RFL Chairman responds to criticism

[Pottsy]

Just to be clear, if someone "challenges and questions" the government's austerity measures are they toe the opposition line and supporting it? And if someone "challenges and questions" opposition alternatives are they toeing the government line and supporting it?

That you think whenever anyone disagrees with the RFL they are being challenging and questioning yet those who agree with them on somethings are benign cheerleaders just exposes your own irrational prejudices.

Just because a journalist condemns something does not make them right, not precludes them pushing their own agendas.

Just because the RFL says something it does not make them wrong.

There is a big difference between challenging and questioning, and talking something down. To challenge requires refutation. To question requires listening to answers.

Constantly shouting "YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG!" is neither challenging nor questioning.

Silly post. What I'm saying is that journalists are duty bound to interpret the news honestly/in line with their publication's standpoint. These opinions will differ markedly on some issues (note the difference in coverage of equal marriage between the Mail and the Guardian), whereas very occasionally there is a consensus.

Do you really think all of the RL journalists get together and decide 'let's all oppose the RFL on this one'?

Has it not occurred to you that it may just be that, on this particular issue, the majority (although not all) of the press disagree with the RFL's stance; it doesn't mean they are being negative for the sake of it.

[gingerjon]

I'm caught between two stools here because I do find the majority of RL journalists to be horrendously negative, and it's been that way for a long time. But I'm also thoroughly depressed at the nonsense coming out of Red Hall in recent months. Sigh!

 

There are legitimate gripes with the sport.  There always are.  And these should be addressed.

 

But I do have a major problem with the way in which the journalists who cover the game - who are the only voices most people outside the bubble of obsessive fans who cluster on internet forums hear - are so remorselessly negative all the sodding time.  Things really are not *that* bad and the game on the field is as brilliant as ever.

[faithfulbyname]

Just to be depressed, An RFL figure attacked for trying to do their job and promote the game. Again.

It is an open letter, not a strategy document.

He is a non-executive chairman, not an officer.

It is his opinion and response to the negativity that is damaging the sport's reputation.

The fact that no one can accept his letter for what it is, with people instead condemning him for things he has not said just illustrates how big this problem. The response from journalists resorting to ridicule and acting like they should be beyond question is the most arrogant and depressing thing. I want Barwick and Wood looking for sponsors and building up the game, not constantly having to fight the constant tide of unconstructiuve attacks that make their job more difficult.

Tony Hannan said in response that "if you are a journalist & you 'talk it up' then you ain't no journalist. You're a spin doctor. Aim for the truth" If he thinks that the truth can never be positive then he ain't no journalist either. If he thinks knocking something down you disagree with is journalism and not spin doctoring or yourself then he ain't no journalist.

(And just how boring must Tony Hannan's match reports be that he could never praise a game or a player because that not be journalism but spin doctoring. Just a load of technical statements saying someone passed, kicked, or tackled, with no description of how good or exciting any of them were.)

The biggest problem with rugby league reporting is that the line between journlism and editorial is blurred to the point of almost non-existance. Whatever someone thinks of, say, the 2x12 3x8 proposal is not journalism, it is opinion. Journalism is saying what it is. Journalism is investigating why it is being implemented, by whom, on what basis, what support it gets, how will is be judged, what analysis has been done for and against it. Journalism is saying what should be done instead on a factually researched basis. Saying "this is not good", saying "I think we should do this" is not journalism.

Just to be clear, Sadler's editorials are by definition meant to be opinion and not journalism, but for that reason they are also no more relevant to the overall debate than anything posted on this site. And just as he gets to use his prominent position to express his personal opinion, then Barwick has every entitlement to respond. And in a perfect world he could do so with the likes of Chris Irvine mocking him for it, but such low expectations we have of the games biggest enemy it understandable he has to new find ways of further diminishing his own credibility.

This.

[Pottsy]

Absolutely.

For the zilionth time, there is nothing wrong with having journalists who question things and offer an alternative point of view. But constantly denigrating everything for the sake of it is not only extremely boring, it's also damaging to the game.

Do you honestly believe most journalists are negative "for the sake of it"?

If there is any shred of institutionalised negativity in the RL press it's perhaps fueled by the fact that few, if any, of those who report on the game holds a full time position in a national media organisation.

Of the few I can think of who do (Andy Wilson and George Riley spring to mind) they're generally very positive about the game when they feel it's merited, yet if either of them veers from being 'on message' they're slated by the zealots on here almost immediately.

You have to remember, these blokes are paid to report and comment on the game, not to promote it.

[Pottsy]

Even so, if they are just being sincere about their views, there is clearly a lot wrong with RL in their eyes. So maybe it's time to cover another sport or get another job?

So again, following your 'logic' on this, if a political journalist finds little in the current climate to be positive about, they too should "get another job?"

[Doghead]

It would've been preferable in my opinion. It's quite clear that Mr Wood is the 'architect' of these plans and is pretty determined to push them through. Who knows, history may even present him as a genius.

However, where he's erred is in trying to seek public approval for something that was always likely to be contentious. And, in doing so, he's allowed the news agenda to be diverted from the World Cup at such a critical time.

It has deflected news from the World Cup, but the game has 18 months before clubs are relegated, it needs sorting. Red Hall could have kept a lid on talks that have taken place, think of the outcry if that had happened, Martyn Sadler would have had Kittens. Think of the damage done to our game with rumour and innuendo, enough damage was done when rumours first surfaced of the changes, not until we had a statement from Red Hall was some sort of calm restored,  sadly some people have kept to their opinions even though they where based on rumour at the time..

Edited July 25, 2013 by Doghead

[gingerjon]

Do you honestly believe most journalists are negative "for the sake of it"?

 

When it comes to rugby league they seem to wear it as a badge of honour.

[JohnM]

It has deflected news from the World Cup, but the game has 18 months before clubs are relegated, it needs sorting. Red Hall could have kept a lid on talks that have taken place, think of the outcry if that had happened, Martyn Sadler would have had Kittens. Think of the damage done to our game with rumour and innuendo, enough damage was done when rumours first surfaced of the changes, not until we had a statement from Red Hall was some sort of calm restored,  sadly some people have kept to their opinions even though they where based on rumour at the time..

 

Very much agree.

 

Is not about debate, discussion, opinion, journalism, challenging people and so on.  As I see it Martyn was creating an opportunity for the RFL to respond to the criticisms. 

 

What really pisses me off big time is the relentless  and conditioned-reflex denigration of the RFL and SuplerLeague, it people, its actions, its lack of action, its decisions , its lack of decisions, it refereeing decisions, its structural ideas, its openness, its transparency, its secretiveness, it unfairness, the perecived bias of the disciplinary committee..in fact everything, all the time.

 

  Aggregate the individual more and the picture becomes one of a game whose fans actually dislike the game they claim to support, despite the long term rise in views and spectators and despite its expansion,

 

Sure, not everything is right, in some cases far from it, but Jeez, its nowhere near as bad as as the naysayers like to make out.

Edited July 25, 2013 by JohnM

[Gav Wilson]

Sure, not everything is right, in some cases far from it, but Jeez, its nowhere near as bad as as the naysayers like to make out.

 

Absolutely.

 

I've said it for years, Its always either the best game in the word ever, or its dying and a farce and a joke.

 

Why can't there be a middle ground for once? Because thats where the game really is.

 

Having said that, don't take me seriously, I'm just an RFL sock puppet...

[Martyn Sadler]

Very much agree.

 

Is not about debate, discussion, opinion, journalism, challenging people and so on.  As I see it Martyn was creating an opportunity for the RFL to respond to the criticisms. 

 

What really pisses me off big time is the relentless  and conditioned-reflex denigration of the RFL and SuplerLeague, it people, its actions, its lack of action, its decisions , its lack of decisions, it refereeing decisions, its structural ideas, its openness, its transparency, its secretiveness, it unfairness, the perecived bias of the disciplinary committee..in fact everything, all the time.

That's quite a list, but who are you talking about here?

 

Who are the relentless denigraters?

[Vasile Andreica]

I'll use this Canada v USA game here as an example. Technically, the standard is about a good amateur level and if you were so inclined could focus on that and highlight their shortcomings.

Or you could enjoy the game (the crowd certainly are) for what it is in front of a decent crowd in a new RL location.

Would taking the latter approach constitute spin or something?

 

This. The game is good! Could be made better, but the game itself, by its rulebook, is such balanced that it makes a good or at least interesting show even at a lower level.

[JohnM]

That's quite a list, but who are you talking about here?

 

Who are the relentless denigraters?

 

 

Certainly not you Martyn, so you can sleep well tonight.   

 

In any case, I'm not going to fall into a trap like that.

 

 Its a question of, " if you have to ask....."

 

Just  aggregate the contributions of individual posters to arrive at the big picture.

[Just Browny]

Excellent posts on here by Johnoco, GJ, JohnM and a couple of others. But hats off totally to JTBC for some cracking posts.

[Pottsy]

Certainly not you Martyn, so you can sleep well tonight.

In any case, I'm not going to fall into a trap like that.

Its a question of, " if you have to ask....."

Just aggregate the contributions of individual posters to arrive at the big picture.

Ok, so Martyn isn't one of those guilty of "relentless negativity." So who are the perpetrators? I'm genuinely keen to know.

[Keith T]

Ok, so Martyn isn't one of those guilty of "relentless negativity." So who are the perpetrators? I'm genuinely keen to know.

Everyone who has put forward an opposite view to JohnM, I suppose!!!

IMHO, the game lacks governance from the governing body and at times merely pays lip-service to SLE. Look below SL and there is quite a lot of unrest. Look at the DR system that has caused more aggravation than any other topic this season and the RFL merely sit back and say we will look at it at the end of the season. Meantime they are now talking about bringing back Under 23's which would in effect do away with the DR system!!!

[bobbruce]

Everyone who has put forward an opposite view to JohnM, I suppose!!!

IMHO, the game lacks governance from the governing body and at times merely pays lip-service to SLE. Look below SL and there is quite a lot of unrest. Look at the DR system that has caused more aggravation than any other topic this season and the RFL merely sit back and say we will look at it at the end of the season. Meantime they are now talking about bringing back Under 23's which would in effect do away with the DR system!!!

Didn't the RFL want to keep the under 23s I think that was their recommendation. The clubs voted against it and choose the DR system instead. Now that its in the best thing to do is look at it at the end of the season so I'm not sure what the RFL has done wrong here.

[Keith T]

Correction bobbruce, the SL clubs decided they didn't want the Under 23's and it was presented as a "fait accompli" to the Championship clubs. That is what I mean by saying the game needs governance from the governing body, not SLE.

[Pottsy]

Didn't the RFL want to keep the under 23s I think that was their recommendation. The clubs voted against it and choose the DR system instead. Now that its in the best thing to do is look at it at the end of the season so I'm not sure what the RFL has done wrong here.

correct. Ironically, Warrington were one of the few clubs that wanted to follow RFL advice

[bobbruce]

Correction bobbruce, the SL clubs decided they didn't want the Under 23's and it was presented as a "fait accompli" to the Championship clubs. That is what I mean by saying the game needs governance from the governing body, not SLE.

No championship clubs had a choice that's why some clubs aren't DR to a SL team. No sport is run by a governing body with out agreement from its members how would that work. That's why the league structure is suggested by the RFL and then voted on by the clubs or would you like the RFL to say this is the structure your going to play in get on with it.

[Gav Wilson]

...or would you like the RFL to say this is the structure your going to play in get on with it.

 

Personally, I would. The club Chairmen have far too much power.

[Just Browny]

correct. Ironically, Warrington were one of the few clubs that wanted to follow RFL advice

Not in any way ironic. Warrington wanted to keep the u23s and promote youth talent that way, but were outvoted. But Warrington can't just sit back and do nothing as a point of principle, so are playing the cards they're dealt and using the DR 'system'.

[Pottsy]

Not in any way ironic. Warrington wanted to keep the u23s and promote youth talent that way, but were outvoted. But Warrington can't just sit back and do nothing as a point of principle, so are playing the cards they're dealt and using the DR 'system'.

Sorry to be a pedant, but it is ironic: the club that reportedly was most opposed to DR has, out of necessity, ended up being one of its most prolific exponents. That's pretty much a textbook example of irony.

[Pottsy]

Personally, I would. The club Chairmen have far too much power.

I'm inclined to agree (although I'm aware that the RFL constitution makes this impossible).

Whatever the outcome of this process (and the smart money is clearly on 3x8 etc) some of us still aren't going to be happy, so cut the whole lomg and drawn out 'will they, wont they' saga and just get on with it!

I'm not a fan of the 2x12 + 3x8 plan but the one thing that annoys me more than anything is the way that yet again the RFL has allowed off-field politics to dominate the news agenda at a time when all the talk should be about the forthcoming World Cup.

Sorry to be 'negative' but we really do shoot ourselves in the foot in this regard.

[Martyn Sadler]

Peter Smith and I will appear on Sky Sports Super League BackChat programme next Tuesday to discuss some of the issues raised in our articles and Brian Barwick's response to them.

 

No doubt it will be a lively discussion.

[Blind side johnny]

No championship clubs had a choice that's why some clubs aren't DR to a SL team. No sport is run by a governing body with out agreement from its members how would that work. That's why the league structure is suggested by the RFL and then voted on by the clubs or would you like the RFL to say this is the structure your going to play in get on with it.

 

 

Quite simply by a governance structure that allocates executive authority to the governing body and limits the ability of the members to meddle with such authority. I think that you will find that this is what has been achieved in Australia and seems to be working OK.