phiggins

Where have you seen this reported?

Can't access the link you posted, but assume it is the Wests CEO saying the NRL won't work with Wood? If so, that is only the word of one CEO, and the important thing is whether they will work with whoever the permanent chair is. I do think there is an element of some owners not wanting NRL to take over. In fact, I think Beaumont pretty much stated he doesn't want it. But other owners will have different motivations. They just agree on what they don't want, Johnson as RFL chair. The fun begins when they have to agree on what they do want.

There is only one path to clubs relinquishing power, and that is for someone, or some people to present a vision that allows for expansion, but not at the cost of existing clubs and stability for full time clubs, but not at the cost of being able to create an environment outside Super League where clubs can grow. And most importantly of all, how this will be funded. If the money for this can be raised at the centre, via media rights, sponsors etc, then clubs will leave the governing body to it. In Oz, they have the ARLC calling the shots, but that would likely change if they weren't creating the income, and NRL was reliant on club owner investment.

https://www.saintsrlfc.com/2025/03/21/saints-chairman-supports-nigel-wood/

Agree with this. Though I would also expect any new leaders to want to put their stamp on the strategy, even if it is just a tweak. To be honest, the only bit of all this that I find contentious is the identity of the interim chair.

To play devil's advocate, if the RFL and RLCom had been able to present something to clubs showing that we are in a better position going into the next round of negotiations, then none of this would've happened.

I don't think having RLCom as an entity is the issue. It's the leadership group within it, that I think will be on the hit list. What has Rhodri Jones done? The fact that Vegas happened despite RLC / RFL was pretty damning. Sky now have more content for less money, with the value seemingly being from the production of 4 extra games (whether we've compromised the production quality of the two main games is another debate), and not done anything to sell those productions, or at least not sold enough to turn into increased central funding. I also think RLCom are sadly lacking when it comes to the IMG partnership. IMG get the criticism, but they do the job to the spec agreed, RLCom set the brief, communicate with stakeholders and ultimately should be able to communicate a vision of what they are trying to achieve. I think that has been lacking.

My suspicion is that this is where this is heading. Clubs are members of RFL, but not sure how the governance structure works to get rid of RLCom leadership, who have been in for criticism from a number of SL clubs, on either side of this vote. Wouldn't be surprised if the first thing the next permanent chair does (hopefully not Wood!) is remove the RLCom leadership.

My impression is that many clubs were happy to see this go through, but not willing to put their head above the parapet. I don't know what the RFL council proxy voting is exactly, but if it's standard proxy voting, then clubs have just let the individuals vote on their behalf. Looks that way. based on this article https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61644/council-provides-strong-support-for-img-grading-criteria-recommendation it seems like the weighting is set so 100% of SL votes = 100% of Champ / League 1 votes. So, assuming Catalans and Toulouse cannot vote, as they are not members, and we know Wigan, Wire and Hudds weren't in favour, means there were 8 SL teams voted in favour. Meaning that if it is a simple majority needed, then it needed 8 non-SL clubs to vote for, or abstain. I don't know what the actual numbers were, but I'd guess they would have to be pretty clear cut to see Johnson resign without even having the meeting. Though, I have to give the caveat, that this could be entirely inaccurate!

He's a very good player. But I don't understand why they didn't sell him months ago (probably to Warrington still) given their financial position.

Of course, owners could walk away, but Salford's never existed in the first place. They budgeted on the basis of some major third party aquisitions happening, which I think goes beyond risks that can happen with sporting chance or external factors affecting the current ownership. This sort of mismanagement is something that should be flagged at the time of assessment, after grading data is submitted. Totally agree with the second paragraph though.

Makes the club's decision to risk the club's future to keep him this pre season all the more baffling (if that's possible)

The fact that you can’t afford to fulfil fixtures without repeated advances of central funding isn’t something that you should be able to outrate by other aspects of grading. The fact that their ability to function as a club was based on things that didn’t exist should’ve seen them fall short of minimum standards in either the appendices of the grading or the operational rules of the RFL

What do you think the clubs did not adopt?

I think Salford's issues should've been easy enough to flush out. They were budgeting for a benefactor and a stadium lease that didn't exist. Surely we can find some sort of mechanism to stop that?