Dave T

A review was on the way purely because the clubs asked for it. Not long after the last review. The power balance has to be right, and I'm not sure it follows that because a bloke with money decides to invest in their local club (and let's be honest, we are talking modest amounts in some cases) that they get such a strong voice in the running of the sport. The sport needs leadership and a clear strategy, tbh if a rich bloke doesn't like it, then they can move on. Ruling by committee doesn't work, and isn't working. As has been highlighted on things like the Catalans debate, there are a wide range of views, things like this can't be decided by committees of 30 odd clubs with different opinions. There is meant to be clear governance on what the clubs have a say/vote on, and things that the RFL control and things that RLCom control. All it leads to is chaos. Which is where we are now. The sport in the UK is far bigger than the odd individual.

I did consider positioning that, however I would say that I dont think the clubs would be in a position to remove the CEO. The Board, of which Johnson is the Chair is responsible for hiring the CEO. I think things like that appointment have worked against Johnson

Hmm. Not great examples in reality.

The evidence is that decent sized clubs generally survive in a lower form. If you have evidence of these major clubs vanishing and not reforming, provide that evidence.

Ignoring the analogies point, which I agree with, although artistic licence always makes it more interesting on these forums, but I do want to look at the bit in bold. And some of my challenge may just be from the angle that we don't really know what is happening behind the scenes because nobody tells us anything and we don't have great journos covering this. When we talk about the 'it' we need to be clear what we are talking about and what people are angry about. 1. Ousting Johnson - this is the bit I can get comfortable with. I don't know too much about him, but I know the RFL can be better, and challenging the leadership is a valid option, particularly as he had been there for a decent amount of time. The questions I would have on this is whether the things thrown at the RFL are valid, or whether RLCom should have been the target. But we don't seem to talk about RLCom any more. 2. Instigating a club-led review - the game conducted a review just a few years ago, and are in the infancy of a new strategy and long term partnership. I'm not really sure why we need another review - actually I am and the words 'club-led' are the important bits here. This is about control of the rich men and not what the fans, partners, media etc. told the last review. They know best. Just like they have every other time they have driven major change. I don't understand why they couldn't have driven a change in leadership and challenged them to bring new leadership, ideas and a strategy refresh into it. Actually, again, I probably do, it is because this is about more than a strategy refresh, this is about governance and control again. Whether that is the NRL battle, or the IMG battle. I'd be stunned if there isn't a battle of some form coming up. 3. Bringing in Nigel Wood - the lack of respect for governance is dangerous and at best incompetent. Ignoring your own rules and those of Sport England to bring in such a controversial figure heavily indicates that there is a pre-designed outcome here. Why wouldn't they want fresh independent blood unless they are worried that they won't get their outcomes? So, imo when we say what they did was needed - we really do have to look at the overall piece. What they did was far wider than just a vote of no-confidence in Johnson, which is possibly the part that makes some sense.

Indeed. Weaker clubs than Salford have lived on when they have gone under. I'm not sure why this point isn't being understood.

It sort of feels like the investors would ideally have been sorted out by now, which also could be a giveaway on any future rebrand. Had those two elements been confirmed today it may have all made more sense. Otherwise, it is just weird really. Without all this background chat, today's event makes little sense.

I couldn't see anything mentioned on their site, however the 'away end' was bustling and clearly had people in from their home end which is usually a sign of a bring along a friend kind of scheme or community tickets thing.

Yeah, I get the impression things are behind schedule and they've delayed this as much as they could so have just staged the event without real tangibles.

I think the strategy for how they accommodate 6 teams is rubbish tbh. Having sections in the lower bowl facing the cameras for either the women's game of the 1895 just shouldn't be happening. The main event here is the Men's Challenge Cup Final and the lower tiers viewing arc should be setup to be optimised for that match. Having a few thousand fans of another club in the middle of Wire and Hull KR fans is odd for me. This triple header approach was always a bit odd, and things like this just make it muddled. I understand giving importance to fans of those games, but it does now lead to empty sections in the lower tier, more so than before they added these games.

It always confuses me who you're mocking with this kind of post you repeat over and over.

I quite liked him as England manager. I thought he did a decent job and found him far better than Bennett. However I do agree with you in that I dont think I'd be overjoyed if he took over at Wire. And I agree on the point about how he presents himself. Although I find quite a few head coaches to be quite unlikeable really (in their public persona).

Joking aside, these things need to be discussed sensibly whenever we do something different. There aren't many sports who would embark on a new venture where ultimately the existing clubs just pay the incremental cost. New PNG team? Here's a few million dollars each as a sweetener. Same with Perth. SA teams in the Union Euro comp? Here's huge sponsorship and media deal alongside it. We also see costs covered by additional investment when things are launched, otherwise those sports just dont bother doing them. We do embark on many things where the business case would be dismissed outright by other sports. I'm not advocating doing that, I'd rather we distribute central funds better so that the 'league's pots of money to invest in initiatives, but it isn't a surprise to me that clubs challenge the governing body who aren't great at bringing in investment to fund these things and just leave the costs to clubs.

That is the justification of somebody who doesn't give a s*** for transparency with respect. It's always the justification "you dont need to know".

The principle of that may seem sound, however I think this is where a distinction between the RFL and SLE is probably needed, and RFL voting being limited to what it can do with regards to SLE. RFL are responsible for grassroots development in the UK, the England team etc. and there is a conflict with overseas teams being a member of that organisation - but this is where SLE needs a strong governance model. But any of the above issues are possible to overcome, with right governance, which is the overarching point.

Again, I'm a fan of people doing what they said they would. It was Nigel Wood who stated they would share the details of the workstream. And that isn't a wild commitment, it is exactly the kind of transparency you'd expect from a governing body and the kind of approach that Sport England are looking for. Keeping things secret because we don't like people discussing it on a forum isn't a good approach. And I look forward to the outcomes too. Although if I don't like them, I can sleep easy, knowing that there will be another within 3 years when crowds and sponsors haven't doubled.

Good stuff, don't always agree with him, but do on this. However, I do think the bigger piece here is around the central funding etc. The sooner we get watertight agreements on central funding, allocations, costs etc. that aren't up for discussion every year the better. IMO the simple starting point is that all SLE clubs should get an equal share of central funding (media, sponsorship etc) irrespective of which territory it comes from. But irrespective of whether my approach is the one they go with, they just need a long term commitment and we just then stop talking about it.

I'm just a fan of people being credible and doing what they say they will. There is zero reason not to release details of the workstreams of the review. It's a really easy win for transparency. And there has been zero improvement in communications. Remember this wasn't a long term aspiration, this was his commitment, knowing he is there for a short period. There is zero reason for silence.

I'm not talking about the outcomes of the review. "The work streams of the Strategic Review will be finalised over the next week or so. We will look to publish these, together with details of the other contributors who have agreed to assist with the process. Our sport is blessed with talented professionals, in clubs, at the RFL and Rugby League Commercial and indeed everyone, who will happily offer their skills, expertise and energy to move us forward. We also need to communicate much better – with clubs and other key stakeholders, and most of all with fans." https://www.totalrl.com/nigel-wood-sets-out-his-priorities-on-rfl-return/ 2 months ago those claims of communicating details of the review and communicating with fans better.

They are selling some rows on Wire's allocation and some on the RFL's. This is often what they are doing when people claim they only put 50% of blocks on sale.

Did they ever announce the details of the review as Wood promised? Even as an interim gang they seem very slack on keeping promises.

Irrespective of injuries or tiredness or whatever, we shouldn't be losing by 30 points against a team level in the league with us. Particularly when that completes the double against us. There was enough talent in that team to either get a result or at least stay in the match.

As per the rest of my line, why would they announce Wood as Chair if they'd done the right things? They've just gone silent, seemingly hoping everyone will forget. If everything's cool, why not announce the situation?

On the bit in bold. These are requirements from Sport England's Code of Sports Governance: 1.9 Each Board must have a duly appointed Chair who shall be responsible for the leadership of the Board. 2.6 The appointment of the Chair and Independent Non-Executive Directors must be via an open, publicly advertised recruitment process. So we appear to be breaching 2.6 with the plan for Wood (plus our internal article on the 12m piece) meaning that we aren't meeting 1.9 of having a Chair. Now, I expect the relevant people have had the appropriate conversations on this with SE and agreed the transition to the new board - however based on the signed off press releases that are factually incorrect, where they announced Wood as the Interim Chair, it suggests they didn't do their homework.

I often think we just fall into lazy analysis with things like 'lazy players' or 'poor culture'. Yet it was only a short while ago that people were celebrating the likes of Leeds and Saints culture, telling us that you can't just buy a team and you have to follow their model. I think nearer to the truth is that squad makeup is complex and being a little out of balance, or a couple of key injuries or the odd bad signing can affect the team quite a lot. When I look at the Wire team, I'm not seeing slackers, I'm seeing a team all at sea at times, and I think coaching is playing a part in that. Whether that is the head coach, or assistants, or conditioners, obviously we don't know, but I'm certainly not thinking anyone highlighting Currie as a problem is on the right track. There are more strong teams now, the likes of Leigh, Wakey, Hull KR are coming in and making their challenges, and there's no place to hide right now. It's how it should be too.