88 replies to this topic

[Ponterover]

To make it clear, he's not a direct replacement for Lewis. By changing the role of chairman to a non-exec role, the RFL has reduced it to a more ambassadorial position rather than a decision making position.

Which might not be a bad thing, what we need is cash and the best place to get cash is from TV/Print exposure that leads to more sponsorship interest. Seems like the ideal bloke for the job.

[Methven Hornet]

Just to be clear, here is the job ad...

http://appointments....cutive-chairman

Just to be clear - this job is no longer live!

[ShotgunGold]

I think this is fantastic news for the sport.

[Jim from Oz]

Just to be clear, a non-executive chairman is independent of an organisation and not involved in the running of it. Their job is just to ensure the functioning of the board of directors, including setting its agenda and its relationship with the executive level. In this model the chief executive is responsible for all functions involved in running the organisation, including setting and developing strategies.

This is different to Richard Lewis' time, who as an executive chairman combined those board functions with an executive position in which he could develop strategies while his chief executive was responsible for the running of the organisation.

So in effect, it seems Nigel Wood is still god.

So, will there be a replacement for Richard Lewis?

Or is a "non-executive chairman" as far as they're going to go?

Please explain!

[Dave T]

You can argu that CEO and Exec Chairman are the same thing.

Having a non-exec chairman should be a good thing.

[roughyedspud]

so he's not the "big boss" of the RFL???

[Futtocks]

To make it clear, he's not a direct replacement for Lewis. By changing the role of chairman to a non-exec role, the RFL has reduced it to a more ambassadorial position rather than a decision making position.

That may be a good thing. Firtsly, a full-time salary for someone like Barwick wouldn't be cheap, and secondly an ambassadorial role suits someone with so many contacts in sport, media and, no doubt, many other areas too.

[Derwent]

You can argu that CEO and Exec Chairman are the same thing.

You could argue it, but you'd be completely wrong. The 2 roles are very different and should have clear demarcation lines between them. There is very little crossover between them.

While Barwick seems a decent appointment it's difficult to see how much influence he will have as the same people will still be responsible for the day to day operational decision making in the game. As a Non-Exec he has no legitimate powers of decision making and if the CEO wants to do something then he does not need the Non-Exec's approval. The Non-Exec can challenge and put on record objections but ultimately can't prevent actions being taken. ATEOTD he probably won't even be employed by the RFL as most Non-Exec positions are done on a day rate consultancy basis through limited companies for tax reasons. He's there to advise and opine, not to make decisions. The key is how much notice Wood et al take of his advice.

[hindle xiii]

[Just to be clear]

So, will there be a replacement for Richard Lewis?

Or is a "non-executive chairman" as far as they're going to go?

Please explain!

Just to be clear, this is as far as they are going. Barkwick is not a replacement for Lewis but for Maurice Watkins. This change in structure was one of the recommendations made in the Watkins report, and I believe the standard in all the other major sports governing bodies.

Almost all respondents to the review considered that the sport had now reached a position where there was no longer a need for an executive chairman. In 2001 an executive chairman had been vital to ending the dysfunctionality that had crippled the sport; however the growth of Rugby League since that time and the success of the independent RFL Board had removed the need for an executive chair.

Having a non-executive chairman and a chief executive is the usual way in Britain of running an organisation. The chairman being independent to ensuring good governance of it, and that it works in the best interests of shareholders or stakeholders etc, while the chief executive gets on with actually running the business.

An executive chairman allows for stronger leadership, as it gives the executive influence on the board making the head of the organisation more powerful at the expense of scrutiny and accountability, for which the onus is placed on the independent directors. Traditionally this model has been favoured in America, though I believe the government there no longer recommend it following corporate scandals like that at Enron.

While Barwick is not taking an executive role, in his position he still offers guidance to the executive and this is where his experience will be beneficial and should see him have an influence on future policy.

[roughyedspud]

make barwick the chief executive & shift wood out the way

[John Rhino]

make barwick the chief executive & shift wood out the way

I don't think applying your personal grudge would help the governance of the RFL :-)

[roughyedspud]

i don't have a grudge against wood....i just think he's not very good

[foozler]

i don't have a grudge against wood....i just think he's not very good

According to the Salford Dr, Wood was instrumental in the takeover deal which is being announced today. So something to his credit.

[Blind side johnny]

Just to be clear, this is as far as they are going. Barkwick is not a replacement for Lewis but for Maurice Watkins. This change in structure was one of the recommendations made in the Watkins report, and I believe the standard in all the other major sports governing bodies.



Having a non-executive chairman and a chief executive is the usual way in Britain of running an organisation. The chairman being independent to ensuring good governance of it, and that it works in the best interests of shareholders or stakeholders etc, while the chief executive gets on with actually running the business.

An executive chairman allows for stronger leadership, as it gives the executive influence on the board making the head of the organisation more powerful at the expense of scrutiny and accountability, for which the onus is placed on the independent directors. Traditionally this model has been favoured in America, though I believe the government there no longer recommend it following corporate scandals like that at Enron.

While Barwick is not taking an executive role, in his position he still offers guidance to the executive and this is where his experience will be beneficial and should see him have an influence on future policy.

Succinctly explained. In addition to guidance he will also monitor the performance of the executive and, given his previous role with the FA, will be very knowledgeable in this area. A new Non-exec Chairman always makes the executives pull their socks up so I think this appointment is excellent news.

[JohnM]

i don't have a grudge against wood....i just think he's not very good

you want to hear what he thinks of you!!

[roughyedspud]

he tried telling me once but he had a couple of pies in his mouth so could'nt make out what he was saying,,

[The Future is League]

Calm down LRL. Wood is the CEO.and a good job he seems to be doing, too. Barwick's is a non-exec role, its 5 to 6 days a month and If there were many problems to sort out, it would be an exec role and more than five or six days a month.

I do think that behind the scene's Nigel Wood does a good job in his position. Yes he could do better and will. Lets be honest as regards work we could all do better,and improve our perfomances.

[Dave T]

You could argue it, but you'd be completely wrong. The 2 roles are very different and should have clear demarcation lines between them. There is very little crossover between them.

Well yes, I agree, however historically plenty of businesses have had one person doing both these roles. Not any more, but the fact that these have been the same role in the past held by the same person shows that there absolutely is some crossover.

The splitting and clear responsibilities of these two positions is very positive though IMHO.

[John Rhino]

Well yes, I agree, however historically plenty of businesses have had one person doing both these roles. Not any more, but the fact that these have been the same role in the past held by the same person shows that there absolutely is some crossover.

The splitting and clear responsibilities of these two positions is very positive though IMHO.

There is cross over but there absolutely should not be. The corporate governance rules were changed to "outlaw" the practice some years ago.

Being England its not actually illegal but any one who tries it gets a heck of a lot of stick from the press and shareholders