gingerjon

And yet, oddly, the statement from a couple of days ago said they didn't have access to RLWC purchases and it would only be people who'd bought England home internationals in the recent ish past.

RLWC doesn’t count

Oddly, on my phone, the Twitter link is showing the wrong one - but on my laptop it’s the correct Aaron Bower one.

We find out tomorrow.

I don't think it's ever felt more like a local game for local people with the appearance of other clubs and locations tolerated at best. And that appears to run through everything. Even the sales window for an international in London appears to, by accident rather than design perhaps, give priority to people in the heartlands who are the only ones who have had non RLWC internationals to attend in the past decade.

The RFL didn't need to fund an expansion strategy but it needed to have some strategic thinking - for Toronto and Toulouse, it had neither. We do know that the original IMG/RFL framework capped the number of non UK clubs. I have no idea if the strategic review will address that again. I'm neutral on whether Wood, or anyone else, is really pro or anti expansion. I think that's a distraction. I'm more concerned by their wrecking ball impression and the likely damage that will do to the game - regardless of their wonderful thoughts. Lastly, given Wood is on the actual board of the RFL now, I would include him in the ongoing governance failure around Salford.

The only one of those that was proactive was Catalans. That's the key bit. It has mostly always been reacting to someone else turning up with a location and their own money. That's not a negative but I think it puts a more honest perspective on it.

A cynic might say, when combined with comments from other authorities about working with the man now leading a strategic review at the RFL, that the lack of partnerships in an era of partnerships could be quite revealing.

The new Wembley is a pretty poor stadium but it has plenty of atmosphere. The old Wembley was also a mostly rubbish stadium, the bizarrely distanced shallow seats in the lower bowl for example, but looked good with the towers.

As above, a staggeringly high percentage are presented as being victims of changing circumstances beyond their control and/or being poor experiences when, with a little bit of checking, it turns out that it's private equity either seeking a very quick return which is usually better for them if the company fails and/or a PE investment that so hamstrings the company that is simply cannot function. The only recent one that genuinely doesn't follow any of that is BHS - and that was the owner being a c-word. So I blame unregulated capitalism which uses its faceless but effective propaganda to blame pretty much everything but them.

Who do you blame for these changes and how could these changes have been avoided?

Every single Salford fan is doing this including the one you are replying to? Huge, if true.

Which division are Midland and Cornwall in?

Proper rugby league man. Zero respect for officials and determined to shout about it.

Difficult tightrope this. On the one hand, you have to find a way to blame IMG for what the clubs have done, on the other, you have to praise the clubs for their spirit of radical independence in calling out IMG.

I'm suggesting, on further reflection, that inaction (or, rather, doing exactly what happens in 99.99% of sports every time a similar incident happens) is (a) the cleanest way out of a bad situation, (b) broadly, the fairest, and (c) the one that is simplest to execute and explain. Every other course involves the creation of something that is not noticeably better, that will take up time and resources we don't really have, and has the potential to make RL look (even more) reactively second rate. Expunging Salford will look bad but it isn't passive and the other options could do a lot more damage. However much sizzle you think you can attach to them. EDIT - typo

It won't be radical. It may even be amazingly close to what is already happening. But it will be done in backrooms and handshakes for the right 'proper rugby league people'.

There are many places this could go given the breadth of what is being covered but I'll put it here as it suggests the RFL may not now be given a place on the IRL committee. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/mar/28/sexism-and-misogyny-complaints-add-to-turmoil-at-rugby-football-league

Current board: https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63584/rfl-board-update-|-21-march Strategic review: https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/rfl-strategic-review-nigel-wood-1039268

It gets dafter on the same page: "Change, in my opinion and that of others, is what the sport has been seriously lacking and if we continue to carry out the same practices why would we expect a different outcome?"

Dotted cue ball is an excellent idea. Not a shot clock but happy for the refs to be compelled to sanction players deliberately slowing play down. No need to change the miss rule. The restart is fine as it is.

Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be. Getting misty eyed for the high street of the year 2000? Smiths is another example of private equity coming in and doing things for quickest profit not for either consumers or long term investors.

It would also fit with the, if you remember, apparent double counting of some sales owing to system duplication.

The article says London are hoping there will be a move to 14, not that there is any new information on whether there will be.

The negative consequences will happen now anyway. That’s fixed. You can’t save this. It’s therefore about being credible. Promoting a club to take on another side’s fixtures at the quarter point of the season is not credible and looks, far too much, like a body and a sport that will always be reactive and never sensible.