Just to be clear

Just to be clear, you should because the idea you can play 2 games in 3 hours is so bizarre I would like to see you sincerely defend it. Never mind that we the clock is stopped after various incidents during a match, you are completely ignoring half time, which is around 15 minutes for a televised match. Even when Sky shows a match without any build up and goes off air shortly after the final hooter it still takes up two hours. Super League programming accounts for around 25 hours of their weekly schedules, I cannot understand why you are resorting to weird contortions to claim they only show 3 hours. Sky themselves say that the average Premier League viewer only watches 30 matches per season. That is less than one per week. Showing an extra Super League match will not widen the audience for the sport, not even in the bizarre world where games truly do finish 80 minutes after kick off.

Just to be clear, just how short are NRL matches than you can fit 2 within 3 hours? Sky usually shows 8 hours of Super League branded programming per week on the main channels, all of which is repeated, usually at least twice, plus as extra 3 half hour shows on the red button, trailers, and coverage of the league on Sky Sports News. All of which would include the sponsor's name being reference and logo being shown. An extra live match will not be a break point, especially if it only dilutes the existing audience. Sky are currently struggling to schedule their live matches at times which maximise audiences. Leading to them controversially moving the Saturday evening matches to Thursday nights to avoid clashes now that Sky will have Saturday evening Premier League matches. Extra live matches will be welcomed by most of us on forums like this who go out of our way to watch rugby. But it is general sport fans who are important to broadcasters to make coverage cost effective, and to sponsors to increase their reach. This is why the audience figures vary so much from between 90k and 290k and mediocre matchups can outweigh top of the table clashes.

Just to be clearer, Sky started looking for a replacement for Irn Bru to sponsor Sky's rugby league coverage last November. It took them nine months before they finally found one, with six rounds of the Super League season remaining. That new sponsor is Sky.

Just to be clear, if someone "challenges and questions" the government's austerity measures are they toe the opposition line and supporting it? And if someone "challenges and questions" opposition alternatives are they toeing the government line and supporting it? That you think whenever anyone disagrees with the RFL they are being challenging and questioning yet those who agree with them on somethings are benign cheerleaders just exposes your own irrational prejudices. Just because a journalist condemns something does not make them right, not precludes them pushing their own agendas. Just because the RFL says something it does not make them wrong. There is a big difference between challenging and questioning, and talking something down. To challenge requires refutation. To question requires listening to answers. Constantly shouting "YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG!" is neither challenging nor questioning.

Just to be clear, because I am lost with all those groups and rounds, are you saying "just carry forward results against common opponents, just like they do in the super 6s and super 8s in cricket world cups"? If we are worrying about the need to counter the minuscule possibility of a winless team going undefeated and an undefeated team going winless we might as well stop playing the game altogether because freak occurrences can happen in any sport, and we are not nor do not have to be an exception. Once you start designing structures based on preventing unlikely extremes they are going to fail because they are disproportionately biased. Currently we could have the top of Super League go undefeated with 54 points (W27 L0), teams 2nd to 4th all finish on 46 points (W23 L4), and the team in 5th finish on 19 points (W9 L15 D1). Yet everyone still thinks the top 5 playoff the fairest system even though it would let Leeds win the Grand Final against an undefeated Wigan after winning only a third of their games all season. Even now the gulf between the top of the Championship and bottom of Super League is not so great to make that defeated v undefeated situation likely, let alone after the increased funding to top Championship clubs being proposed. The bigger problem would be the first 23 games because and the gap between top and bottom of the Championship due to the different levels of funding. But to be on the safe side, we should make a rule permanently banning Leeds for the playoffs just in case.

Just to be depressed, An RFL figure attacked for trying to do their job and promote the game. Again. It is an open letter, not a strategy document. He is a non-executive chairman, not an officer. It is his opinion and response to the negativity that is damaging the sport's reputation. The fact that no one can accept his letter for what it is, with people instead condemning him for things he has not said just illustrates how big this problem. The response from journalists resorting to ridicule and acting like they should be beyond question is the most arrogant and depressing thing. I want Barwick and Wood looking for sponsors and building up the game, not constantly having to fight the constant tide of unconstructiuve attacks that make their job more difficult. Tony Hannan said in response that "if you are a journalist & you 'talk it up' then you ain't no journalist. You're a spin doctor. Aim for the truth" If he thinks that the truth can never be positive then he ain't no journalist either. If he thinks knocking something down you disagree with is journalism and not spin doctoring or yourself then he ain't no journalist. (And just how boring must Tony Hannan's match reports be that he could never praise a game or a player because that not be journalism but spin doctoring. Just a load of technical statements saying someone passed, kicked, or tackled, with no description of how good or exciting any of them were.) The biggest problem with rugby league reporting is that the line between journlism and editorial is blurred to the point of almost non-existance. Whatever someone thinks of, say, the 2x12 3x8 proposal is not journalism, it is opinion. Journalism is saying what it is. Journalism is investigating why it is being implemented, by whom, on what basis, what support it gets, how will is be judged, what analysis has been done for and against it. Journalism is saying what should be done instead on a factually researched basis. Saying "this is not good", saying "I think we should do this" is not journalism. Just to be clear, Sadler's editorials are by definition meant to be opinion and not journalism, but for that reason they are also no more relevant to the overall debate than anything posted on this site. And just as he gets to use his prominent position to express his personal opinion, then Barwick has every entitlement to respond. And in a perfect world he could do so with the likes of Chris Irvine mocking him for it, but such low expectations we have of the games biggest enemy it understandable he has to new find ways of further diminishing his own credibility.

Just to be clear, you recall wrongly unless you think the elimination playoff round of the Super League playoffs is "a major final" and that Leeds, Saints and Bradford, who they played in their Challenge Cup Final and first round playoff elimination appearances, are all in Wales. Do you?

Just to be clear, and now you cannot even use the verb form of buggeration?

Just to be clear, this is why we can't have nice thing. Nigel Woods job is to promote rugby league, so if he being positive is what he does best then he is the right man for the job. People complain that we don't have sponsors then they complain when the RFL puts positive spin on things to try to attract them. We then get bloody Chris Irvine whinging that the press release does not point out how the attendance was a great failure. For a journalist lecturer he seems to know ###### all about how media relations work. There is Lord Trumpington sitting on his big pile of money that he wants to invest in a sport, reads Nigel Wood doing what he does best, and thinks that all sounds jolly goo. Or you have Lord Trumpington reading the account or Irvine, Wilson, or god forbid coming across this site, and sees how rugby league is regarded as a toxic brand by those who profess to love it. Which is more likely to make him want to give his big pile of money to have his name attached? The likes of Andy Wilson saying in the Guardian not to bother watching Warrington vs Huddersfield because it means nothing is far more likely to deter sponsors than anything Nigel Wood can do. Sponsors don't care about internal politics and competition structures, all they care about is the sport's public image and a sizeable fanbase. Yet for every effort of Wood to try and present that image there are many more doing everything the can to destroy it. The Stobart sponsorship was in such a way that had it been a success they could have converted into a paying supporter of the game. Instead they walked away. Given the column inches, tweets, forum posts, that constantly vilified them it is of little surprise they wanted nothing more to do with us. And now we have a problem that people do sponsor us? First it was Toyota being attacked for boasting about a commercial deal with the RFL, now Northern Rail's name is an affront. If Wood signs a deal with Northern Rail he is holding the game back, if he turns down their sponsorship he is killing the game. If he conducts a deal so development officers can travel the country he is doing a bad job, if he scraps development officers he is doing a bad job. He is not perfect, but to satisfy the two-faced whinging fan base that seems to set on destroying the sport just so they can say "told you so" he would have to be evolve into a quantum state. The man charged with running the game issues a press release to promote it and people queue up to bash him for it. We deserve everything that is wrong with the game, and then some more. I wish those who claim the game will die off in the next few years are right, because the sooner it can be rid of the pervasive rot that includes a vocal minority of fans and majority of journalists the sooner those of use who love it can see it reborn as something to be enjoyed and supported to grow. I have met many wonderful and friendly rugby league fans, spoke online with many wonderful and friendly rugby league fans, yet when they want to be Rugby league fans really are the worst.

Just to be clear, because the game is not flush with money and so wants to make a profit hosting games.

Just to be clear, I never realised the game was in such a position to make demands. In which case I am sorry for suggesting that being on the third most watched channel, and something only one other equivalent competition can claim, is a good thing. We should tell the BBC we would rather not be televised at all than appear on a channel beneath us. I now also understand why people are suggesting the London v Widnes/Wigan semi final should be played at a venue like Walsall, were the cost more to hire it could end up being higher than the revenue we could earn. It also explains why the Leigh Sports Village (a poor location regardless) is too small. Between them Wigan and Leeds could only attract just under 13,000 at Huddersfield. But replace Leeds with London, and potentially Wigan with Widnes, and the higher standard of those matches there is no chance the attendance could be 2,000 lower than one between the two best supported teams in the game, which would be enough to sell out the LSV.

Just to be clear, they will both be tucked away live on the UK's third most watched TV channel, which is more than can be claimed by any other domestic cup except for one of the FA Cup semi-finals which is on ITV.

Just to be clear, Sheffield (formed 1984) are "traditional" and Toulouse (formed 1937) are not? Does it make you laugh that people think Featherstone could attract a several thousands just because they got over 4,000 for cup game against Cas and Wigan a couple of years ago? Do their Championship attendances also prove that not the case? Is it really that hard for you to believe that teams, including Toulouse and Featherstone, would attract larger attendances in a higher division or league than a lower one?

Just to be clear, that is twice James Rule has become chief executive of a club then in his first year let Briscoe go. It was after he had taken up the same position at Hull they decided not to renew Briscoe's contract.

Just to be clear, the appeals tribunal is made up from a panel of people independent of the RFL, and who reevaluate all evidence to come to its own decision including deciding the appropriate punishment if necessary. It is not an investigation into the original hearing but a do over. Usually where the appeals panel agree with the verdict of the original tribunal they will also come to the same opinion on the appropriate punishment. Here they clearly did not. That is the risk you take by asking the original hearing to be disregarded and a chance to do it all again, and is quite clearly stated in the operational rules that the appeals tribunal may reach its own verdict regardless of the original tribunal. The whole operations rules tribunal process is a quasi-legal one and nothing to do with spite or management of employees and other strange conspiracy theories It seems some people just want to use this as another excuse to attack the RFL.

Just to be clear, he said the same in his original statement, which is what made his attack on Jon Sharp all the more worse for me. Despite Ganson being wholly responsible for the error, Hudgell defended him yet took a petty personal swipe at Sharp. The respect we expect players to give to officials should apply equally to those running clubs to those in charge of officiating. Although I do agree with his comments on Ganson.

Just to be clear, you concluded "all in all 14 clubs didn't really work" but it was not your point that moving to 14 clubs was the cause? Either the extra 2/14ths of Sky money would have saved them or not, else how does the 'extra protection' make any difference? Do you even know that Sky would have paid the same for the last two contracts had it been for a 12 team competition? Sponsors? That with all clubs being richer the salary cap would not have risen, leading to the extra income being lost in league wide wage inflation? That attendances would have not turned reduced instead of seeing a record high because of the need for repeat fixtures to fill out the fixtures. That the quality of management of clubs would have been so much better that they would not have peed that additional money up the wall too. I am all for seeing researched evidence to show how the current system is detrimental when compared to an alternative. But there are so many hypotheticals and assumptions that all other things would have been exactly the same that to say things would have been better if just one detail was different is meaningless and self serving. But Super League would be bigger than the Premier League now if only Ian Millward had not abused that Warrington press officer.

Just to be clear, even lower for London than when during the 2005 season with £3m of debt they were on the verge of being wound up by the Inland Revenue who refused to accept their CVA? And that they survived was on the whim of a close vote of Super League clubs allowing them to transfer assets to a new company so they could default on their debts but remain in the competition? Something lower than that which none of the media has reported on? The idea that nothing which happened during the last 5 years would not have had there been only 12 clubs in Super League, or had we had promotion and relegation, or had Ray French retired already is specious and really dumbing down the quality of debate in the game at the moment. Nobody knows what would have happened otherwise, and the more people try to claim that everything would have been fine but for anything which they is so desperate that it looks like they are trying to convince themselves. And it is, of course, an entire coincidence that clubs faced economic problems during a major economic crisis. Oh no, that had no affect at all, clubs would have seen record sponsorship and attendances double despite that, if only Harry Gration had worn a suit instead of those jumpers.

Just to be clear, you are wrong. The County Championship was split into two divisions solely to improve the production of test quality players. There was a problem with a lack of intensity in an 18-county division which lead to players not being developed to a high enough standard. The competition was split so that teams would be playing those of a similar quality to give players at all counties more intense competition that would make them more ready at test level. The split had nothing to do with the interests of fans or the counties. It is a very tenuous claim to make that a change designed to meet a specific objective and with no other purpose coincides with meeting that objective exactly as planned. Can you provide proof that the ECB's plan itself failed and they were just very lucky indeed? It is though a terrible example to use as a model for rugby league because it is a competition that has very low attendances, only two matches televised per year, and is essentially centrally funded by the international game that it ultimately serves. The limited overs formats that are popular with spectators, television, and make money do not have promotion and relegation. The successive Twenty20 competitions have always used regional groups while it was short lived in the List A ones which replaced it with random groups that are redrawn every season.

Just to be clear, I am surprised Dave Woods did not turn up after commentating on the game, as he was very enthusiastic about the proposal on the recent Forty-20 podcast. And yet many want to see Super League contracted, while your fellow journalists have been droning on endlessly about two leagues of ten for the past few years, which would also necessitate repeat extra fixtures. Which sounds like exactly what Championship clubs fans have been saying about their competition for the past 5 years of licensing. Apparently a winning a competition is valuable in its own right, without the need for promotion, when it serves a self-interest, but is a tremendous anti-climax when it contradicts that self-interest. Also worth bearing in mind it could be a huge success that propels the game into a strong future on an equally very tenuous basis. Claiming we can never have relegation because if we do it will damage the cup is at least the most creative argument I have heard on the any of the proposals.

Just to be clear, does that line mean you have checked that those who have posted positively on this forum are not also readers, or is it just an outright lie to further your own agenda? Just to be clear. Given Tony Smith, rightly or wrongly, moans about something every other hour I do not see any reason to be more concerned this time than on any of those other occasions. And given Smith's position was in support of licensing, which pretty much every journalists is against and goes at great length to point out at the most tenuous of opportunities, and what seems to be a majority of fans are either against or supported but now think has failed, then giving him credence surely contradicts your notion that we should automatically dismiss anything that is not supported by a self-selected group of readers and anonymous uncited stakeholders. Gruff said it perfectly: "Everyone has their own agenda, with very few unbiased views being reported." Personally I agree that the RFL leadership is weak, but that is because as a sport the balance of power is with the clubs as we have no international presence of note. It is that money that allows other governing bodies to keep control of their respective games. Does anyone really think that if Nigel Wood just said "this is the solution, and this is what we'll do whether you like it or not, judge me on my results" that all the stakeholders (and what an insidious term that it as it gets used to cover any opponent without having to specify their relevance to a decision) will suddenly support him because of his strong leadership? All those fans of Championship clubs will suddenly come rushing back to the game without automatic promotion, or those Super League clubs will invest in youth development despite the risk of relegation? Every idea I have seen, from those on forums to ones suggested by ranking figures in the game, have failed to unite the separate needs of a Super League that allows clubs to develop and the need of a Championship where clubs, and more importantly their fans, feel invested in their competition. Every idea, some deliberately, resolves one (at best) at the expense of the other. To dismiss the idea their is a major problem in the game balancing this two positions is disingenuous. And if you truly believe the game's only problem is marketing but that it is "not too difficult." then why are you not offering constructive ideas? Why are you not putting together a proposal to present to the RFL that they would hire you on the sport. Why as supporters of the game are you not just implementing them, even from a position of self-interest the growth of the game benefits LPL. I can understand blinkered fans who think that because they love the game then everyone else must too, they just have not been given the chance. But I would expect better from professional journalists. Absolutely the game can be helped by better promotion, but the idea that it would see millions flocking to the game and all our problems would be solved is naive to the extreme. Or that the game has the money necessary to make it stand out in a country dominated by football. It was a terrible editorial. It successfully targets both those opposed to the split league because they want licensing, those opposed to the split league because they want promotion and relegation, and those who like moaning about the RFL because their tea was too strong in the services on the M4 that one time while saying absolutely nothing. It completely ignores the issue of why a split league is being proposed, neither standing for either but simply opposing the acceptance there is a problem and then making an attempt to address it. If you truly believe we should listen to Tony Smith, that we should carry on as we are and that licensing is best then say so. Then tell us how you received absolutely no negative response from any of your readers for that position. As I am sure there would not be, after all, the only problem in the game is a marketing one.