Dave T

My personal view is that we often over-think these things. Of course there are genuine technical elements to consider, but even with these, when 'experts' explain them, they are often minor geeky points that people don't care about. A bit like kits, it'll be personal preference and they do the job. They are a decent talking point. If we hold up the US as the leaders in sports entertainment and branding, many of their logos are absolute garbage that if they were used now would be mocked.

I suppose the point here is that if Wakey had the opportunity to replicate that new stand in other areas of the ground they absolutely would. And that new stand looks remarkably like these other grounds that often get mocked. Wakey have done a great job on what they have done, I don't see any need for any criticism of other grounds because they've made some improvements.

Yeah, but Wakey aren't getting mocked - it was a Wakey fan showing reverse snobbery. And I guarantee that the spectator facilities at Belle Vue do not match these 'minecraft-designed grounds'. Unless you ignore the thousands of fans who have to endure poor facilities.

Jeez, I've never seen you so positive about anything ever! TBH, it's fine, but I must admit, personally I think it looks a bit dated. The bear's eyes do make it look like it's just s*** itself too.

This line always makes me chuckle. It's usually quoted by fans of clubs with absolute dumps to make them feel better about that by mocking clubs with outstanding facilities.

Who isnthe CEO though? Even in an article criticising him it doesn't name him.

Yeah, frustrating really, it does feel rather half hearted like last time.

I think its clear he's a bit of a liability off the field, and imo he has issues with confidence. When he's off he is poor and can look disinterested, but for me, that was always very rare. He was never gonna be a top defensive fullback, but he worked hard, was rapid and is one of the most skilful players in the comp. Even after he fell out with Burgess and then he messed him about and put him at centre against Hull KR he still went out worked hard and had an excellent game. Tbh, he reminds me of Lee Briers, I expect he needs an arm round his shoulder and nurturing, but I also sympathise with a manager who may be at the end of his tether.

For me, he was generally excellent at Warrington. Genuine box office player.

I dont think its overly helpful to try and pin it down as an individual club issue, sure some will.be a bit worse, but there are issues all over the place, thankfully they are normally so minor, probably because of modest numbers of RL fans that it never becomes an absolutely huge issue, but there are issues. As Tommy said, we need to face into it and police it accordingly. Just keep repeating that we are a family game isnt helpful. We do very little to make it a family game - we dont have alcohol free stands, or genuine family areas etc. like some other sports do.

I can see both sides on this one. Whilst in general it can seem cynical as playing for a penalty, I see it as something that disrupts the defensive rhythm. Let's be honest, the defence are usually offside and them having to stutter and hold back can put them on the backfoot and stop their progress.

It wouldn't. Remember it was some obscure point about grounding is completely different depending on whether you are scoring a try or defending. Or intent, or something.

Id slap them on the transfer list for that alone.

And this is the kind of history we toss aside just because... Typical NRL.

Sorting out the key issues. Those back-tries were a blight on the sport.

Many, many UK grounds can't hold a full sized pitch. Its an act of self harm to insist on it for miniscule benefit. Why 75% of the ground seated? Why not 50%? Or 66% Suggesting the likes of Saints, Leeds and Wire dont meet the standard is bizarre.

Your first two wont, and shouldnt be anywhere near this list of recommendations.

The worry for me is that I expect the "130 recommendations" point was publicised as a positive. No strategic review should be recommending 130 things. If we are at that level, some of the things are at such a low level that it stops being a strategic review. Ideally you'd have a series of key themes/area with recommendations which may then spit out a load of tactical initiatives to deliver the key improvement, but boasting of 130 recommendations suggests they've missed the point somewhat.

Yes - this was a really weird piece from the Hetherington/Beaumont press release early last year. It was never really challenged as to why the Chair of the review had to be the RFL Chair too. It was just said, and accepted.

I mean we can go back to the start of all this, where the club-led strategic review was absolutely described as a 'thing' that would be delivered over three months. So irrespective of whether Martyn is trying to change the definition, it was stated what this strategic review was.

I know I'm going back a few weeks, but this quote from the CEO (interim, I think, still never announced by the RFL - and the website still has Tony Sutton as CEO) is staggering: "The strategic review grew, and essentially became the board." What does this actually mean? How can a review become a board? It's as meaningful as claiming the Challenge Cup became a tangerine.

A real shame. I hope he gets picked up for an SL team as he is one of the most entertaining players in the comp. Really disappointed that he couldnt stay with us.

Yes, its not exactly quick if the player has to run at least 20m to take the tap. But the evidence is in the fact that we pretty much no longer see a long range try from these taps.

I'm not a fan of the short kickoffs tbh. I think it randomises possession somewhat, and I'm not a fan of that really, I think the short kick off is a little too Union and I don't think it adds anything to the game really. I think we get ourselves in a little bit of a muddle really with what we are trying to achieve. We have so many areas where we try and speed up the game, but then we also try and reduce the penalties by putting the onus on the ball carrier and letting the tackler get away with murder at the ruck (in SL). We penalise kick offs that run dead through seven tackles, but then make it nigh on impossible for the attacking team to take a quick tap. I'd urge more consideration around the changes we make, because they are all a bit random, some land brilliantly, some are a waste of time, some terrible, but often they cause unintended consequences which then lead to further tweaks.

I think it's the hand to mouth and lack of strategic visionaries in the game that hampers us. I accept that it is easy to say that we should have a couple of test matches as warm-ups this year, but when the options for that cost c£350k and that gets you and England team with 8 players missing beating France by 30-50 points then I can understand why some people will come to the conclusion that this isn't worthwhile. However, this is where a visionary instead of an accountant may come to the conclusion that a £350k bill for even a modest improvement in your chances of winning the WC by bringing together a large part of your WC squad would be worth it, even if costly on the P&L. A real quality visionary would have this as a permanent part of the calendar and be delivering it to a high standard, probably investing even more initially to grow these things to be far bigger and better than they currently are. It's too easy to list three or four challenges and dismiss it, but sometimes the benefits are less black and white.