Worzel

I'd just assumed that was the case. Just like when Toulouse made Chris Chester book the cheapest flights with a 12 hour layover in Berlin, the Broncos should only provide enough petrol money for one minibus so the subs and coaches have to come down on the Megabus stopping in 57 towns along the A1 on the way

Cas have done well here, Rowley is a good coach, albeit maybe he wasn't the right man for Saints

Yet more half-a#### nonsense

No I didn't write that very well, it was more the number of interchanges I meant. The NRL still limits you to 4 players from the 6, and like you I like that system it means you can carry a spare half and likely a centre in the 6 in case you lose an edge player or spine player to injury early on. Definitely a good thing.

Yeah, fair point on the pre-season.

Yeah, I’m sure we’ll move to the 6 man bench next season if we sign the NRL deal

I'm not sure, but I do know they've committed a larger number (think £2m, someone will confirm) to the Championship than it currently gets which is a sign of some distributive intent.

More interchanges and a bigger bench is worse, because it increases game speed and collision intensity Bye rounds will make a big difference - clubs that go deep into the cup are often clubs who get into the play offs, and with more players who play international games in the post-season. Their squads will benefit from the bye rounds. The players in the bottom 50% of sides may benefit less, sure, but they're already getting longer off seasons anyway.

I'd have restructured the cup too, but to enable 28 rounds in 30 weeks rather than 27 in 29. On the injuries front I really do believe that having 2 bye weeks is far better for the players than a shorter season

They probably think it will be even funnier watching any new antipodeans make their debuts More rugby - what's not to like? We still have an 12 or 13 week off season for international players, and 18 week off season for most

OK, makes sense. What he describes is a pretty standard convertible loan, common in start-up funding. It might be where they are now in this conversation, almost as a matter of negotiating principle, but I doubt it is where we'd end up if we act rationally. You'd rarely get any form of control in exchange for convertible loan (for obvious reasons). But we may not have offered control. If I was a betting man, I would say the NRL has said "if you won't give us strategic control then we can still provide the finance but we'd structure it as a convertible loan" If we want the NRL to not approach it like this, we need to give them strategic control. If we did that, it would be much more normal (in other businesses) for the investment to have a one-way effect: The NRL will receive equity on X date in exchange for its finance, unless Super League decides they do not want them to, in which case the "investment" converts into a debt obligation. Those are called mandatory convertibles, and the debt is basically the consequence of a breach (where you don't give the equity even though the NRL wanted it) To be honest given the debate about control this situation makes perfect sense, and the NRLs position would be reasonable: Give us strategic control, we'll take $50m of risk with you. Don't, we won't take risk but because we're friends we'll give you interest-free finance. Be interested if you could ask Nigel about that possibility @Martyn Sadler

Well, I think it's safe to say that Beaumont's twitter diatribe has not quite had the effect he wanted... Seismic stuff. Have Rovers and Hull ever issued a joint statement about anything? I just need to quickly go and check that hell hasn't also frozen over, report to follow

I agree the NRL could have handled a lot of this process far, far better. They certainly could have said up-front in 2025 when the rumours started to cirlce, that London was a prerequisite for any joint strategy. More widely, they could have put more detail on the table far more quickly, which would have made it harder for the 'resistance' to fight their delaying battle. They played into the hands of their opponents. But I just have to put all of that aside now, we are where we are (including the 14 teams I never wanted us to have today either, on the other side of the manouevring), and so we should make the least-bad choice now. For me, given I don't believe the sport would let one of those 14 clubs go for 2028 anyway so we'll still have the same structural challenges we face today anyway, the least-bad choice is the NRL deal with London included in 2027. It's not impossible to do, so we should put on our big boy pants and do it.

I genuinely think the Leigh of today are not at risk, any more than the Hull KR of today are (whereas had we been in the Championship we might have been locked out forever). But even if we both were, I think we should put the sport first. I love my club, but the sport as a whole is more important - there's no joy for me in watching my team in a part-time sport, circling the same death spiral that came for speedway, greyhound racing or numerous others. Rugby league is too enjoyable a pastime, and too important to the people around it, to be sacrificed on the altar of one club's needs or preferences.

Totally, and I really don't begrudge him it. The bloke's done great things for Leigh. Perfectly rational for him and others in potentially the same position to be concerned, and undertake actions to mitigate the risks they see. I just wish they didn't try and dress it up as them worrying about the whole game, and we certainly should price that in when we evaluate their contribution to the debate eh.