge him on. Not that I disagree with many of your actual suggestions, just the timescales or methods to deliver it.

#44 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 02:41 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As fans, we always think we know best, yet actually the ideas we come up with on here around incentivising youth development in reality may just lead to further financial issues, and my be nigh on impossible to police. I have agreed with you a few times on here around SC incentives etc. but then who is to say that we know best? If most clubs are voting for a status quo, then who are we to say they are wrong? They are voting for that because they can't afford for it to be higher, and if the majority can't afford it, then that would suggest that the game is not ready for it. Union do not have many of the incentives and radical ideas in the cap, they simply have a higher cap, and have more money coming in.

If they couldn't afford things under the SC - why remove the 50% revenue to expenditure rule which was the whole reason for the restriction in the first place?

Goalposts have been nicely moved by the RFL and the majority of clubs over the last decade to enable the unambitious and unwilling to invest to remain at the SL table with the big boys via the SC. Its a scandal that aside from a discussion and consistent decision not to rise the actual value of the SC year on year, there is no wider scrutiny or audit of the whole process. The whole SC system is endemic of the old Football League attitude where votes were required to get into the Old Boys clubs. 60% of the league are unwilling to change in case they get left behind - score one for self interest and the removal of the incentive for clubs to rise above mediocrity. And for all the perceived competitiveness and spread of talent that was expected in SL - virtually none has materialised. See recent (last two seasons) and forthcoming big moves of English players between SL clubs;

Turner - Salford to Hull
Carvell - Hull to Warrington
Myler - Salford to Warrington
Atkins - Wakefield to Warrington
Gleeson - Warrington to Wigan
Shenton - Castleford to St. Helens
Louis McCarthy-Scarsbrook - Harlequins to St. Helens

Seems like players at big clubs still never find the small clubs attractive despite the salary cap and the so-called levelling. Is it all just a big sham?

QUOTE
The only evidence we have seen of anything happening is the note to the clubs who promised ground developments. I would prefer to wait until the decisions are made on the next franchising round before we accuse him of not making the tough decisions.

Whereas I think that is too late - we had too much fudged criteria last time that wasn't transparent and seemed skewed towards the outcome that the RFL was aspiring for. At least if the general interpretation and weighting of the criteria is published now, then we know where everyone stands and where they need to get to - no excuses. As a professional cynic, I'd suggest that the criteria and weighting will keep changing until it fits the agenda that the RFL is intent on pushing relative to the circumstances just before the deadline and therefore is neither fair or transparent to existing or aspiring clubs.

QUOTE
Two out of three expansion clubs are not filled with foriegners, Crusaders are. Quins and Cats aren't, and both are developing and playing local players.

Quins were my non-filled expansion club.

Ok I'll accept Catalans was a bit of licence given they have 8 foreigners out of squad of 31 - but surely the whole of France should fielding more than 23 players for their only top level club or is there just not the room or quality available for a second club?

I agree about Crusaders.

QUOTE
Edinburgh still had a very healthy attendance, and whilst Edinburgh may have had it's day, a new Magic next year looks like its on its way, so again, I'll wait and see what actually comes out in the wash rather than criticise people for not rushing into something.

I was in Edinburgh both years, I enjoyed both years - but even as an enthusiastic participant I couldn't delude myself into believing that it is a successful or growing concept that will benefit the game in the long term - so why bother wasting the investment? I also have a vested interest, as I would prefer a straight home and away fixture list for the regular season.

QUOTE
You know as well as I do that whilst they sound like good ideas on here, there would be 4-5k in the ground, and the RFL would be called a disgrace for staging a game at the same time as Britain's Got Talent.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers but neither am I paid the 200k by the RFL - if I was paid that much then I could reasonably be expected to find an answer after the poor event at Leigh. Thats all I ask of Nigel...I won't hold my breath.

QUOTE
I think you are judging him too harshly. In around two years you expect him to revolutionise the game, when actually the remit may have been more to steer the game through a very tough and turbulent time for the game and the economy. A couple of your criticism's above are of things which seem far too early to judge him on. Not that I disagree with many of your actual suggestions, just the timescales or methods to deliver it.

Horses for courses - if all you need is someone to manage an established organisation and not make any big decisions or provide innovation / reform to ensure the status quo, then why pay 200k?

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#45 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (giwildgo @ Jul 24 2010, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If they couldn't afford things under the SC - why remove the 50% revenue to expenditure rule which was the whole reason for the restriction in the first place?

Goalposts have been nicely moved by the RFL and the majority of clubs over the last decade to enable the unambitious and unwilling to invest to remain at the SL table with the big boys via the SC. Its a scandal that aside from a discussion and consistent decision not to rise the actual value of the SC year on year, there is no wider scrutiny or audit of the whole process. The whole SC system is endemic of the old Football League attitude where votes were required to get into the Old Boys clubs. 60% of the league are unwilling to change in case they get left behind - score one for self interest and the removal of the incentive for clubs to rise above mediocrity. And for all the perceived competitiveness and spread of talent that was expected in SL - virtually none has materialised. See recent (last two seasons) and forthcoming big moves of English players between SL clubs;

Turner - Salford to Hull
Carvell - Hull to Warrington
Myler - Salford to Warrington
Atkins - Wakefield to Warrington
Gleeson - Warrington to Wigan
Shenton - Castleford to St. Helens
Louis McCarthy-Scarsbrook - Harlequins to St. Helens

Seems like players at big clubs still never find the small clubs attractive despite the salary cap and the so-called levelling. Is it all just a big sham?
To be fair, we actually agree on most actual issues here, we just disagree on at what stage he should be judged on what he delivers on them. No matter who comes in is not going to resolve long-standing issues in 2 years.

On the SC point, if the vast majority of clubs vote to keep the SC as is, with the lower division clubs voting for a lowering of the cap, then who are the 4 or 5 richer clubs to say it should be raised? What makes them right? I would expect my club would prefer an increase, but then is that really in the interests of the game? The game can't afford it, and even the Union clubs are making huge losses which league clubs just couldn't sustain, and their income is far greater than ours.

I suspect that the list of players you quote is due to the fact that many clubs can't even spend to the current SC limit, as opposed to the attractiveness, and a further increase would only make that worse.

QUOTE
I was in Edinburgh both years, I enjoyed both years - but even as an enthusiastic participant I couldn't delude myself into believing that it is a successful or growing concept that will benefit the game in the long term - so why bother wasting the investment? I also have a vested interest, as I would prefer a straight home and away fixture list for the regular season.
In the RLW poll, most people wanted it retaining in some format, and I would expect the results were the same in any survey the RFL did after this one. So whilst it is your opinion, it is probably a minority one, so I'm not sure why Wood gets stick for that. He communicated shortly after the event the full review to be taken and the timescales involved. No issues here.

QUOTE
Horses for courses - if all you need is someone to manage an established organisation and not make any big decisions or provide innovation / reform to ensure the status quo, then why pay 200k?

Strategies will change. This year may be a year of consolidation for the RFL, keep things tight, continue the work on the development of the game in newer areas but get some consistency. I would expect the strategy to become more exciting and radical over the next three years building up to the WC, and if it doesn't start to happen, then I'm sure you will find me agreeing with you on this issue!

#46 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 03:08 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To be fair, we actually agree on most actual issues here, we just disagree on at what stage he should be judged on what he delivers on them. No matter who comes in is not going to resolve long-standing issues in 2 years.

What would his timescale be then? I can't remember an RFL official ever being accountable for failure and there is an everlasting excuse that more time is needed to see progress. 2 years is plenty enough in my book to see the seeds of positive change...I see no evidence.

QUOTE
On the SC point, if the vast majority of clubs vote to keep the SC as is, with the lower division clubs voting for a lowering of the cap, then who are the 4 or 5 richer clubs to say it should be raised? What makes them right? I would expect my club would prefer an increase, but then is that really in the interests of the game? The game can't afford it, and even the Union clubs are making huge losses which league clubs just couldn't sustain, and their income is far greater than ours.

I suspect that the list of players you quote is due to the fact that many clubs can't even spend to the current SC limit, as opposed to the attractiveness, and a further increase would only make that worse.

The big questions in that case then - what is the whole point? was there ever one? what purpose does it serve?

Clearly it is not;
1. to protect clubs from themselves and going bust - noting removal of the 50% rule.
2. competitiveness - because the SC value has stayed static and small clubs have still failed to get on an even footing with the big clubs.
3. youth development - no specific incentive included and actually started with a misguided disincentive via the 20/20 rule.

QUOTE
In the RLW poll, most people wanted it retaining in some format, and I would expect the results were the same in any survey the RFL did after this one. So whilst it is your opinion, it is probably a minority one, so I'm not sure why Wood gets stick for that. He communicated shortly after the event the full review to be taken and the timescales involved. No issues here.

Given the attendance of MM (on an average day) compared to the same three fixtures in SL, I'd hardly say that it is a success, popular or even that the RLW poll can be considered representative of the general public. As with most polls and questionnaires, the outcome is significantly biased towards those with an interest in the event (i.e, the minority of the RL watching public given the attendance) a high proportion of which would favour the event, compared to those who are apathetic and therefore have no interest in either the MM concept or responding to a poll.

QUOTE
Strategies will change. This year may be a year of consolidation for the RFL, keep things tight, continue the work on the development of the game in newer areas but get some consistency. I would expect the strategy to become more exciting and radical over the next three years building up to the WC, and if it doesn't start to happen, then I'm sure you will find me agreeing with you on this issue!

Thats where our opinions differ - I'd go for change right now, rather than wait for the failures in the future. To fail to prepare is preparing to fail.

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#47 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 03:19 PM

QUOTE (giwildgo @ Jul 24 2010, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thats where our opinions differ - I'd go for change right now, rather than wait for the failures in the future. To fail to prepare is preparing to fail.

I think each of the points we were discussing are worthy of their own threads as individual topics, and we have certainly discussed things like the SC before on threads, and will probably have to agree to disagree (not on the points, just around Wood's actions).

I'm not sure that Wood is failing to prepare. There are rules in place which will reduce the number of overseas players, there is a new franchising system in place, and we can only assume that the clubs are aware of their requirements, there are clear requirements for youth development based on the quota system (although I agree about the SC incentives).

When Wood took over, I don't think the game needed a revolution, it needed a solid leader, much like Lewis had been to deliver steady growth. I would love to see a few more gambles and a bit more radical thinking, but then I'm sure the economic climate is not encouraging that at the moment.

Without several high profile decisions being made, it is hard to know exactly what he is doing, but that doesn't mean that he isn;t doing the right things behind the scenes.

#48 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think each of the points we were discussing are worthy of their own threads as individual topics, and we have certainly discussed things like the SC before on threads, and will probably have to agree to disagree (not on the points, just around Wood's actions).

I'm not sure that Wood is failing to prepare. There are rules in place which will reduce the number of overseas players, there is a new franchising system in place, and we can only assume that the clubs are aware of their requirements, there are clear requirements for youth development based on the quota system (although I agree about the SC incentives).

When Wood took over, I don't think the game needed a revolution, it needed a solid leader, much like Lewis had been to deliver steady growth. I would love to see a few more gambles and a bit more radical thinking, but then I'm sure the economic climate is not encouraging that at the moment.

Without several high profile decisions being made, it is hard to know exactly what he is doing, but that doesn't mean that he isn;t doing the right things behind the scenes.

I respect your optimism - I wish I shared it.

Having met Nigel Wood personally, I wasn't particularly impressed with him or that he was the right man for the job long term.

I hope he proves me wrong for the sake of the sport's future. I understand the contraints of the economic climate at the moment, but it shouldn't be an excuse to stifle progress or introduce reform that will secure the future of the game.

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#49 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 03:34 PM

QUOTE (giwildgo @ Jul 24 2010, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I respect your optimism - I wish I shared it.

Having met Nigel Wood personally, I wasn't particularly impressed with him or that he was the right man for the job long term.

I hope he proves me wrong for the sake of the sport's future. I understand the contraints of the economic climate at the moment, but it shouldn't be an excuse to stifle progress or introduce reform that will secure the future of the game.
Nope, I agree, I just don't think we are going to see major new initiatives at the top level every single year.

BTW, I certainly wouldn't class myself as a Wood fan, my first experience of him at the RFL was him trying to prevent Brent Webb and Leuali (sp)(IIRC) from travelling down under for a mid-season test. I thought that was small-time, and it does worry me slightly.

I am just prepared to give him a chance, and haven't seen anything which worries me in the last two years.

If this time next year we have had a Magic Weekend in Blackpool and a Test match on a Tuesday night at Oldham, then I will hold my hands up and agree with you!


#50 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 03:36 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope, I agree, I just don't think we are going to see major new initiatives at the top level every single year.

BTW, I certainly wouldn't class myself as a Wood fan, my first experience of him at the RFL was him trying to prevent Brent Webb and Leuali (sp)(IIRC) from travelling down under for a mid-season test. I thought that was small-time, and it does worry me slightly.

I am just prepared to give him a chance, and haven't seen anything which worries me in the last two years.

If this time next year we have had a Magic Weekend in Blackpool and a Test match on a Tuesday night at Oldham, then I will hold my hands up and agree with you!

Post saved for future reference wink.gif biggrin.gif

Posted Image


oderint dum metuant


#51 RLDave

RLDave
  • Coach
  • 750 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 05:09 PM

QUOTE (The Future is League @ Jul 22 2010, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
in what way?

I think the "Blue Sox" thing was down to him
@ohcallicalli

You can't beat an owl!

#52 Honor James

Honor James
  • Coach
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If this time next year we have had a Magic Weekend in Blackpool


Indeed! ........ in Blackpool, in Summer! .......... and then in Brighton, in Scarborough, in Morecambe, in Torquay, Aberystwyd, Clacton on Sea and great Yarmouth, in Bristol and Hartlepool and Barrow in Furness. That would be an interesting way to keep died-in-the-wool fans still wanting to attend it each year and offering a taste of this fantastic game to holiday crowds all over the county.

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and a Test match on a Tuesday night at Oldham, then I will hold my hands up and agree with you!


But a test match in Oldham?

With the greatest respect to Oldham (and as the Bury born daughter, bred of Langanstrian parents (and heritage since time immemorial), I have exactly that ....... the very greatest respect for Oldham, and Rochdale, Bolton, Heywood, Prestwich and Worthington ........

Their hard-working, decent people; their down to earth, common sense attitude, and their abilty to go on laughing in the face of a life that, till recent years, knew more than its fair share of adversity, ranks them in the top row of my admired peoples.

But as I said, with the greatest respect to Oldham - if a Rugby League test match staged there on a Tuesday night is the true aspiration and test of their game's success for a majority of Rugby League fans, then sadly I have to believe that Rugby League is destined to remain no more than a brave little Northern offshoot of `the real rugby' as it is currently thought to be, rather than a game the whole country, and the rest of the world, takes note of and begins to understand, admires, talks about, metions regularly on The News and writes about in newspapers.

With the greatest respect to Dave T:

We can have it `Our Game', arranged to suit `Us'.

Or we can have it widely known, loved, admired, respected and watched by millions, at times and in places chosen to suit the millions - whose money is what might really help to keep it (this game so many fans love, for itself, not just for what they want of it) thriving and growing for all of us, at every level.


But I don't believe that we can have both ways.


:-)

“The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.”  Eleanor Roosevelt


#53 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 07:52 PM

QUOTE (Honor James @ Jul 24 2010, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Indeed! ........ in Blackpool, in Summer! .......... and then in Brighton, in Scarborough, in Morecambe, in Torquay, Aberystwyd, Clacton on Sea and great Yarmouth, in Bristol and Hartlepool and Barrow in Furness. That would be an interesting way to keep died-in-the-wool fans still wanting to attend it each year and offering a taste of this fantastic game to holiday crowds all over the county.



But a test match in Oldham?

With the greatest respect to Oldham (and as the Bury born daughter, bred of Langanstrian parents (and heritage since time immemorial), I have exactly that ....... the very greatest respect for Oldham, and Rochdale, Bolton, Heywood, Prestwich and Worthington ........

Their hard-working, decent people; their down to earth, common sense attitude, and their abilty to go on laughing in the face of a life that, till recent years, knew more than its fair share of adversity, ranks them in the top row of my admired peoples.

But as I said, with the greatest respect to Oldham - if a Rugby League test match staged there on a Tuesday night is the true aspiration and test of their game's success for a majority of Rugby League fans, then sadly I have to believe that Rugby League is destined to remain no more than a brave little Northern offshoot of `the real rugby' as it is currently thought to be, rather than a game the whole country, and the rest of the world, takes note of and begins to understand, admires, talks about, metions regularly on The News and writes about in newspapers.

With the greatest respect to Dave T:

We can have it `Our Game', arranged to suit `Us'.

Or we can have it widely known, loved, admired, respected and watched by millions, at times and in places chosen to suit the millions - whose money is what might really help to keep it (this game so many fans love, for itself, not just for what they want of it) thriving and growing for all of us, at every level.


But I don't believe that we can have both ways.


:-)

I don't think I have followed you, or you haven't followed me. unsure.gif

#54 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,103 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Jul 24 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think I have followed you, or you haven't followed me. unsure.gif


laugh.gif It's not you, it's her.

#55 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,577 posts

Posted 25 July 2010 - 08:15 AM

Just looking back at the article in RLE and the five directors of the RFL saw a collective increase in their wages of 108,000 on the 2008 figures. Someone earlier suggested that Nigel Wood's big pay rise may have been due to him taking the CEO's job. Fair comment but how do the others justify an avearge pay rise of 20,000 each? This equates to approximately a 20% pay rise. That will be more than many of the people who watch the game earn in a year.

Edited by deluded pom?, 25 July 2010 - 08:18 AM.

rldfsignature.jpg