Dave T

Maybe, but sometimes events dont need to do everything. It looks like they were on and off the bus and all over the place, maybe that just isn't an event that works live, or substantially increases planning etc. It would be nice if there was a decent trophy actually, it looks like a really minor basic thing.

I think this is an example of excitable lads on the internet looking to be clever and for flaws. It's clear that the bus tour wasn't about being a mass promotion piece, it was a little niche effort to get content that can be used onwards. Engaging with fans and stuff.

This really should be the approach on many things. Including ventures like the WCC and Vegas etc. Share the risk and share the rewards.

The real issue here is that we dont really have a governing body that has any control. The governing body went into partnership with external experts and implemented a commercial board and a strategy that focused on strengthening clubs with a view to delivering sustainable growth. If any of the recent conversations are true, that has largely been torn up and the clubs have decided to go for daft short term approaches. You could argue that there isn't really a proper governing body in this country.

I agree.

Another excellent win for Leigh. Strangled Saints out of that.

I suppose the obvious answer is that the RFL board wouldn't then hire their mate to take charge. So they've had to oust the board and then change the role of the Chairman. Its important to remember that Simon Johnson was a NED. He wasnt the business leader as such. That should have been Sutton, and indeed should still be Sutton, but they've created this Senior Exec role for Wood, just because they want him to be boss. As well as getting him in to RLCom to avoid any ambiguity on who is in charge. Targeting Sutton wouldn't have got what they wanted. They've just basically made him irrelevant. Which is a similar tactic to how clubs previously forced Wood out, weakening him of all his powers by the SLE breakaway.

Personally I dont have an issue with that. He'd been employed by the RFL for 20 years or so and was paid off. I think it looks poor for the RFL to rehire somebody they have paid off with a huge sum just a few years earlier, but that's on them.

Plenty of nice content on the RFL website - during an extremely important meeting earlier I had one eye on the 1988 Oz v GB Test, seeing Mike Gregory racing 70m for his try at the SFS never becomes old.

I'm not sure I agree with the logic of a long-term deal being poor for the game tbh. I read Lenegan's criticism as the start of his manouvre to undermine the RFL and push for control tbh. As soon as he signed the deal to secure the money, he then started to undermine the strategy which was moving to the Super 8's. Which was ultimately Wood's downfall.

TBH - there really aren't too many comments about Wood himself and the performance of him. I gave a critique of him earlier where I pointed out that he flip-flops based on who he needs to win over, and that is backed up with evidence from his time in charge. The vast majority of negativity here is aimed at how this coup has happened, how reckless it has been, with a lack of transparency and ultimately plenty criticism is based on the fact that he has had his go at this. We've seen what he can do, the game dumped him for a reason. I don't dislike him as much as many others, but I don't see the point in going backwards looking for former glories, which tbh are based on one excellent TV deal, which had a whole myriad of reasons as to why it was at that level. It's not unlike when people hold up Maurice Lyndsay as some kind of genius for pulling in that £87m deal, when in reality it was a lot of external factors that led to that.

There are plenty of things that can be done that dont require votes. We just spend a lot of time on things like the structures which do.

Why do we need a short term solution? Why can't we do things properly and recruit properly? We didn't need an emergency leader.

He ran out of space on his fag packet to go into that detail.

Yeah, this is what I refer to in my post - but then you have that balancing act of giving enough to customers via another channel that will cannibalise your subscriber levels.

I think the presentation is rather lacking overall, but tbh, I normally have that part as background watching and only focus on the match.

I must admit, I watch plenty ofnthe secondary games and dont have an issue at all. I think sometimes we are a little picky.

But they are key features of the points system. I dont see what was complicated about a system that charges you based on your offence and dishes out a punishment as we used to. Ultimately lately that is what happens under any disciplinary, we've just made it more convoluted for no real benefit. The double jeopardy thing is fine - repeat offences should be punished more harshly, they have been under any system.

If we take the person out of this discussion, the real challenge is that the governance model has moved on, but has once again proved to be utterly ineffective and the clubs have been able to bring it to a grinding halt. That shouldn't be possible. Looking at the person, if we think we've had poor leaders, we should actively recruit for a good leader, not just have a lads club meeting in Batley and bring back our mate.

On the disciplinary. The clubs have led the changes in recent years and tbh, the current process is the least clear process ever and a bit of a car crash. What people mean really is they dont like their players being banned. The disciplinary used to be very clear The points thing is nonsense. But then, that's what you get when you let the clubs run things.

You say im wrong but dont discuss any points I've made. DB actively weakens his argument with absolute nonsense numbers. The real answer here is to transform your broadcasting proposition and numbers to make yourself so attractive that you then become attractive to other providers, as well as developing your own platform. That's what we're doing. Spending time talking about charging £40 per month to 50k people shows that you have no credible plan. That kind of talk is music to Skys ears.

That's purely a financial agreement, as it all is. If Sky give us £21m but spend £25m to cover broadcasting, you shuffle that round and cover costs in a different way. We see some clubs streaming matches at the moment on their own platforms.

I do think Wood is smart and personally I'd have more faith with him as CEO than Sutton. However (as an outsider admittedly) I do think his overriding characteristic is being a bit of a wheeler dealer who is an expert at preserving his own position. This is demonstrated really by him getting back into the position he is in a few years after being ousted, after 20 years being involved. He will flip flop based on the clubs whims and absolutely will be a lackey for them.

The reference to the disciplinary was typical DB. I think he massively overestimated his performance on Judge Rinder.

Ideally, we'd be in a place where a provider pays half decent money for 2 live games and the other 4/5 are SL+ exclusives. If this was the case, I'd absolutely pay for Sky and £20 per month for SL+ too. Sky having the other 4 games live at the moment does undermine our streaming platform.