Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

RFL shortlisted for the Sport Governing Body of the Year

RFL media release

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#21 bimbo101

bimbo101
  • Coach
  • 77 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:58 PM

I can see it now,all of them in their suits with their snouts in the trough drinking Champers and eating Prawn sandwiches with all the hangers on come awards night.

Attached Files



#22 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

Self-portrait? :lol:

#23 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,361 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:13 PM

Well done the RFL and they do and have dome some excellent work in certain areas. But for me and many others the RFL have failed in other key areas which this award is not judged on. The massive split in the game at various levels and the way academy rugby and DR/Twinning changed this past few months etc are a couple of examples. Certain posters think the RFL do an excellent job- which they do in certain areas. Others are of the opinion the RFL are failing and damaging the game in certain areas. Neither side is completely correct in its viewpoint. Its up to the RFL as well as the clubs to improve the areas they are failing and causing problems with. I hope the RFL win, though that doesnt mean the work of the RFL is done or should be content.

#24 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:23 PM

How can a sporting body that looks after only a third of it's members be nominated for an award?


RFL had to take the SKY contract and had to give 14/15th's of it to a small 14 club TV league.

Alternative refuse it and let down ALL the clubs down and the game in general.

But let's ignore the facts and have a go eh?

#25 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 19,787 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

Loving the feed from @RLMeltdown on this.


Some priceless fury going on there. :D Just imagine what'll happen if the RFL win!

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#26 cookey

cookey
  • Coach
  • 1,116 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:01 PM

Maybe the half dozen half wits on here,may just realise that its them that is wrong,not everyone else - then again,I don't suppose they have sufficient intelligence to realise that.

#27 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,361 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:32 PM

Maybe the half dozen half wits on here,may just realise that its them that is wrong,not everyone else - then again,I don't suppose they have sufficient intelligence to realise that.


Such an ignorant and arrogant comment.Why are they halfwits? Just because they dont think the RFL do that good a job? It depends what angle or viewpoint you are looking at. People are unhappy with the RFL in certain areas. Just because you dont think so doesnt mean that these people are wrong on their views. And a number of people who coach and run clubs are also not oo happy with certain things that the RFL are doing. Are these people also halfwits and not intelligent?

#28 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:57 PM

LR, your post #23 was in my opinion, a measured and reasonable response to the news in the press release. However, not everyone does that all the time. Of course, there are those like me who generally think the RFL is generally doing a good job in the areas where it governs. Sure it could do better, then so could all of us whatever we do.

Nevertheless, we'd all do well to recall Clare Baldings words when she asked, "why are rugby league fans so chippy? " the answer is clear: There are a number on here who invariably criticise the RFL whatever it does or does not do. There are single-issue posters who blame everything on lack of P and R. There are those on here who relentlessly pursue single-club agendas, blaming all their woes on the RFL whilst brooking no criticism of their own hard-done-to clubs., and there are those who engage in unwarranted personal attacks on the physique of the RFL's CEO. Not hard to see where Clare was coming from: just read some of the comments on here about what is a great good news story.

Edited by JohnM, 15 February 2013 - 04:57 PM.


#29 T-Dub

T-Dub
  • Coach
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

I recon FIFA should have been shortlisted, just for contrast...

... I mean they never put their foot in anything?

#30 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,675 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:59 PM

Incidentally, this will go to one of the Olympic bodies


If Rugby League has been shortlisted why did it have it's funding cut?

Attached Files


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#31 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:47 PM

If Rugby League has been shortlisted why did it have it's funding cut?

because this award is not based on participation whereas the funding is.

#32 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:40 AM

RFL had to take the SKY contract and had to give 14/15th's of it to a small 14 club TV league.

Alternative refuse it and let down ALL the clubs down and the game in general.

But let's ignore the facts and have a go eh?


If you say so but it dosn t alter the OP point. They are not looking out for the welfare of 2/3 of their members so how can they be nominated for this award.

#33 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:42 AM

Maybe the half dozen half wits on here,may just realise that its them that is wrong,not everyone else - then again,I don't suppose they have sufficient intelligence to realise that.


Looking in the mirror when you posted that were you?

#34 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

If you say so but it dosn't alter the OP point. They are not looking out for the welfare of 2/3 of their members so how can they be nominated for this award.


What do you mean "Not looking out for the welfare of 2/3 of their members?

Why do you think the two thirds of clubs who are declining, have mainly lost their independence, and those with some semblance of fight left in them are in limbo are where they are??

Is it because the RFL have taken the wrong decisions?

Think about it again, the non acceptance of the SKY contract would have failed to look after the welfare of the game per se, including all the championship clubs anyway. The acceptance of it was positive for the game albeit it created unavoidable conditions that have led to the decline of semi pro RL clubs playing at a high level.

Governing bodies have to make decisions and have to make the right ones, in very hard circumstances the right decisions sometimes end up not being advantageous to everyone, it does not make them wrong.

Please engage in the logic and reasoning of the point and if you believe I am wrong set out what the right workable decision should have been on this fundamental aspect of the RFL's governance.

Your post is vacuuous as regards any argument for debate. You can do better than that surely?

#35 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:11 AM

Looking in the mirror when you posted that were you?


You can do better than that as well.

#36 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:21 AM

There are single-issue posters who blame everything on lack of P and R. There are those on here who relentlessly pursue single-club agendas, blaming all their woes on the RFL whilst brooking no criticism of their own hard-done-to clubs.


That's just one thing really.

The acceptance of the SKY contract polarised the clubs and the effect of that was to create a divide that is starting to become permanent, remember 1996 for the first event, and 2013 for the twinning of clubs as the second event, and erm.

Well, we will see if the final logically assumed act of confirming an NRL style set up of one professional division and feeders below comes to pass. Could be as early as 2015.

However whilst there's hope there's "chippiness" (whatever that means?)

Edited by The Parksider, 16 February 2013 - 11:22 AM.


#37 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,634 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:22 AM

If you say so but it dosn t alter the OP point. They are not looking out for the welfare of 2/3 of their members so how can they be nominated for this award.


That is patently not the case. Your life in the past lane, everything anti-RFL, all the time, is clouding your judgement.

#38 Robin Evans

Robin Evans

    Robin Evans

  • Coach
  • 9,858 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

John. Beyond the p&r issue, and dr etc etc there are many issues im at odds with the rfl. The unfairness and unequal treatment within the game astounds me.
Sl clubs can repeatedly visit sh it street, and fail both on and off tge field yet retain their licence. Yet any champ club has to jump thru flaming hoops to get one. Outrageous and massively unfair imo.
Just one example of why I think the rfl are up for criticism.
I appreciate your stance. We aren't ever going to see the game in the same way. I'll live wi that owd cocker!
"I love our club, absolutely love it". (Overton, M 2007)

#39 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:41 PM

Sl clubs can repeatedly visit ###### street, and fail both on and off the field yet retain their licence. Yet any champ club has to jump thru flaming hoops to get one. Outrageous and massively unfair imo.


I know and agree it's not good.

The Wakefield and Bradford sagas were clear that the RFL were not going to dump two city clubs, for small town clubs.

It was completely the right decision because Bradford are back on an even keel and 10,000 crowds with Wakefield confident of the new facility and 9,000 crowds.

It was done in "a wrong way", that lacked honesty.

Having said that Robin none of the CC clubs who want to be in SL stood up and said - "Hey, we should have those places" except Halifax who had presented a very poor financial plan.

The flaming hoop for Rovers which I agree is unfair is the 2500 average. Lets see how you go against Barrow tomorrow.

"Outrageous" is over egging a good point, "massively" unfair is a point I don't understand in the above circumstances?

Edited by The Parksider, 16 February 2013 - 01:42 PM.


#40 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:04 PM

What do you mean "Not looking out for the welfare of 2/3 of their members?

Why do you think the two thirds of clubs who are declining, have mainly lost their independence, and those with some semblance of fight left in them are in limbo are where they are??

Is it because the RFL have taken the wrong decisions?

Think about it again, the non acceptance of the SKY contract would have failed to look after the welfare of the game per se, including all the championship clubs anyway. The acceptance of it was positive for the game albeit it created unavoidable conditions that have led to the decline of semi pro RL clubs playing at a high level.

Governing bodies have to make decisions and have to make the right ones, in very hard circumstances the right decisions sometimes end up not being advantageous to everyone, it does not make them wrong.

Please engage in the logic and reasoning of the point and if you believe I am wrong set out what the right workable decision should have been on this fundamental aspect of the RFL's governance.

Your post is vacuuous as regards any argument for debate. You can do better than that surely?


The removal of p and r greatly disadvantages Championship clubs by cutting off their avenue to the top. It is discriminatory and greatly weakens all those clubs, twice s many as are at the top Table. The licencing system which places criteria re stadia, crowds and junior development which are not enforced on the top teams is the same. The Twinning, A team, feeder team, whatever name you care to apportion to the process is ruining the Championships as an independent, competitive competition and is a get out of gaol card for SL clubs, so that they do not need to fund junior teams, is a discriminatory action to support the SL and not in the best interests of the Championships, whose integrity they are ruining.

The failure to ensure targets were met to enable continuing Sport England funding and , as a result the retrenchment currently taking place in the amateur game, is a very bad outcome, for which the RFL, as architects of the player production plan put in place, are ultimately responsible.

They have failed 2/3 or more of the game. Were these actions unavoidable as you claim. Maybe. Maybe they were the correct decisions but the fact that they have produced negative consequences for large parts of the game does not make them prime candidiates for Organisation of the year.

To be organisation of the year I would hazard a guess that 100% of your game needs to be booming and there are no negatives about the game you administer. The weakness and damage being done to the lower tiers of the game and the continuing weakness of many top echelon SL teams does not seem to make them candidates for orgainisation of the year.

They are not failures by any means but neither are they the paragon of virtue with no blemishes that would justify winning this award. We shall see if they do.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users