Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Honor James

RFL shortlisted for the Sport Governing Body of the Year

75 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, this will go to one of the Olympic bodies

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

post-22852-0-58527700-1360958284_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of the other bodies nominated perfect?

I'll nominate Holly Willoughby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of the other bodies nominated perfect?

Well, I would think that the BOA unashamedly promote the interests of the elite in each sport they're involved in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would think that the BOA unashamedly promote the interests of the elite in each sport they're involved in.

You mean they ignore 99% of their sports participants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unfairness and unequal treatment within the game astounds me.

Maybe that is because the RFL don't actually decide an awful lot in our game? The major decisions all seem to be made by the Superleague clubs. Take the u20s disbanding, for example. The RFL have gone on record recently as suggesting an age limit. The Superleague clubs refused and so no age limit was set. The more I think about the number of times I have read in a statement/article or heard in an interview that 'the Superleague clubs voted to keep it/have it/reject it' the more I realise that our governing body doesn't seem to actually have any teeth. I no longer know what it actually decides. Does anyone here know what it actually decides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that is because the RFL don't actually decide an awful lot in our game? The major decisions all seem to be made by the Superleague clubs. Take the u20s disbanding, for example. The RFL have gone on record recently as suggesting an age limit. The Superleague clubs refused and so no age limit was set. The more I think about the number of times I have read in a statement/article or heard in an interview that 'the Superleague clubs voted to keep it/have it/reject it' the more I realise that our governing body doesn't seem to actually have any teeth. I no longer know what it actually decides. Does anyone here know what it actually decides?

Truly brilliant observation.....

The RFL can go and decide "whatever" but as long as several real "SUPER" super league club chairmen have a teensy weensy bit of influence because it's the games between their clubs that secure SKY super league TV contracts, that in turn secure Rugby League, that in turn supports the survival of the game......

Then it has to be careful...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Is this true anyone????

Can a governing body make people play RL?

Or can they only do their best with limited resources??

Or did the RFL perform badly here??

Genuine question as I am not close enough to the subject to know??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Fundamentally when the RFL took the decision to sign the SKY contract we have discussed at length on here and concluded was SADLY the right decision for the game it was always going to blow a hole in the clubs below that elite. As long as the SKY contract isn't enough to fully resource an Elite league the Elite will always look to take whatever resources they can from the Championship.

So they buy Zac Hardaker, they sell Bulls season tickets in Batley and they use Hunslet as an "A" team.

The alternative is ring fence championship clubs and let the SL clubs go bust, or downsize back toward semi pro again.

They can't do that and so they have had to take the rough decisions that get them such a bad name with the Championship fans.

Haven't you noticed it's all the fans of the championship clubs who still hold out some hope their clubs will one day be in SL are the ones calling the RFL the most and questioning Mr. Wood's dietary practices.

Maybe the judges of the awards will take into account how darn hard running RL must be in such terrible circumstances where you have to fight against soccer's massively overwhelming popularity, and when you manage to have a minority interested in the handling game you have to fight the Rugby Union establishment for the interest of that minority.

Maybe the judges should chuck the RFL out because a small minority of people don't like the economic circumstances that drive the RFL's decision making, because their clubs suffer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017