Dave T
-
Posts
47,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
334
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
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
-
-
33 minutes ago, Damien said:
Thought I would ask ChatGPT for a comparison between Nigel Wood and his predecessor to see how it would view their records leading the RFL. I actually find the results pretty interesting :
I agree with the final assessment, and the para on Wood is broadly how I would assess him. As MJM says though I do think Wood also played a key part of Lewis' successes too.
I do actually think they were probably the right pairing for the sport, and once Wood became the top person, that balance was never there. I do think Wood was bold, an opportunist, a deal maker to an extent, and alongside somebody as smart and strategic as Lewis, it worked.
I'm not sure Wood ever got the right people around him when he was the number one.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:
Still unsure as to what the inaccuracies were in Davidson's piece, as they've been called out, but not explained!
Its less about inaccuracies as it is a weird list. Crusaders going bust isn't really something that stands out as a Nigel Wood failing. Brian Barwick being non-exec Chairman of the RFL also wouldn't make anyone's list of top Nigel Wood failures. Attempting expanding the third division probably wouldn't be the thing people would slate him for either.
If you wanted to run a hit-piece on Wood, there are far better and more relevant things to use against him.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, FearTheVee said:
Indeed it is but I suspect any marginal profit on ticket sales would be more than swallowed by the cost of the approach.
It's no coincidence that we get emails rather than calls about these events.
Yup, see my post to SP that it just isn't efficient. But it is legal.
-
26 minutes ago, JonM said:
We have you know, actual laws against doing this kind of thing. Apart from being a complete waste of time and money, it's also liable to lead to big fines.
To be fair, outbound telesales is legal.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Just Browny said:
I don't think this is an example of strategic thinking at all really. It is an example of coming up with a formula that gave broadcasters (and P&R enthusiasts) against short-term sugar rush that was always likely to wear off quickly - and did.
Maybe that was good/important dealmaking at a time of crisis but it had no strategic value whatsoever. Just another example for the historians of a structure change that died on its ######.
Yup - it's actually a perfect example of a quick tactical initiative that has long gone.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
This is a fairer summary than John Davidson's but is still inaccurate.
"Wood's lack of strategic thinking is his biggest downfall".
1. In fact it was Wood's strategic thinking that played a large part in his downfall. He created the Super 8s, which ran for four years from 2015. It was a novel way of handling promotion and relegation and its creation was partly responsible for the record TV deal. But the clubs hated it because they couldn't publish their full fixture list at the start of the season to maximise income from season tickets and all the excitement was in the Middle 8s and the Million Pound Game, so they ditched it, but only after he had left the RFL.
2. "For example, Wood is a big believer in the international game, and with him in charge we had made good progress in many areas (record breaking World Cup, record Kiwi crowds etc), however it was all undone by failing to build a relationship with Australia which led to the abandoning of the 4N and nothing to replace it, and he led the GB Lions piece which undermined much of the good work around England."
The Four Nations was his invention and the final Four Nations was in 2016, which saw Scotland earn a draw with New Zealand at Workington, a crowd of almost 36,000 to see England v Australia at the London Stadium and a crowd of more than 40,000 at Anfield for the final between Australia and New Zealand.
The World Cup was held in Australia in 2017 and after that Wood was out of the RFL. The Four Nations concept was ditched, but not by him. Anything that happened from 2018 wasn't his doing.
3. You claim that the Magic Weekend has not grown materially since its launch, which is an arguable point, but it was Wood who took the Magic Weekend to Newcastle for the first time in 2015, with a record aggregate attendance of almost 68,000 and a single day attendance of more than 40,000.
4. Your comments about expansion clubs are arguable, but I don't think anyone could have found a way to embed them in the competition, given the current governance structure, whereby all clubs are independent entities.
1. Introducing something that ultimately didn't get the buy in of the clubs and was deemed not fit for purpose is not strategic success. Just having ideas, but not really being able to deliver them is exactly what we are talking about. Delivering an initiative that lasted just four years is a perfect example of lack of strategic thinking.
2. Wood left the RFL in 2018, however he was RLIF CEO when this was international was announced in 2018:
Rugby League World Cup in 2021 and 2025
Kangaroos Tour to UK in 2020
Kiwi Tour to UK in 2018 and 2022
Lions tour to southern hemisphere in 2019 and 2024
9s World Cup in 2019 and 2023
2019 Championships for the Pacific nations in a mid and end of season format
2018 European Championship (and then at two-year intervals)
2018 Australia v New Zealand Test (annually to 2022)
2020 New Zealand fixture(s) in the southern hemisphere
3. By going into such minute detail as where Magic was staged and getting an increase over a day, you are guilty of the same as Davidson, cherry-picking individual things to blindly position your argument. Magic as an event still broadly looks the same as it did back at Cardiff in that first ever event.
4. This is just not true. We've had all sorts of things introduced, new clubs elevated to the top flight, clubs relegated, protection from relegation, different rules for different clubs etc.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:
You mean most on this site Futureman, it's hardly mentioned anywhere else so I'm told.
Come on Harry - this just isn't true.
Any conversation on anything RL will ultimately come back to the incompetence of the RFL, and Wood is more than well known and controversial in RL circles to be receiving a whole load of stick.
I know you don't do social media, if you did, you'd see all sorts of criticism of the RFL, including Wood.
-
51 minutes ago, Worzel said:
Yeah I take your point on Davidson. But "even a stopped clock..." and all that!
An issue I have is that it becomes very easy to dismiss the criticism because it highlights stuff that's a bit of nonsense really.
The problem is though that any critique of Wood's tenure would have to acknowledge the positive things he did and some will refuse to do that. But the position imo, really is that he did some good stuff but failed to embed it strategically or set us up for the future. For me, it will ultimately be seen as a decade or so of missed opportunities.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Worzel said:
That’s not true Dave, taking an extreme position to counter bias is a key part of critical thinking. The mistake many liberals make is to counter bias or misrepresentation with balance. In doing so they concede the principle. Sometimes you need to counter selective facts with opposite selective facts, the balance comes in the combine and importantly the very use of selective facts also serves to highlight the tactics that the people of the other position are taking.
It makes a mockery of the hagiography, and in doing so reveals it far more clearly than some “balanced assessment” would. Nigel Wood’s apologists need calling out.
Maybe, but Davidson is not the person to do that critical thinking, and tbh he could have done it far better.
My main issue is that I find that RL fans are treated like dum dums. This article treats them like dum dums. I refuse to act like a dum dum. This isn't a nuanced piece to do what youre claiming imo.
@Tommygilf touched on it earlier, Wood's lack of strategic thinking is his biggest downfall, and it would be really easy to put some analysis together to highlight this if you were that way inclined.
For every positive development that happened on Wood's watch, there is a negative to counter it, and the root cause of that was generally lack of strategic thinking and foresight.
For example, Wood is a big believer in the international game, and with him in charge we had made good progress in many areas (record breaking World Cup, record Kiwi crowds etc), however it was all undone by failing to build a relationship with Australia which led to the abandoning of the 4N and nothing to replace it, and he led the GB Lions piece which undermined much of the good work around England.
He supported expansion in many cases, however he undermined good work by not creating strategies on how we embed expansion teams in the comp - leading to failures at the bottom and ultimately a TWP and French presence that have been treated as outsiders and vulnerable to a few blokes in charge at that time.
Record tv deal - blew it with flip flopping over S8's.
Magic Weekend - not materially grown since launch.
Licensing - sacked off as being too hard and too much admin.
But the zinger really is that he was ultimately ousted and deemed to have served his time, paid off with a handshake. That's enough not to welcome him back.
For me, Wood had some decent ideas, tactical initiatives or individual things that could be done, but he never planned where they would go.next, how they would look in 10 years. He was good at making deals, winning votes, retaining power - and tbh, I think its that that we are seeing at play right now.
-
2
-
SL clubs look to reinstate Nigel Wood.
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
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.