RP London
-
Posts
8,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by RP London
-
-
41 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:
first paragraph:
Sport England have warned they would not hesitate to take action if the Rugby Football League fails to reach the standards set by its Code for Sports Governance following Nigel Wood’s return to the governing body.
in the strategy document it specifically talks about holding to these standards, it would appear the RFL is incapable of keeping to their own promises... the fact they are keeping such a close eye on them means they are either already over but capable of bringing it back or they are very very close to it.. c'mon RFL just keep to what you say you will do, you could have still done half of this stuff but just in a way that keeps to your own and Sport England's rules!
-
44 minutes ago, Ethereal said:
This is the mentality difference at the heart of everything.
At the start of that season Harry would have told Fev that they should spend more on players to push for promotion. Then the next day if Toulouse knocked on the door that they should spend more on players to push for promotion. Then Bradford the next day etc.
And it could only ever work out that season for one club, even if the advice given to each one individually was considered correct.
If you're not that club then you either have to double down (if you have the cash), cut back heavily, or run into financial difficulties.
It sees the clubs as the primary individual entities with each other as their main competitors.
The opposing view (which is more in line with the img thinking) is to see rugby league as the primary entity and the clubs as much collaborators as competitors. The real fight from this point of view is not Featherstone vs Toulouse, it's rugby league vs other sports, video games, etc.
Plus if you improve your facilities and boost your social media presence but fail to get promoted, that's a longer lasting legacy than a good set of players you then have to swiftly let go.
very very well put.
-
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:
Had they gone up in the season we are discussing they would have been on IMG's SL spreadsheet, doubt they would have come straight back down which lessons the risk wouldn't you say?
Irrespective of how bad they would have performed on the field, for clarification see Hull FC and Castleford the following season.
Perhaps, you know with the intricate knowledge of the club the owner has, he didnt have the same reading of the situation that you have come up with without said knowledge. Perhaps also his understanding of the risk was superior in that he understood that that "Had they" was not a sufficient enough of a guarantee as to risk the outlay. His money, his choice, his club and as the Butterfly Effect would be in force as soon as he did any slight deviation from what happened, NONE of us can say whether him doing this would have resulted in promotion and staying up (and therefore these rewards), no promotion (the death of the club arguably) or promotion but not staying up and the myriad of consequences that that holds.
What is for 100% sure is that P&R raises the risk profile of these decisions...
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:
I think those claims could be made had there been a game wide review as promised. As far as I can see the process has not involved any consultation at all and hasn't been remotely transparent in how it has been undertaken. If something like this had happened in football it would be debated in parliament. The fact that it doesn't merit even a couple of lines in trade papers demonstrates perfectly where the sport is at.
I assume the AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement standard is just something that has passed all these people by in their day to day working lives... not like getting someone in from the outside would be useful in these types of matters where companies are moving forwards leaps and bounds because these things are now expected of them!
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
Reading between the lines of Nigel's statement, I suppose it's possible they might scrap, or heavily modify, the gradings system, but keep the rest of the contract with IMG covering digital, marketing and media services to transform the image of RL to a wider audience.
Given that other stuff was always the more important bit of the IMG deal (despite all the noise being about the gradings) then that wouldn't be a disastrous outcome at this point, even if it won't be as effective with teams yo-yoing up and down from SL.
But that would still mean paying something to IMG in some form or other, and the noises from several parties seem to indicate that they view it all a waste of money which they're better of spending themselves on their own clubs.
So I'm not hopeful.
problem is a lot of that work would be on the back of the clubs getting themselves into a position to maximise deals and exposure, to have fit for purpose stadiums, to have good advertising options... basically to be of a quality to be able to sell... if the other parts of the grading criteria disappear then you are basically tying one hand behind IMGs back.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Dave T said:
Is there anything more RL than "the board is great because they are free"?
its bizarre...
yet I've just been on the RFL website and looked at careers and they have a vacancy for a Technology assistant at £22-£24.5k a year... as a business we outsource all our IT stuff and phone so that we can move quickly if software /hardware changes, can use the expertise etc etc we pay about £4.5k for this. The entire job description is what this company offers us. Now granted they will have more computers than we do etc but they would get a better service that doesn't take holidays, that has a proper expert on everything rather than one person who cannot be that, and they would get it cheaper...
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, HornyHornyHorneeet said:
Lost in all of the hatred and bile written against Nigel here seems to be the fact the RFL board now looks more solid and stronger than before with people that actually want to give up their time for free to help the sport move forward rather than paid career execs in it for a few quid and to look good on the CV.
just cropped to this bit.... are they doing it for free??? NEDs normally get paid and I hope they are becuase that would be the professional way to work, these people have expertise and we need it and we need to pay for it so that we encourage the next people and the next and also so that we demand x amount of their time as we are paying for it.
It is a better looking board but the way we have got there concerns me in that this board could go the same way tomorrow, the RFL have hardly shown that they are stable in all of this.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, dkw said:
Ah, but as with many others you've missed the last line of that, printed in the smallest text size imaginable, in white text colour also, here, I've written it out for you below:-
"WE ARE NONE OF THESE"
it does also go on to say it is Player Centric and Fan Focussed so I probably should have known that there was a hidden line disclaimer that it was real somewhere!
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, phiggins said:
Can't blame them for thinking that the RFL will only care about them playing the games, and not about them being paid the duration of their contract. In fact, I'd tend to agree with them.
There's also the fact that they only have the next couple of weeks to get out, if they're not going to get paid every month between now and December.
but the RFL values as stated on documentation are: United, Professional, Excellent, Respect
surely this will all be handled in a professionally excellent manner with respect as the game is united....
-
1 minute ago, fighting irish said:
Are they really proposing to default on the IMG deal? Or perhaps seeking some kind of modification? There is so much rumour (and hardly any actual information) I'm sick of it.
exactly this... how can you plan if you have no idea what the future is going to hold and even when they make that decision how long with that last for before someone decides its not for them and has another coup.. even the rules of the organisation are not kept to!
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, gogledd said:
But they must have prepared their cases to join when Goole Vikings were chosen. I think it would be strange if they didn't reapply and the RFL should have been doing all they can to help them prepare for entry into League 1.
100% the RFL should be doing that, it is the sensible way to go, clubs that are interested but "not quite there" could be got "there" with some advice and help therefore giving you 2 nice new clubs to look at and start to expand the game. However, they are too busy ignoring their own governance laws and strategic plan to actually do this..
The way the clubs were treated around the announcements etc I would not be surprised if they have no interest in applying at all..
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just to add on the risk side..
This season IMHO has shown good honest businessmen exactly why RL is not a place to invest their money at the moment. A good sensible long term strategic plan has just been ripped up and thrown in the bin at the whim of one or two owners.. Whether you like the plan or not the fact it is there means people started to invest in it etc. If that is ripped up and you go straight back to purely on the field basis then your clubs strategic plan has just been thrown out of the window, investments made need to be re though out, plans changed, squad structures changed etc etc etc..
why oh why would you want to put money into a sport that will do that, I cannot think of any other sport that would be saying "we are not stable, we do not give you thought out strategies to plan to".
The strategic document on the website https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/RFL Strategic Report 2021 Final.pdf says some great stuff but with the actions of the few it has been shown to be utterly pointless (even the values "United, Professional, Excellent, Respect" are not kept to ffs)
From its bit on governance "Regulate across all tiers with independence, transparency and integrity, and in line with sector best practice (including in relation to medical standards." anyone want to say they are keeping to that??
putting money into this great sport at the moment is madness, not sense not something to respect but madness.
-
7
-
-
7 minutes ago, Click said:
Or they spend even more, still lose and aren't around anymore as a club.
The key risk within P&R... spend on one or two more players that can "take you over the edge"... within 1 week one or both is injured for 2-3 key matches or for the season... money wasted.. club gone..
The Risk profile is totally different to normal business decisions (its why I felt that IMG and the way it was structured would encourage investment into the clubs).
Some owners see that if they dont go hard then the club is basically done anyway and its a one off go at it (success or bust) some owners see that the club can still be "happy" and "Sustainable" at the level but they would prefer to be a level higher.. all of these things affect the risk profile and risk appetite.
Its very easy to spend someone else's money.. and we see that in all walks of life.
He chose the long term future of the club over the short term risk. They could have gone up, made some bad signings due to bad luck rather than anything else and they would have been straight back down and not "reaping the benefits" at all.. it isnt a simple calculation as it has many many variables, no matter how simple people want to make it.
-
4
-
-
12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
Sorry this is nonsense.
Just because it’s been ‘democratically’ voted for by the clubs doesn’t mean we the supporters can’t discuss it and have a view
But Chris it does mean we cannot discuss it and have a view, didnt you notice that once the vote on IMG's involvement happened it was universally accepted... oh hang on.. something about "you can change your mind" was mentioned wasnt it, and that would be the adult way of acting as everyone is entitled to change their mind and reflect.. and that who in their life had not made a decision they would go on to regret and therefore look to change this..
-
5
-
-
17 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:
No super-injunction needed. People know where their bread is buttered
sadly its on the side that is always face down on the floor!
-
3
-
-
17 minutes ago, Dave T said:
But this is also just bang wrong.
I mean, all those Aussies that we are gonna start recruiting now are not from the Northern Heartlands. Neither are those Kiwi players. Or even those from PNG and Catalans. There is no real logic as to why some people like RL and others don't. People are not hard-wired in some way that makes them prefer 6 tackles versus line-outs.
The real difference is exposure, things being embedded in schools, colleges, universities, local village clubs, pubs, community clubs etc. RL just isn't present in most places - that is the main reason people in some places don't appear interested in RL - not because their brain works differently to heartland folk.
I don't think we should be doing less in the Heartlands. We should be doing more - we have to do more to stay afloat, but the opportunities for real growth in player pathways is likely to be modest. It's a numbers game, as well as being the best we can in Heartlands, we need to be going where there are opportunities for player development - naturally you would likely focus on Wales, London and France initially as these are already warm to RL and have some form of groundwork already done. But we really should be looking outside of these areas too. A few people have made the point that we need to sow the seeds all over the place and nurture them to grow over the long term. That doesn't mean routing millions away from the heartlands and spending it recklessly elsewhere, but it just can't be accepted when people say to not bother with London because they aren't interested - that just isn't true.
In reality, very many of the best RL players in history have not been from the North of England. We can't forget that - there is a whole world outside of the North - we should be looking for the next Jonathan Davies or Martin Offiah all over the place, not just in Warrington, Leigh, Batley or Cas.
The problem with a club led board and strategy is that clubs don't really need the above to happen - they can just sign in players from the Aussie league and let them thrive and develop players - but the game here really does need it, especially if we are really focused on developing a successful test team, and growing the game commercially.
A club-led strategy and a sport-led strategy can be very very different - IMO, we need a high quality board and leadership team to deliver something that has conflicts - time will tell if this is that board and leadership team.
Wales is one we should be looking at in the next year or so with the issues and potential dropping of 1 or 2 regions from their professional RU circuit.. when i say looking at i do simply mean that, from the outside simply a smaller salary cap and smaller squad sizes can mean running at a lower budget, obviously the counter is a smaller profile will mean potentially smaller sponsorship etc, but there may be other things that stop this being viable. However, we have a year or so before this happens in Union so a year or so to investigate and build up if we decided to go with it but we should be aware that this could, and I massivly emphasis COULD, be a gift horse and one of those turning points like the 1995 world cup in wales or the 2009 iteration for Bristol where we could look back on it and think "what if" down the line.
edit: and I am not talking simply about dropping a SL team into the region (although that might be a way to go) it could just be youth set ups, it could be an academy with on the road games being played in the regions dropped etc etc.. all sorts on the table.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Something about people who put most money in, we are better than you, and oddly Agrarian policy in KwaZulu-Natal Province is apparently enough to suffice...
The last bit is a given really
by the articles of association https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/201202_RevisedArticlesofAssociation_final.pdf (article 45 onwards) the chair is elected as per any other Non Exec Director. These are appointed by the RL Council...
therefore why are the clubs involved in this? this breaks the articles of association (I am not shocked by this BTW)..
If any other business acted like this they would be in trouble.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Who voted on behalf of Salford and what way did they vote?
why is it only super league get to vote on the chairman of the RFL?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, LeeF said:
I wonder who, with decision making authority, will represent the club at these meetings and what lies/ spin they will issue?
I would assume if its about a grievance process it would be the HR agency they employ, as cannot imagine they have any staff left to actually have an HR department, then again they probably haven't paid the bill for the agency so yep could be interesting!
Maybe the meeting with the RFL is actually going to happen first so they can actually understand what a grievance process is... then again the RFL don't seem to understand their own governance rules so, again, this could be interesting!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:
Well the title of this Thread is "SL clubs looking to reinstate Nigel Wood"
So as of yesterday a democratic vote of all the SL clubs overwhelmingly decided that was the way to go and the appointed MR Woods was 'rubber stamped' so to speak.
It probably infuriates lots of the 20 or so posters who have singled out two people to vent their anger on, now the realisation is that there is a collective of SL clubs as one body who have decided this is the way to go, funny isn't it that is was often quoted that installing IMG was done on a democratic vote, but this one gets derision.
There is probably no requirement for this thread any longer as "Mr Woods has been reinstated" so should it now be closed?
I for one have done with it.
So just SL owners should have a say in the way the RFL is run... right got it..
and your done with the thread... excellent got it.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Damien said:
As we speak Nigel is just dictating it to Martyn for the latest puff piece.
I can see it now... sorry couldnt resist
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, Damien said:
Exactly. How much mileage really is there in focussing on the heartlands (in whatever loose sense you choose). I'm not sure there are vast swathes of kids in Wigan, Leigh, St Helens and Warrington just waiting to take up the game who haven't done so already. I'm also quite happy that the pro clubs in those towns should be the ones doing the development, for their own ends in terms of fans as much as players.
Go outside of those places and it's a numbers game. I'm a firm believer that we should be aiming to concentrate development on clusters where teams can grow and mutually benefit each other. The game simply doesn't have the resources for a scattergun approach and development that dies as soon as a development officer moves on.
Just as an example one of the lads I've been coaching for a while at the local union club, and who played league when we set up a summer league team for a few years (see Harry still doing my bit so surely allowed an opinion).. has, this year, signed with Wakefield Academy, born and bred in Sheffield but playing there now, 3-4 other players from the club were asked to go but they were doing a-levels and planning to go to uni so turned it down.
However, if there had been more emphasis on this with a better set up in the area, more opportunity, rather than just a couple of ex league players who were coaching at the club (and a DoR who was ex league) who thought it was a good way to get the kids involved and try the game (and keep takings over the bar in the summer etc) then these players could have got into the system earlier. Plus how many just in our club are going through who would fit the mould perfectly. Thats 1 club, 1 club ffs!
If the RFL want to get this right they need to do more in expansion areas, there are loads of kids who will end up playing RU who are better suited to RL but really really do not have the chance to even give the game a try because there is nothing in the area..
-
6
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:
You have come out with some 'expletive' over the years, but that takes the biscuit, you have no idea of my expierience or input.
oh the utter irony of the bit in bold.. I am sure you know this about everyone on this board!
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Dave T said:
What are you.banging on about?
He's trying to say "you don't get involved therefore you're not allowed an opinion" without knowing personal circumstances, general experience or knowledge via other sources.
It's par for the course TBF
-
2
-
England v Australia 2025 - coming to the UK!
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Not everything should be tub thumping... You need some just "general content" stuff too.. keep things ticking over without ramming it in your face... Agree the music could be better