Recommended Posts

Seems rumours of the death of this thread have been exaggerated... ;)

One wonders if the value of this consultancy contract Wood seemingly has forms part of the alleged £0.5m "settlement?  And, if so, then is this a sinecure or a genuine contract for services provided, on a time and expenses basis and requiring outputs worth the cost? If the former, then enough said. But if the latter, then in all fairness it should not be treated as part of any "settlement". 

I guess only those who are in receipt of the output from Wood's consultancy would be in a position to tell us which it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that the comment "it hardly needs a comment. It speaks for itself" couldnt actually be further from the truth with this £500k. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Martyn Sadler has said that Wood has confirmed that he did not receive a payoff of £500k. 

Martyn thinks this should be made public. I'm not so sure tbh, do we see other similar cases made public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So Martyn Sadler has said that Wood has confirmed that he did not receive a payoff of £500k. 

Martyn thinks this should be made public. I'm not so sure tbh, do we see other similar cases made public?

No, Nigel has claimed it, not confirmed it.

And I suspect it depends on how you define a severance payment.

Whatever the payment, I can't see why it shouldn't be made public.

There is far too much secrecy at the RFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, Nigel has claimed it, not confirmed it.

And I suspect it depends on how you define a severance payment.

Whatever the payment, I can't see why it shouldn't be made public.

There is far too much secrecy at the RFL.

I'm happy with the wording of confirmed it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, Nigel has claimed it, not confirmed it.

And I suspect it depends on how you define a severance payment.

Whatever the payment, I can't see why it shouldn't be made public.

There is far too much secrecy at the RFL.

When it comes to individuals terms of employment there needs to be some level of privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Spidey said:

When it comes to individuals terms of employment there needs to be some level of privacy.

In company accounts the amount paid to the highest paid director is revealed in the notes to the accounts.

I would have thought that a severance payment to the highest paid director should be treated in the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

In that case you're naive.

It doesn't mean it is true. It just means that he has said that is the case, and as the person who knows the facts, then that is confirmation - unless you think he is a liar.

Insisting that the word used is claims, rather than used, portrays how you feel on this one.

And I'm not saying that is wrong, but it certainly doesn't make me naive. 

EDIT: to add to this - Nigel Wood has evidence and has claimed that the payment wasn't £500k. Martyn do you have evidence that the payoff was £500k - because why would you 'retract' in a half-hearted way, your claim?

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, Nigel has claimed it, not confirmed it.

And I suspect it depends on how you define a severance payment.

Whatever the payment, I can't see why it shouldn't be made public.

There is far too much secrecy at the RFL.

Shouldn’t there be transparency enough to be noted within the annual report?  There was one unexplained point in it I raised last Report.  This ‘payment’ should be no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It doesn't mean it is true. It just means that he has said that is the case, and as the person who knows the facts, then that is confirmation - unless you think he is a liar.

Insisting that the word used is claims, rather than used, portrays how you feel on this one.

And I'm not saying that is wrong, but it certainly doesn't make me naive. 

No, the word is "claims" unless Nigel is prepared to say what he believes the true figure was, which he appears not to want to do.

Multiple sources told me that the figure was £500,000.

I'm reluctant to call anyone a liar, but as I said in my last post, the interpretation of what falls within the ambit of a severance payment may be the issue here.

Nigel has a consultancy contract with the RFL, for example, and he may believe that at least part of the payment is for that.

He obviously felt sensitive about the figure being revealed, but, as I think you have already pointed out, for someone earning around £300,000 per year and being given his marching orders, a severance payment of £500K doesn't seem out of the ordinary for breaking his contract.

On the other hand, if we'd run a story that he got no severance payment at all, that would have had far more serious implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, Nigel has claimed it, not confirmed it.

And I suspect it depends on how you define a severance payment.

Whatever the payment, I can't see why it shouldn't be made public.

There is far too much secrecy at the RFL.

That's spot on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, the word is "claims" unless Nigel is prepared to say what he believes the true figure was, which he appears not to want to do.

 

You made the claim, Wood denied it was true. I don't think it is fair to now put the onus on him to say what the number was.

I can confirm here and now I have size 10 feet. I won't be showing you my shoes though to prove it.

And I do have plenty sympathy with your view, although I'm not 100% sure about whether these payments should be public.

What would be more interesting now Martyn is that if you can get evidence of this £500k payment, surely this lie could be exposed and really start to challenge some of the RFL's approach - remember this guy will still be working on a consultancy basis and heading up the RLIF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair on Nigel Wood to expect him to release details of salaries, payments etc when nobody else in rugby league (or any other UK sport) is expected to do that.

That said, I much prefer the US system where every player, and most administrator, salary and T&Cs is in the public domain either put out by the parties themselves or filtered through a not-denied media channel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, the word is "claims" unless Nigel is prepared to say what he believes the true figure was, which he appears not to want to do.

Multiple sources told me that the figure was £500,000.

I'm reluctant to call anyone a liar, but as I said in my last post, the interpretation of what falls within the ambit of a severance payment may be the issue here.

Nigel has a consultancy contract with the RFL, for example, and he may believe that at least part of the payment is for that.

He obviously felt sensitive about the figure being revealed, but, as I think you have already pointed out, for someone earning around £300,000 per year and being given his marching orders, a severance payment of £500K doesn't seem out of the ordinary for breaking his contract.

On the other hand, if we'd run a story that he got no severance payment at all, that would have had far more serious implications.

A severance payment of £500k is excessive if he resigned of his own accord to go to another job

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I don't think it's fair on Nigel Wood to expect him to release details of salaries, payments etc when nobody else in rugby league (or any other UK sport) is expected to do that.

That said, I much prefer the US system where every player, and most administrator, salary and T&Cs is in the public domain either put out by the parties themselves or filtered through a not-denied media channel.

On the basis that the RFL is a limited company then his salary would be disclosed in the annual accounts in line with all other limited companies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

On the basis that the RFL is a limited company then his salary would be disclosed in the annual accounts in line with all other limited companies 

Genuine Q: is that exact salary or range, and does it include benefits such as pension etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LeeF said:

A severance payment of £500k is excessive if he resigned of his own accord to go to another job

That is correct, but the problem is that the RFL won't confirm that he did.

The fact that he was given a severance payment suggests that he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Genuine Q: is that exact salary or range, and does it include benefits such as pension etc?

Exact salary and a separate indication of pension contributions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears as though the round ball game aren't best pleased with the remuneration for the head of the PFA

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/12/pfa-gordon-taylor-pressure-scandalous-salary?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

It also appears as though the journalists get the information - https://twitter.com/danroan/status/963074386357080064?ref_src=twcamp^copy|twsrc^android|twgr^copy|twcon^7090|twterm^3

Still,what is written down proves nothing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what frustrates me with a lot of this type of behavior is that they can stop this being a story with no "facts" very simply.. disclose some facts.. you dont actually need to disclose many to make it go away and become "yesterdays fish wrappers" give us some facts so we know why/how he left etc

If they are embarrassed to do this then suck it up because you look a lot worse by letting the rumour mill churn along with more and more outlandish "beliefs"

If its embarrassing for the RFL or for Nigel Wood, for example because his contract was a bit lax etc, then take that hit and admit it, but making sure it doesn't happen again.. take your few days of bad press then move on.. but this keeps rolling along and along because no one will confirm the issue... yes certain things should perhaps remain private (the amount maybe) but equally they need to shut the "story" down to stop it rolling out of control and surely that is in the best interests of everyone, including Wood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RP London said:

what frustrates me with a lot of this type of behavior is that they can stop this being a story with no "facts" very simply.. disclose some facts.. you dont actually need to disclose many to make it go away and become "yesterdays fish wrappers" give us some facts so we know why/how he left etc

If they are embarrassed to do this then suck it up because you look a lot worse by letting the rumour mill churn along with more and more outlandish "beliefs"

If its embarrassing for the RFL or for Nigel Wood, for example because his contract was a bit lax etc, then take that hit and admit it, but making sure it doesn't happen again.. take your few days of bad press then move on.. but this keeps rolling along and along because no one will confirm the issue... yes certain things should perhaps remain private (the amount maybe) but equally they need to shut the "story" down to stop it rolling out of control and surely that is in the best interests of everyone, including Wood. 

I was going to start a thread on transparency after listening to the Proper Sports RL podcast yesterday and they had a rant about transparency. They did however let themselves down with some of the stuff they claimed they got no transparency on. Things like sponsorship deals and tv deals despite us being no different to any other sports who do not disclose amounts. We do know the value of the Sky and Betfred deals though even if not released officially. Sometimes I think we insist on knowing stuff that we really don't need to know and then moan about transparency.

It did get me thinking though, what have we got to lose by being the most transparent sport in the UK? Would we get benefits or negatives from telling everyone what the value of sponsorship deals are? Announce how much we pay the England manager. Announce how much a training camp in Dubai costs. Announce how much financial benefit we get from the game in Denver. Announce how much Kingstone Press are paying. Announce how much Ladbrokes are getting.

And so on. This would be a departure from every other sport, but would this be a welcome departure? What is the downside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I was going to start a thread on transparency after listening to the Proper Sports RL podcast yesterday and they had a rant about transparency. They did however let themselves down with some of the stuff they claimed they got no transparency on. Things like sponsorship deals and tv deals despite us being no different to any other sports who do not disclose amounts. We do know the value of the Sky and Betfred deals though even if not released officially. Sometimes I think we insist on knowing stuff that we really don't need to know and then moan about transparency.

It did get me thinking though, what have we got to lose by being the most transparent sport in the UK? Would we get benefits or negatives from telling everyone what the value of sponsorship deals are? Announce how much we pay the England manager. Announce how much a training camp in Dubai costs. Announce how much financial benefit we get from the game in Denver. Announce how much Kingstone Press are paying. Announce how much Ladbrokes are getting.

And so on. This would be a departure from every other sport, but would this be a welcome departure? What is the downside?

There are certain things that you dont want to be too transparent about as it can undermine your "bargaining position" when it comes to the next round of bids or the next time you have to do something.. I totally understand that and I wouldnt expect that much transparency where it can harm your cause later.

however, there are a number of times when you wonder whether people dont want to disclose as it is a "bad deal" or its potentially embarrassing for the organisation.. but surely that has to be weighed up with the fact that in this day and age speculation and rumour flies around the internet and that can cause more embarrassment than the actual facts, and a bit of transparency can solve that. 

on other bits sometimes knowing that the information/deal will be made public will stop people doing something that is a bit daft as people will have the chance to know about it.. most people who dont want transparency on a subject normally have something to hide (eg they feel their pay is too high for the job they do but they are willing to take it (as we all would to be fair)). 

all of this of course does have to be tempered by the fact some people will never understand and see the headline and go off on one so you have to be careful (ie £300k seems an awful lot of money when you are not on it but to get a chief exec of any caliber you need to pay that sort of money, or more, whether you think he is the right caliber or not is a different matter)

Its a balancing act of where you can be transparent and where not to be but equally when the rumour mill starts and you are able to stop it then stop it with facts, the facts are unlikely to be worse than the rumours that happen, and frankly if they are then maybe you should take a hard look at yourself and the deal/decisions that are made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I was going to start a thread on transparency after listening to the Proper Sports RL podcast yesterday and they had a rant about transparency. They did however let themselves down with some of the stuff they claimed they got no transparency on. Things like sponsorship deals and tv deals despite us being no different to any other sports who do not disclose amounts. We do know the value of the Sky and Betfred deals though even if not released officially. Sometimes I think we insist on knowing stuff that we really don't need to know and then moan about transparency.

It did get me thinking though, what have we got to lose by being the most transparent sport in the UK? Would we get benefits or negatives from telling everyone what the value of sponsorship deals are? Announce how much we pay the England manager. Announce how much a training camp in Dubai costs. Announce how much financial benefit we get from the game in Denver. Announce how much Kingstone Press are paying. Announce how much Ladbrokes are getting.

And so on. This would be a departure from every other sport, but would this be a welcome departure? What is the downside?

The answer to that question is probably we have no clue. However, it would be very interesting to know what the RFL spend on things like England RL for example as a whole project. They have so many people with so many hats on it is almost impossible to quantify. The sneaky central contracts for about 4-5 players was also weird as was the bizarre merchandising (or non-merchandising in WC year). The governing body did it almost as a secret exercise which not only annoys the fans but probably the players and clubs too. There was no explanation what the money was for, how much it was, what extra stuff they had to do, how many in total or even what the plan for it was going forward. Stuff like this is replicated in so many areas and creates a secretive appearance.

Edited by Scubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Exact salary and a separate indication of pension contributions.

Not quite, Martin.

The disclosure is of "Emoluments". These should include salary, any bonuses and also benefits in kind (e.g. company car, private medical insurance).  The pension contributions disclosure is the employer contribution.

The emoluments of individual directors do not have to be disclosed, just those of the highest-paid (who does not have to be named). That said, the RFL does actually list by name the emoluments of the non-executive directors.  So you know what each of them earned, but not (specifically) Wood, Rimmer and Draper.

The highest-paid director (assumed to be Wood) was stated as having emoluments of "£258k" and company pension contributions of "24k" in the latest published RFL accounts.  I am unsure where the £300k a year" earnings figure (or some of the ones higher than that)  comes from.

Edited by Adeybull
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Online 28 Jun - July 2018

Rugby League World - July 2018 - Out Fri 29 Jun

Rugby League Books On Sale Here