Dave T
-
Posts
47,851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
334
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
12 minutes ago, Derwent said:
So where does the alleged CEO Sutton (aka The Invisible Man) fit into all this ?
He is the RFL CEO isn't he?
Rhdori Jones is RLCom CEO.
Or MD, or something else.
-
15 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:
I will admit to being naive - I really didn't think they'd do it as blatant as this.
I can't lie. I'm still not that sure exactly what's happening and who is after what, apart from a few obvious bits.
People often refer to 4D Chess, but I'm not sure what game is even being played here.
-
2
-
-
So IMG proposed, and has voted in a system that would expand the league to 14 when clubs improved themselves to a higher standard and funding had increased to a level to support it.
And now the clubs are heading towards overriding that and include clubs deemed not good enough and without money to fund it.
But still, IMG are the issue here.
-
18
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, phiggins said:
It is true that the Leigh rebrand would've fallen flat if the team hadn't performed. But I also think that would've been true of any rebrand attempt, with no technical / implementation issues and a fairly standard badge and kit.
What Leigh's rebrand did, for all it's faults at the time, was create a distinctive identity for people to buy into and was part of a wider plan including match day experience, membership packages, as well as introduction of reserves, academy and Women's team. I think any rebrand that involved another cartoon style badge, solid colour or hooped kit etc would not have seen the success on the field see the attendance increases that the whole Leopard thing did.
But on topic, I'm not sure how high on the list of problems the Broncos brand is to London? Leigh's centurion brand was very weak, and needed updating. Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm not sure what is going to convince people to go and see hounds as opposed to broncos?
I'm not sure about yout last paragraph. You could argue that London Broncos is a brand that doesn't exude success and confidence. They are a club that have meandered along without a real identity for 15 to 20 years now.
An all-encompassing rebrand like Leigh's could absolutely act as a relaunch like it did for your team, and in effect draw a line under the past.
I can see why this is on the list for London. But if it is just a kit and logo, it will mean nowt really.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Jonty58 said:
I was not referring to him specifically.
It was all a couple of years ago and water under the bridge but..Saying you want to leave at the end of the year and then not attending training or game day would leave a club with little choice.
Transfer fees are not the norm in Australia like it is in Super League.
I am not sure what happened with the large transfer fee for Sam Tomkins or Bateman when they left before completing their contracts.
I believe Warrington have put a significant transfer fee on Williams, it will be a factor to be considered in any Club that thinks about signing him.
Aren't transfer fees for British clubs a little more common now, based on the fact that there is a wage difference and the fees are modest in the grand scheme of things?
The costs are probably still relatively modest tbh. I expect a transfer fee wouldn't be extortionate for an NRL club.
-
Just now, RigbyLuger said:
Where is the union that kicked up a fuss a couple of years ago? What about the agents who advised them to sign for Salford? The players need to help themselves better.
Didn't they basically back out of it and just go with GMB?
-
1
-
1
-
-
I actually don't think we need to overthink what the actual name is, unless it is something like Blue Sox obviously.
The important thing is that it is fully embraced. Even at Leigh where at the start it was clunky and less than professional, they fully bought into it and it wasn't just a new kit with a logo.
Whether you like it or not, The Hundred have gone in different direction to animal names, but again, they've gone bold and fully embraced it.
London need to go big, or not bother.
A big problem, is it costs a lot and is a lot of effort. Something London haven't been great at.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Jonty58 said:
Unless you pay a transfer fee for an English player that does not get paid back if they break their contract I guess.
I was under the impression that Wire paid a transfer fee for Williams?
Edit: no, just read he was a free agent after being released by Canberra.
His version of events (from Wiki):
Williams said "I asked for a release weeks ago for the end of the season... Not once did I ask for a immediate release but instead of supporting me the club kicked me out the door".[18]
On 22 June 2021, Williams fired one final parting shot at Canberra head coach Ricky Stuart saying “I'm just sad that relationship is pretty sour, I’ve not spoken to him since the release. He was brilliant and I’ll never forget that, but when things went bad he turned his back on me".[19]
-
2
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
Right now, 14 teams will be a disaster for SL. CF won't be equal across the clubs, there aren't the players for even 10 quality teams, a good portion of the comp will be uncompetitive and watched by sub-5k crowds.
This is just short-termism aimed at giving clubs an immediate fix but not taking a wider view of the comp/structure. Depressing.
It's this part that I worry about.
To an extent, I don't worry too much that the standard drops off. It does in many comps, even the NRL once you have a lot of teams. You can't have everyone competitive, and we have rubbish teams in the Premier League etc.
But, the size of the clubs in RL and the demand for watching clubs is modest at best, and when you factor in losing teams, the demand drops more and as you say you end up with a decent amount of clubs below that 5k mark which is a worry. The likes of Wire and Catalans are doing it tough right now, but you are still not going below that 8-9k mark really, and if they do well that soon boosts into good numbers. Adding clubs that are at 5/6k doing well, but in reality at 3-4k hovering around the bottom really will have an impact on the perception of SL.
-
13 hours ago, Hopie said:
Nikorima's wife criticising RL Cares' statement on facebook too, don't envy what either party is going through with this.
Reading the comments on there it does feel like there are maybe a couple of isues.
It feels like maybe the comms isn't great from RLCares, or maybe the players don't want to go and sit in a room with Adrian Morley.
But secondly, I wonder whether they are expecting a Union-type service, and RLCares is not that.
Options about employment etc is not really for RLCares.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Worzel said:
London has always had the potential to solve our player shortage, the huge population concentration combined with rugby union played in plently of schools makes it a very efficient platform to put community structures development of talent on top of. You can reach more people with the same pathways headcount. We started to see the fruits of that in the era when we had really good Sport England funding.
I've always been surprised that - when that funding was lost - one of the better-resourced Super League clubs (Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Leeds) didn't step into the gap, employ a team down there, or even develop a formal talent pathway partnership with the Broncos to do so.
If we genuinely had leadership with a strategic mindset in our sport, this would happen, and ideally be run by the RFL perhaps on some sort of draft model. Call it a 15 year plan, allocate a budget for it, and be persistent.
Ive always been of the opinion that you target the population centres. Its a numbers game. London has always been a prime opportunity that we've only ever played with really.
I do think the government central funding should be used better for stuff like this.
-
2
-
-
I think a move to 14 is admirable and eventually the right thing. The bit that worries me is that just moving Toulouse, Bradford and York up and replacing Salford doesn't feel like an amazing strengthening of SL.
I think something like this should only happen if we drive an increase in tv funding that means it can be done properly, none of this manipulation of central funds to deliver it.
All teams in SL should share the risk and share the rewards, forget this environment of creating competition - leave that to on the field.
-
13 hours ago, Stirlin said:
What channel please Dave.
Yep, Netflix as Futtocks says, and can second the recommendation for Justwatch app!
DeptQ is very sweaty and with some violence, but we'll worth a watch if you like character led detective stuff. 9 or 10 parts too so a decent length.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Ackroman said:
Do you think your question should be taken seriously?
You brought this up as an issue in a discussion about funding.
-
32 minutes ago, Ackroman said:
The grassroots? Is that what is being ignored and taken for granted because I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
Do you think Sky are bothered whether Warrington's superstar halfback comes from Orford or Dewsbury?
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Ackroman said:
As the post I replied to suggests, even the top clubs rely on central funding, so you have to ask yourself what is the funding for?
In my opinion creating player pathways is not a Super League problem, it is a whole game problem but top clubs get the money and therefore the academies.
A solution that could benefit the whole game, would be to have regional academies and quotas so that the top clubs may have access to some of that talent but reduce access to that talent if they bring in foreign players. This would then give lower league clubs opportunities to access that talent to bolster their own squads instead of relying on dual registration. That doesn't cost the game any more money or provide lower league clubs access to more money but it does give them access to a player pool. It also helps them make the most of the money they do have. This also provides a more integrated pathway for players that don't quite make it at the very top.
if we look at the situation at Warrington for example and their complete inability to generate talent, why is this? Why is this a topic of interest on the latest 4020 podcast? Why have Warrington just signed a lad from the Dewsbury area into their academy?
For me rugby league can't afford to have young people and talent moving around the place at high cost to themselves and the clubs. We have got to stop acting like it's a free market and start acting like we're more of a cooperative, for the good of the whole game.
I think one of the issues is that we have unrealistic expectations. How many sports people does a town like Warrington create across the range of sports, yet we bemoan the fact that the Wolves aren't full of world class athletes from Burtonwood and Orford. It isn't realistic - that is what I'd suggest is the first point that we need to start accepting before we come up with solutions.
The likes of Wigan are exceptions, they aren't a realistic template to copy. I do fear that keep trying to get a huge number of world class athletes from Batley, Warrington, Oldham etc. and then wonder why we struggle to compete with Australia who fish in much bigger markets. I find it odd that we would challenge Wire signing a lad from just 51 miles away for their Academy.
In the past we have had a player pathway from Union which has all but disappeared.
When it comes to central funding from SL funds, we do need to look at what that is for. It goes to helping deliver a tv product for Sky, and that is why the huge proportion of funding goes to SL clubs. Player Pathways is of course important, but that isn't the only thing that clubs do.
-
3
-
-
I think 'whole game solution' has become a bit of a worthless slogan nowadays that is rolled out and many people mean give more money to lower divisions.
I just dont think that money is there and we maybe need to think very differently yo just trying to give more money to support p and r.
-
Williams has been excellent for us, at times carrying us tbh. If he decides to go and live in Brisbane or the Gold Coast for a couple of years, good luck to him.
-
4
-
-
On 30/05/2025 at 20:01, Red Willow said:
anyone watched Dept Q ?
Absolutely superb show. An odd one in that I found it quite jarring at first with very few likeable chara ters, but by the end they had all developed and grown on me.
The story stayed on the right side of silly and was pretty satisfying right through to the end which is rare nowadays.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:
I think this is a really important point. Any successful organisation isn't about 1 person. They need a team around them.
RL is a notoriously difficult sport to run and make successful. Just listing Toronto going under as a failure is just pure lazy journalism. Can you imagine if Wood blocked Toronto from entering. Paying for everyone's flights? They were on SKY every week playing in the champ. Multi-Million pound investments in the squad. The likes of Davidson & Mascord would have been crying with derision and hastily tweeting to get likes of how Woods a backwards, inward looking northerner. Then they get criticised. when it al goes belly up. It needed a Lewis there to put in a bit more strategic thinking. But even then, Lewis got it wrong. Celtic Crusaders? Given a place wrongfully ahead of Widnes (who could have suffered massively those 3 years being out of SL) Then one year later after been given a license, they up sticks nearly 200 miles away. And then went bust 12 month later again.
I had some real issues with how TWP went about their business, but would I have taken the opportunity when it was presented. Hell yeah, and I would again. I won't criticise Wood for bringing TWP into the comp. I do however think it is a perfect example of his short-term thinking. Just get them in and agree what we need to now, and worry about the long term later. This has been problematic in much of what he has done at the RFL. I do always think we should be able to answer the question of "what will this look like in 10 years?" with any of our initiatives.
Where I have some sympathy, is that under the current governance that can be a real challenge. For example with TWP, he was a supporter and had he remained in charge, he probably would have backed himself to come up with a solution that would see a deal for them to be welcomed into SL. However he was ousted before then and the clubs were less enamoured with them and it became a very unfriendly environment for TWP to say the least. But even then, it was a pretty extreme situation that saw them out.
I often made the point that we don't need to be too worried about failure. Whenever I do make that point though, people do point out that we do at least need to see some successes, which is very fair.
-
1
-
-
I didn't think this topic was controversial enough, thought it was time to bring Mo into the discussion....
-
6
-
-
13 minutes ago, Damien said:
I'm no Wood fan but I think there maybe something in this. I think its interesting to see these quick comparisons, even if parts are very arguable, as a lot does get forgot about and lets face it the scrutiny from the RL media leaves a lot to be desired.
I certainly don't think Wood was a leader or strategist and the game suffered as a result. He was/is also way to close to heartland figures/clubs/media, using this to solidify his position, and suffers big time when it comes to the overall picture. Way too much effort seems to be invested on politics rather than furthering the game. With Lewis doing all of the visionary, big picture stuff and Wood more in his lane maybe that did work. I do think Lewis was the best leader we've had on a number of levels, the strategy and development of the game was streets ahead of anything we have seen before or since, and maybe Wood as a lesser figure worked. I do think Wood and Rimmer were way too similar and one following the other was a disaster.
I expect we may disagree on this point, but I think Wood's regin at the top wasn't unlike Maurice Lyndsay.
I think when he was Lewis'right hand man he was conservative and helped steady the ship financially and was prudent. Once Lewis moved aside, I got the feeling Wood tried to push himself outside of those restraints and went bold. It worked on things like the growth of England tournaments in the main and the World Cup, but where I think he was similar to Lyndsay was in so.etimes going for the new shiny thing, but without real groundwork. Mo is held up as visionary by many, but some of his delivery was as bad as you could hope for, in things like PSG and the Kiwi Tour. The opening of the 1995 World Cup looked terrible until England beat the Aussies and then the tournament took off.
I do think Lewis is the best we've had in living memory. Its no coincidence that the one time we've attempted expansion with a proper plan, its been a success.
-
21 minutes ago, Damien said:
To be honest I forgot all about Tony Sutton until I ran that. He's been completely anonymous hasn't he while all of this has been going on?
We've managed to divide responsibilities by creating a new body, and have put people in charge utterly lacking in charisma. They may be lovely men, but they are both pretty much invisible in two of the biggest roles in UK RL.
All while we spend our time focusing on the Chairman role.
-
Just now, gingerjon said:
Fascinating.
Now about the complete and total failure *in the present* …
Unfortunately, there ain't much to talk about.
Although we can comment that this 3m review now being scheduled to take 8m isn't a great start.
-
1
-
SL clubs look to reinstate Nigel Wood.
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Obviously none of these folk drink in the same pub as Harry.