RP London

Its like walking into Currys and getting annoyed you cant get root vegetables. Then moaning to everyone that Currys is a rubbish shop.

To be fair Rhinos might be accurate as most have got the horn... its a bit hot for a coat but I'll grab mine anyway

For me, if I became Lord of the RFL, I'd carve the country (big population centres) up into 12 or 14 (whatever big Nige decides) pieces and hand them to each club. It would be their responsibility to develop the area. Get kids playing with camps and they would come under the clubs banner. The "new areas" can play each other as development regions. Best kids would automatically start to be picked up by the clubs that run the areas and can end up in their academies early on with the hope they may actually end up running 2 academies one in the heartland and one in the development area. Therefore bringing juniors through in those areas. Maybe even looking at the possibility of a "league one" club springing up there int he future that can be used as a "development team" for the super league club. The clubs will fall into line if they can see that they can actually benefit massivly from it, have a salary cap exemption for players coming through that pathway etc. They can invest in it and they have sole usage of those players up until a certain age, 21 when they are free to move to another club like any other player (or the club decide to release them younger and they can sign for another academy). some clubs are already doing some of this with scouting in these regions and helping development IIRC and some players are coming through but they could do more and all clubs should be doing this.

Yep thats something I cannot get my head around either. As you say someone may have stood too it themselves or (and this is highly unlikely and I am sure would make not a jot of difference to the loan company) there is a memorandum of understanding that is very watertight on purchase of something like the land and they have some recourse to that.. but I cannot see that being very likely.. its all very odd.

The only way I can make it "make sense" in my head is that HMRC will wind them up before the end of the season. The loan company will not. That buys them extra time to find more funding if they are massivly short, sell assets to fund it (other parts of their "group") or sell land if they have managed to buy any off the council, or buy the land off the council at which point they can then mortgage that at a better rate and pay off the bridging loan. None of those options really make much sense, they are flawed and illogical and some may not actually work anyway but I am really struggling to get any further than those.

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats Hull Sharks There's been some doozies.. Could go with London Lickspittles.. would show to the established clubs they are prepared to bow and scrape to their superiors which will go down well with those "in power".

TBF while teams pulling out is never great at least they have given some notice rather than pulling out late in the week, means the potential that you dont have to buy the food/can find a replacement team. These things happen but, as I say, early in the week is much better than later.

I love the "well they did it too".. that's irrelevant to whether Aston is guilty or not.. it's like a burglar caught red handed saying "yeah but John did it too?" Ok then John also gets prosecuted but so do you. There may be other issues, the RFL certainly are not exempt from blame on points and they are working to correct them (I have said this from the start of you want to go back and look) but none of that exempts aston from blame or exempts him from a ban. He did wrong, if he held his hands up, realised he cocked up etc his ban wouldn't have been as long (look at Mick Heyes for that).. the RFL admit they can do things better hence they have made changes.. Yes the super league club should also be investigated and IF found to have committed similar offences then similar punishments should be handed out, if they don't it's a poor look, but it doesn't mean Aston is any less guilty..

except he was not the "designated club doctor", she was and it is the "designated club doctor" who needs to do this. In the same way as a company has a dedicated Health & Safety officer who is the final person that has to sign off documents, even if someone in the company has done more courses than them that doesn't matter. She is named as the person that needs to sign this stuff off, she did not do that, that is a clear breach of the protocols, whether that suits your argument or not.

except the doctor had not signed him off which is the final test.

exactly

so you dont think the original case of someone not following return to play protocols and playing a player that was not ready to play was serious enough to have a tribunal case against? further prolonged time away from the game/work (which is what happened here IIRC), Nero degenerative issues can increase, Second impact syndrome (rare) can kill you https://www.return2play.org.uk/concussion/#:~:text=Prolonged symptoms – sometimes referred to,Back to top These are important protocols and are taken seriously for a reason.

I believe that is the new process as the coaches cannot be trusted to act like responsible adults and follow simple rules. Every concussed player is now locked in a different cupboard depending on which part of the return to play protocol they are on and they move to a different, lighter, cupboard as they move through the protocols. the quality of the cupboards and their capacity vs an average of the previous 3 years worth of club concussions will be added to the IMG gradings for 2026, some clubs are now hastily building extensions to their cupboards.

Got to agree with the last paragraph. Aston acted against the best long term interests of the players. The coaches role has developed more so than ever to a custodian of the players long term health and wellbeing and there are now strict rules and procedures around that. Procedures put in place to hold coaches to account and to make sure the players are kept safe because the coaches cannot be trusted to not make the decision based on the desire to win (or for some preserving their job, if the next loss could see them sacked, and that's understandable in a way hence the procedures are needed). He broke them, he did not look after a player in his charge properly. He should simply take the punishment and move on IMHO (and looking at the club at the moment I think move on maybe in more ways than one).

I bloody hope there isnt similar drama, not sure I could take it... lets just hammer them

I am absolutely steeling that analogy!!

But when you look to invest one of the weaknesses now is a massive lack of any governance and of any security that tomorrow wont be fundamentally different to today on the whim of one or two people who have decided it just doesnt suit them anymore. I'd be surprised many people would want to invest in a sport where owners are happy to disregard things like proper corporate governance and Sport England governance practice.

yes over the years we have attracted local people... that doesnt mean thats all we should be looking to attract. By behaving like this that is all you will attract though. The argument is poor Harry and as an ex MD i am amazed you cannot see how behaving like this has just massivly ramped up the risk profile that will put a bunch of people off..

Finger crossed this all works out but the way they've gone about it and running roughshod over their own policies (or just not understanding them) and that of Sport England too is pretty poor IMHO

I haven't said that those club owners are not good for the sport, they obviously are great for their clubs, what they shouldn't be doing is getting involved in the governance of the sport in the way that they have by going against the actual policies of the sport and of Sport England. that is just good governance. The fact that now the risk assessment will include "on some narcissists whim" is the ridiculousness. Of course what comes out of this might be great, I 100% have not said anything contrary to that.. but the risk is that next week they do it again and change it again, there is no governance to stop this now, it has happened once and could happen again.. THAT is my issue and that is why people will question whether it is a wise decisions becuase the risk is too large IMHO

They 100% will not be acting in the "best interests of the game" they will 100% be acting in the best interests of themselves, that why they sport has governance rules, its why sport England has governance rules. The 2 things can be the same of course (their interest and the interests of the game as whole) but it is highly unlikely.

To be fair, and I have said this before on this thread, dont you think that the way they have behaved in terms of ousting a chairman and going against the basic governance rules of the organisation and of Sport England, governance rules that are on their own website, may well be putting off other, more wealthy people, looking at the sport as a possible investment area. to invest your money into a sport where some other owner of another club could suddenly destroy the governance, change the state of the game, the pathway that you have planned for and put in one that you may have to completely rip up your own strategy and start again after investing £XYZ in the previous strategy. I honestly think these actions fundamentally damage this potential. I would suggest anyone from outside looking in with a large wallet would not want to put any money in after this.. The risk factor of your investment has just rocketed

yes and no... I dont like DB and the way he does things but he has done a great job at leigh.. but I dont agree with you when it comes to the RFL.. for me the best leadership (and I use that word specifically) that I remember at the RFL was Richard Lewis.

Its the same thought process that permeates through RL... those that are "in the game" at the higher levels MUST know best, those from another background whose experiences maybe from a different industry have no worthwhile input.. its the same type of issue that seeps through places like the NHS where Process and Change specialists cannot get to win contracts if they have never already worked with the NHS.. therefore they never get best practice from other organisations, where as many/most extremely good and profitable companies actively look outside of their organisation/industry for new ideas, innovations etc..

basically yes.. you have a bill every month/quarter to pay to HMRC and its up to you to pay it.. it is taken off the amount you pay the staff but its your responsibility to then pay that over to HMRC..