Martyn Sadler

Nigel is keeping us waiting. We won't get much out of him until after the Council meeting on 15 July, at which he is likely to become the RFL Chairman. I do know that he's spent quite a bit of time recently in London speaking to Sky Sports about likely future broadcasting scenarios for Rugby League, while also marshalling the Super League club owners to accept they have a common interest in making their competition as attractive as possible for potential investors. The clubs have the final say in how many teams comprise Super League and they seem to have moved en masse to wanting 14 as early as next season, although such a move isn't yet guaranteed. I believe that Nigel has been tasked with finding the money that will enable the clubs to maintain their current distribution levels, both for them and for any new clubs coming into the competition, and that won't include Catalans losing their share of the distribution. And anyone who claims that the NRL won't make a move for Super League because of Nigel's appointment is talking nonsense.

Check out the new edition of the League Express Podcast.

The London Hounds seems to come out of left field. I'm not sure who would have thought of the idea. I had a meeting with Gary and urged him not to change the name of the club. The Broncos may not be a wildly successful club but at least they have some name recognition. To completely rebrand them will be expensive, if it is to be done properly, and its success will not be guaranteed. It sounds to me more like a fox hunting organisation, which won't necessarily guarantee its popularity with the audience Gary is trying to attract.

I wish I had more faith. It's rare for any organisation to cede power for the greater good but that is effectively what the clubs are being asked to do. My fear is that they will opt for the status quo and they will continue to make decisions that don't benefit the game as a whole. One example of that is the expansion of the quota system, which will result in more money flowing out of the game to overseas players just when that money should be aimed at expanding our own player production process.

Those are the issues the clubs are currently debating, among others.

Not in the clubs, in the competition.

It's actually far more accurate than the article written by John Davidson about Nigel Wood. But the clubs have to find a way to facilitate investment into British Rugby League that will deliver income growth for the leading competition that new investment can generate. That is likely to mean the clubs themselves submerging their identities into the competition as a whole and forgoing some of their current powers. All their current meetings are focused on that point. Whether they are prepared to combine their interests in the way any new investors will require will determine their prospects of success.

It's actually quite difficult to argue with people who allow their prejudices to override or misrepresent facts that are put in front of them. There's none so blind as those that refuse to see.

This is a fairer summary than John Davidson's but is still inaccurate. "Wood's lack of strategic thinking is his biggest downfall". In fact it was Wood's strategic thinking that played a large part in his downfall. He created the Super 8s, which ran for four years from 2015. It was a novel way of handling promotion and relegation and its creation was partly responsible for the record TV deal. But the clubs hated it because they couldn't publish their full fixture list at the start of the season to maximise income from season tickets and all the excitement was in the Middle 8s and the Million Pound Game, so they ditched it, but only after he had left the RFL. "For example, Wood is a big believer in the international game, and with him in charge we had made good progress in many areas (record breaking World Cup, record Kiwi crowds etc), however it was all undone by failing to build a relationship with Australia which led to the abandoning of the 4N and nothing to replace it, and he led the GB Lions piece which undermined much of the good work around England." The Four Nations was his invention and the final Four Nations was in 2016, which saw Scotland earn a draw with New Zealand at Workington, a crowd of almost 36,000 to see England v Australia at the London Stadium and a crowd of more than 40,000 at Anfield for the final between Australia and New Zealand. The World Cup was held in Australia in 2017 and after that Wood was out of the RFL. The Four Nations concept was ditched, but not by him. Anything that happened from 2018 wasn't his doing. You claim that the Magic Weekend has not grown materially since its launch, which is an arguable point, but it was Wood who took the Magic Weekend to Newcastle for the first time in 2015, with a record aggregate attendance of almost 68,000 and a single day attendance of more than 40,000. Your comments about expansion clubs are arguable, but I don't think anyone could have found a way to embed them in the competition, given the current governance structure, whereby all clubs are independent entities.

I've just put League Express to bed and I'm bushed, so not tonight. It would actually be far quicker to list the accurate points.

John is sailing very close to the wind. There are enough inaccuracies in that article for it to be potentially actionable. My advice to Nigel would be to seek a right of reply to it, which I hope he will take on board.

It actually isn't a joint venture. It would probably have been better if it had been. The joint venture is RL Commercial, which is a company with equal shareholdings for the RFL and SLE. Perhaps IMG should have taken a third share. Instead IMG are consultants to RL Commercial, whereas in the case of EuroLeague Basketball they have a joint venture relationship. In that case they signed a joint venture agreement in 2016 with income targets they had to satisfy, which they have achieved comfortably, so much so that they have recently signed a fresh ten-year agreement.

Matt Dwyer said when the IMG partnership was launched in May 2022 that their income would come from the increased income generated by RL Commercial over the twelve years, with a ratchet effect so that the greater the rise, the greater IMG's share would be. He never mentioned any other income component at that time. Their principal role is to examine ways in which Rugby League can expand its income over the twelve-year period of their contract. It seems very odd that when we try to identify ways they are doing this, we can't find much solid evidence of progress. They will negotiate the next TV deal from 2027 and that will be absolutely crucial for the game and presumably for them, but I can't see much evidence yet of too much work being done behind the scenes. I hope I'm wrong. If you sign up to a business partnership for a lengthy period like 12 years that doesn't include clauses that give the right to break at some point, then you are incredibly foolish, which is something I learned at great cost in my earlier business career. There has to be a mechanism for ending a relationship if it isn't working to both sides' satisfaction.

What I actually said was that you shouldn't necessarily believe quotes taken from unattributed sources. Pay attention!

I sometimes have to smile at the incredible naiveté of some posters on this forum. I have a text message on my phone from a former RFL director of a few months ago complaining bitterly that I was responsible for forcing them out for pointing out in League Express how little they had achieved. You obviously complain about the Rugby League press without actually reading it.