Death to the Rah Rah's

I know not every league charges entry fee and where they do, it’s often just a token amount. Plenty of clubs don’t charge subs either. That’s why this whole situation feels even more baffling. The current scattergun approach from the governing body is, frankly, unacceptable. For an organisation that’s supposed to lead and support the game, this kind of rushed, poorly communicated rollout just isn’t good enough. Clubs and volunteers put in huge amounts of time and effort week in, week out the very least they deserve is transparency and genuine consultation before major changes are dropped on them. Would it really have been so difficult to start with proper engagement? Hold structured discussions with all stakeholders, gather input, and then circulate a clear, evidence-based proposal showing how decisions were made and how the new structures would actually work? That means laying out the full picture: league structures, team numbers, referee and touch judge recruitment plans, and the management framework from top to bottom including how regional leagues fit into the bigger picture to give the games real stakeholders (yes the clubs) all of the facts in order to make an informed decision. Instead, we get a vague 30-minute Teams presentation that answered almost nothing and left clubs completely in limbo. No clarity, no detail, and no confidence heading into next season. Last week it was going to be one league at Tier 3, this week I hear its going to be 2 leagues at Tier 3, next week probably 4 leagues ...... This isn’t about being resistant to change it’s about asking for respect, collaboration, and a unified approach. If the governing body genuinely wants to strengthen the game, it needs to bring everyone to the table and build a structure that works with the clubs, not one imposed on them in true dictator style!

Nobody would argue that change isn’t needed, but there’s a real danger in rushing through big, sweeping reforms to community rugby league without actually talking to the people who live and breathe the game. Local league administrators, volunteers, coaches, and most importantly, players, are the ones keeping rugby league alive week in, week out. They understand the challenges in their areas, player numbers, facilities, travel distances, and how the local comps run best with competition specific local rules. When decisions are made in ivory towers from the top down, without that local input, the danger is we end up with rules and structures that might look great on paper but just don’t work in reality. It frustrates the people doing the hard yards and, worse still, risks pushing them away from the game altogether. I’ve even heard whispers via one of the youth leagues that all current regional league administrators will have to apply to the RFL just to keep their voluntary roles under the new structure. Yet, as usual, they said there's been no information about how these “new management structures” will look only that the changes are being rushed through to take effect for the start of the 2026 season, effectively leaving local admins in limbo and unable to start preparations for next season. Real progress comes from listening, from working with the grassroots, not talking at them with their bullish 'do as I say' attitude. Every region is different, and that’s not a problem to fix; it’s something to respect and build around. Some of our leagues have been around since the original split from the RFU in 1895. Do we really want to throw away that history at the whim of someone who’s probably never visited the communities of Hull, Doncaster, Oldham, Barrow, or Whitehaven and watched a local game? Rugby league’s strength has always been its community spirit but the RFL, an organisation with a poor track record of rushed decision making, seem intent on ignoring years of hard won experience. Remember the “signing-on fee” for the community game? That was pushed through on promises of game promotion, player development programmes, and other tangible benefits. Has anyone actually seen anything new that wasn’t already in place before that was introduced? The move to summer when clubs were promised it would increase player number and would encourage referees into the sport ..... What’s now to stop the RFL using this the “restructure” to add another cost maybe a “league entry fee” on top of the thousands clubs already pay to register players, a system which penalises the more successful clubs as they might have 150-200 players to register. I have no idea how this plays out, but it can only go one of two ways: 1. The RFL pause for breath and properly engage with everyone involved, or 2. They show their arrogance and contempt for the community game, plough on regardless, and deal with the fallout later. Sadly, judging by their past record... my money’s on the latter.

Wait and see, sure the devil will be in the detail and it still needs the clubs to buy into it

Thornhill only travelled with 14 players to Hensingham on Saturday, not so many forfeited games, but not easy on the squads travelling without a full compliment of players, especially on hot days and hard pitches ! Would be nice if the RFL made a statement of some description as the rumour mill is in full flow at the min!

The game needs a full and comprehensive review but ultimately the RFL need to show some leadership and make some tough decisions to try and create a vibrant competition that allows team to find their level and develop at their own pace. The current structure of community rugby league is fragmented, with overlapping management bodies, diluted competition, and no unified leadership or development pathway. At present where we have the RFL, BARLA, NCL, regional open age and youth league managements plus each regional referees society running the game - I've never witnessed anything as ludicrous in my life, the game currently has no clearly defined leadership, no seemingly development plan etc. and that needs to change.

Struggling to get them now - I think there's only 4 or 5 regular referees in my part of Cumbria, not that I'm advocating a breakaway, just highlighting the point

I had a similar conversation with a club official of a pro club the other week. No doubt for a number of reasons the professional RL clubs in my area don't seem to get many supporters from the community game and it feels the usual long-running tension that exists in rugby league between the professional and community game, especially outside the Super League heartlands would need a huge marketing budget and someone with plenty of drive to change perceptions. Saturday and Sunday junior and open age community fixtures often clash with professional club matches on weekends, especially junior fixtures in the Championship and League One. Many parents, coaches, and volunteers spend their entire Saturday supporting or running teams, and simply don’t have the energy or availability for another day of rugby on Sunday. I can't speak for areas outside of West Cumbria, but up here in the 'proper north' we have a really strong local culture in the community game, it isn't usual for open age games to get 400+ crowds, and the fact that some youth matches are drawing 200+ supporters is both incredible and telling. It shows how a strong local identity and rivalries are when rooted in community pride. This in itself raises issues for the professional sides, if the atmosphere, connection, and quality of the community game feels more alive, then what’s the incentive to go to a low-energy pro match? I've often wondered what would happen if either the pro or community game returned to winter, there could be a year-round rugby league calendar, which could, in theory, increase cross-pollination of fans and players between the two levels. But as those of us who played in winter will recall, it has many challenges: Poor weather - reduced participation (especially for kids) but could open age community move to winter and leave the kids in summer? Harder on volunteers and pitch availability. Inconsistent training - lower enjoyment and retention. And realistically, winter rugby would likely be a step backwards for participation numbers, especially with competing sports like football. The reality is this probably isn't just a marketing issue alone, but more a cultural one. If pro clubs want support from the community game, they need to embed themselves within it, not just advertise to it to win a legion of new fans.

SIS did the all-weather through at Maryport and that one has shock pads in for rugby

All supporters should be very thankful to the current board for standing their ground over the stadium proposals or it really would have been a new stand on one side of the Reds ground and lets be honest here, only the current directors really know the true state of Derwent Park and how much life is left in the old girl !! Can you imagine the uproar if the board decided to stay at Derwent Park and within 5 years the grandstand was condemned or other parts of the ground failed a safety certificate! The club really would be up creek without a paddle and would have to go cap in hand to the council to play at Borough Park, and that's if the club survived the upheaval. We will end up with a nice little ground with both clubs sharing ownership that should create a cracking atmosphere

On the website it says the funding has been increased to £10.8 million so I'm guessing phase one is covered in the revised funding. In regards to bar sales and stuff like that its easy to sort out. Make it a cashless stadium linked to Epos tills, the stadium management company buys all the drink, puts a small handling charge (ie: stick 10% on the cost of the pint as a handling charge) then the respective clubs get all the profit based on their own sales - no waste as same products sold by both clubs. Any events the stadium management run would be paid out in the same way. Likewise with advertising, put up an nice LED scoreboard and some advertising hoardings then each club can sell their own matchday packages

Reds move over to DP in January 26 and both clubs move into the new stadium in July 27 - so 18 month build

The 'future proof' looks to complete a nice little stadium, which for a town of 35k, a 5k capacity (eventually) will be ample enough to accommodate supporters and generate a good atmosphere and we have to be honest with ourselves here and match ambition with realism. Couple of observations - on the popular side it looks like there are seats at the front few rows and standing behind? What's the large building on the town end? I totally get the argument about the marquee structure and whatever the building is behind the town end that isn't going to be built anytime soon, so presumably that could be the 'fanzone' area and accommodate a nice new marquee and I'm sure the Town board will already picked up on that point. Alternatively, seeing as there's a lack of facilities in West Cumbria, the building behind the Town end would be an ideal location to build something which is basically an open covered space (a bit like a large industrial unit) with a permanent stage and dressing room at one end and small office type buildings down the side for pop-up shops, bars, food outlets for events, stalls for exhibition stands etc. Basically a modern covered version of a container park to allow for Cumbrian weather! Not a huge outlay but opens up endless opportunities for the clubs to raise additional non-matchday income as it could also double up as a fanzine for both clubs on matchdays and host anything from concerts to car boots, to exhibitions etc. There's similar things in the larger cities and a venue with a capacity of say 1000 would be the largest indoor venue in West Cumbria. Certainly something to consider to help with the long term viability of the stadium I also hope the stadium management adopt the social enterprise model as this will allow them to access funding to finish off the stadium.

£1000 per bus per team for West Cumbrian teams to travel into Yorkshire, slightly cheaper for Lancs but not by much. That takes some finding, there needs to be a full game wide review and for the RFL to come up with some viable options for the community game so there can be an honest and open debate about the course of direction for the game. The NCL should also be part of the review as its crazy all the regional leagues, NCL and in most cases youth leagues all having different management structures. Wath Brow for example fall under management for the RFL, NCL, CARL, CARL youth and NWC - add in BARLA if they enter the National Cup - if this set up was shown to the Aussies they would fall about laughing!! at the end of the day clubs want competitive games at all levels, this could easily be done by having competitive regional leagues with the elite (or those that want to) playing in the NCL or rename so it falls more into the semi-pro structure to raise its profile.

We have some fantastic facilities in West Cumbria, all the clubs are financially sound. Just a pity the league structure is so weak with so many teams plying their trade in the NCL or it could be a great competition. I've often wondered why the RFL don't restructure the community game - keep the top 2 NCL leagues in their current national format but find some money to help each club with milage/transport costs, then restructure the remaining game into strong regional leagues with the number of divisions dictated by the number of clubs in that area. Finish off the season with a champion of champions cross league competition for the top 2 in each regional league and hey presto you have meaningful competition where clubs can play at the appropriate level unlike in Cumbria at present where some teams are getting 60-80 point drubbings every week and the better sides are only getting competitive games every few weeks. This would also reduce travelling and make the game more attractive (less all day travelling)

and whose going to pay for that? Cost of a single stand probably in excess of 7-8 million - and you have 4 sides to develop. No way Town could ever raise that sort of revenue themselves