RFL Chairman responds to criticism

[Pottsy]

For those looking for 'balanced' journalism, I suggest you check out Phil Caplan's interview with Blake Solly in the latest 40-20.

Afaik Phil is strongly opposed to the 2x12 + 3x8 proposal but he gives Blake the opportunity to sell the positives.

By the end of the piece, although you may or may not be sold on the idea, you'll at least have a better idea of the rationale.

You'll also poSsibly be left, like Phil, wondering why BS wasn't used more prominently by the RFL to 'sell' the idea, rather than leaving it to Nigel Wood.

It's a good piece though, as is Peter Smith's YEP column which, when read in its entirety, is far more balanced than is being made out.

I think it's worth remembering that blokes like Phil Caplan, Martyn Sadler and Peter smith etc are, first and foremost, Rugby league fans and any criticism levelled at the game's governance comes from a desire to see the game succeed and flourish.

Those of a more sensitive disposition also ought to be grateful that the game doesn't enjoy a higher national profile as I don't know how they'd cope with the level of scrutiny people like Martin Samuels, Hugh McIllvaney etc would give these and other proposals.

[Father Ted]

No one has yet suggested how supporters will react when they hear the details, whatever those details are.

Fans don't like their club playing others three times in a League season.

So, if the extra games are a play off type then we will have to pay again. Or, those few who attend will have to pay to watch.

On the other hand, will they be added to the season and be covered by the season ticket? This is tempting fans to dump their season tickets, select games and pay on the gate.

Has there been a financial appraisal of the new system based on crowds, local sponsorship and subsequent revenue levels?

We need to be told their thinking and why because if they present us with a done deal, fans may well not buy into that deal!

[gingerjon]

Peter Smith's YEP column which

 ... this week banged on about how rubbish the World Cup is going to be.

[The Parksider]

 Chris Irvine saying the CC is a load of rubbish or George Riley saying everyone is skint DO get seen by a much larger audience. One that isn't especially interested in RL and will just accept that the game is skint and boring because they have read it. 

 

So if they are not interested in RL like 97%+ of the population why will it matter?

 

Seems to me they moan to try to get those in charge to take note and guess what - it works........

[Pottsy]

I wouldn't class those three gents as moaners in the first place, they are mostly pretty good and yes, balanced.

But 40-20 is not a national magazine (well, it is I suppose but it's RL specific)

Whereas Chris Irvine saying the CC is a load of rubbish or George Riley saying everyone is skint DO get seen by a much larger audience. One that isn't especially interested in RL and will just accept that the game is skint and boring because they have read it.

So your problem is specifically with Chris Irvine and George Riley then?

[Pottsy]

... this week banged on about how rubbish the World Cup is going to be.

I shall read this....

[The Parksider]

"This week’s ‘Talking Rugby League’ in League Express with Martyn Sadler was a tough piece to read if you were sitting in Red Hall as once again all the responsibility for the current perceived ills in the game were dropped on our doorstep"

 

Said Barwick.

"I’ve joined the RFL as it sets about trying to re-structure the game’s competitions and create a sport which is compelling at every level and that allows well-run clubs to succeed and thrive".

 

Continued Barwick...

 

OK Riley, Sadler, Smith and Irvine why not go interview Barwick and ask the tough questions and why not Barwick give the honest answers and then we can all find out if the criticisms are justified or if the problems with RL go further than it's administration and leadership??

[JohnM]

Everyone who has put forward an opposite view to JohnM, I suppose!!!

IMHO, the game lacks governance from the governing body and at times merely pays lip-service to SLE. Look below SL and there is quite a lot of unrest. Look at the DR system that has caused more aggravation than any other topic this season and the RFL merely sit back and say we will look at it at the end of the season. Meantime they are now talking about bringing back Under 23's which would in effect do away with the DR system!!!

 

 I suppose!!!

 

Moses supposes his toeses are Roses,

But Moses supposes Erroneously,

Moses he knowses his toeses aren't roses,

As Moses supposes his toeses to be!

 

[Keith T]

 I suppose!!!

 

Moses supposes his toeses are Roses,

But Moses supposes Erroneously,

Moses he knowses his toeses aren't roses,

As Moses supposes his toeses to be!

Very good, I suppose!!

[Martyn Sadler]

"This week’s ‘Talking Rugby League’ in League Express with Martyn Sadler was a tough piece to read if you were sitting in Red Hall as once again all the responsibility for the current perceived ills in the game were dropped on our doorstep"

 

Said Barwick.

"I’ve joined the RFL as it sets about trying to re-structure the game’s competitions and create a sport which is compelling at every level and that allows well-run clubs to succeed and thrive".

 

Continued Barwick...

 

OK Riley, Sadler, Smith and Irvine why not go interview Barwick and ask the tough questions and why not Barwick give the honest answers and then we can all find out if the criticisms are justified or if the problems with RL go further than it's administration and leadership??

If you read my piece in League Express, you'll see that I had an interview with Brian Barwick lined up, but he postponed it, I assume because he didn't want to prejudice the current discussions on league structures.

 

I'm glad that he responded to my article, but I don't think he really addressed the issues that I raises.

 

A straight interview would be much better.

 

There are lots of questions that need to be put directly to the RFL bosses, but they seem anxious to speak, if at all, off the record.

[JohnM]

For those looking for 'balanced' journalism, I suggest you check out Phil Caplan's interview with Blake Solly in the latest 40-20.

Afaik Phil is strongly opposed to the 2x12 + 3x8 proposal but he gives Blake the opportunity to sell the positives.

By the end of the piece, although you may or may not be sold on the idea, you'll at least have a better idea of the rationale.

You'll also poSsibly be left, like Phil, wondering why BS wasn't used more prominently by the RFL to 'sell' the idea, rather than leaving it to Nigel Wood.

It's a good piece though, as is Peter Smith's YEP column which, when read in its entirety, is far more balanced than is being made out.

I think it's worth remembering that blokes like Phil Caplan, Martyn Sadler and Peter smith etc are, first and foremost, Rugby league fans and any criticism levelled at the game's governance comes from a desire to see the game succeed and flourish.

Those of a more sensitive disposition also ought to be grateful that the game doesn't enjoy a higher national profile as I don't know how they'd cope with the level of scrutiny people like Martin Samuels, Hugh McIllvaney etc would give these and other proposals.

 

 

As you well know, its not  a matter of sensitivity. Anyone who has been on this form for even a few months will have recognised the relentless negativity about anything the RFL does (or doesn't) and either become  desensitised, or given up in despair spending time on AOB instead, or like me, decide to battle as hard as the naysayers.   Wilson writes for the Guardian so has every reason to be miserable and as its readership is so small, is not in a position to influence anyone As we all know, Riley doesn't take feedback well, and in any case he works for the BBC, motto: "We are the BBC: we are never wrong"

 

Really, the offenders are those who no matter what good news, seek to denigrate it, to  misrepresent it and to indulge in personal attacks on RFL people.  I am NOT going to get involved in dismantling the aggregation of opinion into discrete parts. I'll stick with James Whitcomb Riley

[JohnM]

seehttp://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/castleford-tigers/inside-rl-still-work-to-do-to-win-over-doubters-1-5885997

 

so a sports reporter is suddenly a marketing expert.  His closing lines personify the negativity we have been talking about. Whatever the RFL has done, it should have done something else instead.  

[Dave T]

I think some people are getting bogged down with the recent stuff. Let's be honest if the media were being negative about this, then personally I think that'd be fine as it is well worthy of challenge as it is a controversial move if it comes off. 

 

The bigger issue is that many RL journos are negative about pretty much everything all of the time.

 

We get a low crowd, the game is dying.

We get a poor game, the game is dying.

We see a club struggle, the game is dying.

We see 75k+ at Wembley, the game is dying because of the thousands of empty seats.

We see England playing well, it's rubbish because it should be GB.

and so on...

 

There are plenty of great things about our sport. There are plenty of things to complain about. If it was balanced it'd be fine, but we get very few positive stories.

[Tre Cool]

Ive always stuck up for the RFL particularly when Lewis was in charge, I thought we were going in the right direction.  But I'm really frustrated with them at the minute primarily due to:

 

- no SL sponsor

- pushing through a ridiculous and complex new league structure 

- exclusively playing games in the M62 area for Magic Weekend, Cup Semi-Finals, Exiles game, NRC Final

- Premier Sports TV deal for World Cup

[Gav Wilson]

seehttp://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/castleford-tigers/inside-rl-still-work-to-do-to-win-over-doubters-1-5885997

 

so a sports reporter is suddenly a marketing expert.  His closing lines personify the negativity we have been talking about. Whatever the RFL has done, it should have done something else instead.  

 

"Apparently sales for the semi-final double-header at Wembley and the Cardiff tournament opener aren’t going anything like as well and that’s something which needs to be addressed."

 

Could he not be bothered to ask Martin Johnson what the actual figures were? 

[Ackroman]

For me the big marketing bonus of drawing SL and the Championships closer together is the way expansion can be showcased more readily. CC2 expansion clubs may not be in the spotlight at the moment but the league restructuring will give these clubs more power to attract investors and showcase how new communities are embracing the RL culture.

Or we can just say it's ######.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Ackroman

[Gav Wilson]

seehttp://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/castleford-tigers/inside-rl-still-work-to-do-to-win-over-doubters-1-5885997

 

so a sports reporter is suddenly a marketing expert.  His closing lines personify the negativity we have been talking about. Whatever the RFL has done, it should have done something else instead.  

 

I also like how he moaned about the good ticket sales only being in small venues, then moaned about taking games to large venues like Cardiff and Wembley as it will be too expensive for northern fans. Good that.

[ckn]

- no SL sponsor

On this point, I saw a very interesting piece on TV last night, I think it was the BBC News on BBC1 but may have been Sky News covering the legacy of Olympic sports after the Olympics.  They covered why Aviva dropped UK Athletics in December last year after 13 years of sponsorship, the Aviva Marketing Director was quite reassuringly blunt in saying that there were few reasons to continue sponsorship after the Olympics.  The Olympics were the big, headline event and Aviva were no longer getting value for money as there were few other big Athletics event on TV these days.  You can imagine the UK Athletics governing body banging their heads on their tables wondering what more they have to do to get sponsorship despite the most successful Olympics ever and higher profile athletes.  It was the same with other Olympic sports such as rowing that no longer has a team sponsor.

 

If those sports cannot get a sponsor despite their Olympic successes and reams of positive PR then you may be able to understand why the RFL are getting so frustrated.

 

Imagine you're a marketing director at a major UK company reading your Guardian on the train on the way in to work, you take time to scan for articles on rugby league as you have a meeting with the RFL marketing team that day, you either find nothing or doom-and-gloom stories.  You then get to work and decide to be a bit more proactive and have a look at the Times, Telegraph and Independent, same story, either nothing or doom-and-gloom.  What's big coming up in the sport?  A world cup that's almost exclusively full of negative media coverage.  Not exactly likely to get you in the mood for handing over sponsorship money, companies don't like being associated with failures and the news in most newspapers about rugby league is just all about that, rugby league failing.  The RFL people come in, you've got nothing but negative PR to tie against their Powerpoint presentation of what a wonderful sport it is full of prime, marketable fans and spectators, they go away with a "thanks but no thanks" message.

[Rob]

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.

Absolutely spot on.

[Pottsy]

Not so much George Riley.

So just Chris Irvine then?

[mmp]

 

Imagine you're a marketing director at a major UK company reading your Guardian on the train on the way in to work, you take time to scan for articles on rugby league as you have a meeting with the RFL marketing team that day, you either find nothing or doom-and-gloom stories.  You then get to work and decide to be a bit more proactive and have a look at the Times, Telegraph and Independent, same story, either nothing or doom-and-gloom.  What's big coming up in the sport?  A world cup that's almost exclusively full of negative media coverage.  Not exactly likely to get you in the mood for handing over sponsorship money, companies don't like being associated with failures and the news in most newspapers about rugby league is just all about that, rugby league failing.  The RFL people come in, you've got nothing but negative PR to tie against their Powerpoint presentation of what a wonderful sport it is full of prime, marketable fans and spectators, they go away with a "thanks but no thanks" message.

Absolutely! And my biggest (of many) issue with OUR media...

Why sponsor RL when as a sport - it doesn't make the effort of promoting your brand?

I watch masses of sport - the "Barclays" Premiership, the "RBS 6 Nations" as so on and so on. The brand is promoted positively in association with the sport. Like the deal or not, but Stobarts are a big firm and our journalists seemed to take please from deliberately denigrating the brand association - on GMR they referred to Stobarts as "those truck people" (they are a multi-million £ logistics and freight firm, actually) and i barely ever saw a journo refer to the competition as the "Stobart SuperLeague" in the way journos of competitor sports do in their job.

If you are lucky enough to get a sponsor then for gods sake give them please the most basic respect...if you don't then why would any marketing executive of any other brand would ever go near our sport? Add to that the never ending negativity of most of OUR media and I can imagine that it's a pretty tough sponsorship sell (even with a fantastic product on the pitch)

[Just to be clear]

If those sports cannot get a sponsor despite their Olympic successes and reams of positive PR then you may be able to understand why the RFL are getting so frustrated.

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.

[bobbruce]

Quite simply by a governance structure that allocates executive authority to the governing body and limits the ability of the members to meddle with such authority. I think that you will find that this is what has been achieved in Australia and seems to be working OK.

Within a framework decided by the clubs and various leagues.

[The Parksider]

If you read my piece in League Express, you'll see that I had an interview with Brian Barwick lined up, but he postponed it, I assume because he didn't want to prejudice the current discussions on league structures.

 

I'm glad that he responded to my article, but I don't think he really addressed the issues that I raises.

 

A straight interview would be much better.

 

There are lots of questions that need to be put directly to the RFL bosses, but they seem anxious to speak, if at all, off the record.

 

I hear what you say good sir, but P & R was seen as the devil, then licensing came about, now P & R is the saviour. Barwick isn't the only RFL official, and the changes are seemingly supported by a lot of clubs who have Chairmen and CEO's some of whom are opening their mouths, and some of whom are cancelling their plans to "stand down" and opening their wallets in anticipation of the changes..

 

I personally would like someone somewhere in the RL media to explain the simple truths why these changes are coming about. They seem to be a response to the chairmen in the bottom half of SL becoming disgruntled. Barwick postponed an interview, and you seem to excuse him. Barwick can easily say the solutions are not up to him to decide. He can just stick to explaining the problems to us - why there seemingly HAS to be change.

 

We've had weeks and weeks of "why are they (RFL/SLE) making these changes are they mad?". I'm quite certain they are not mad and nor is Barwick and that there are understandable reasons for the proposed moves he intimates ("It's not a board game"). If a majority of movers and shakers are for the changes then isn't someone somewhere available for comment as to what are the exact problems driving them?

Edited July 27, 2013 by The Parksider

[The Parksider]

x2

Edited July 27, 2013 by The Parksider