SL desperately needs an independent commission

[The Daddy]

Why oh why oh why are clubs that cannot even manage their own affairs properly allowed to have a say on whether Toronto Wolfpack should be in Super League? 

Why are these same clubs most of which have a turnover of a small/medium business allowed to decide what structure SL and the Championship will be for the next 2 years? 

Why is Neil Hudgell throwing his toys out the pram?

Club chairmen should in no way believe that they have power to decide the destiny of the sport.

Clubs SHOULD NOT be running the sports top competition!!! 

We desperately need an independent commission. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Clubs aren’t going to relinquish their hold on the sport. They’ve also bought in their own man, Rob Elstone, who, let’s be honest, has been okay at his job so far, nothing more. 

[Mr Plow]

15 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Clubs aren’t going to relinquish their hold on the sport. They’ve also bought in their own man, Rob Elstone, who, let’s be honest, has been okay at his job so far, nothing more. 

Elstone has an impossible job. The clubs want to raise the profile of the game but not at the expense of any of them. The clubs wanting to stick to 11 clubs so they keep more TV money are sending the game back decades.

Ill give Elstone 2 positives; he’s given SL a fresh new image with the rebranding. I also hear more news about SL on national radio. Small things but I just think what would he do if he wasn’t held back by the clubs

[Man of Kent]

Independent commission, what a load of rubbish.

Leagues are comprised of member clubs who get a vote on such matters. ‘Twas ever thus.

[The Daddy]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Independent commission, what a load of rubbish.

Leagues are comprised of member clubs who get a vote on such matters. ‘Twas ever thus.

Yeah that NRL commission has been a total failure hasn't it. Why would we want to emulate their success 

[The Daddy]

14 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

Elstone has an impossible job. The clubs want to raise the profile of the game but not at the expense of any of them. The clubs wanting to stick to 11 clubs so they keep more TV money are sending the game back decades.

Ill give Elstone 2 positives; he’s given SL a fresh new image with the rebranding. I also hear more news about SL on national radio. Small things but I just think what would he do if he wasn’t held back by the clubs

If the league does go to 11 clubs and they pocket the extra tv money then that sums up a sorry situation 

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Yeah that NRL commission has been a total failure hasn't it. Why would we want to emulate their success 

So you think NRL clubs wouldn’t be voting on this if it had happened to an NRL club?

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, The Daddy said:

Why oh why oh why are clubs that cannot even manage their own affairs properly allowed to have a say on whether Toronto Wolfpack should be in Super League? 

Why are these same clubs most of which have a turnover of a small/medium business allowed to decide what structure SL and the Championship will be for the next 2 years? 

Why is Neil Hudgell throwing his toys out the pram?

Club chairmen should in no way believe that they have power to decide the destiny of the sport.

Clubs SHOULD NOT be running the sports top competition!!! 

We desperately need an independent commission. 

I respectfully suggest that I have never heard so much nonsense in a long time.  Tell you what, why not have a commission and then have an independent commission into the commission.  And then let it appoint a supremo !

If you want something else to tell the clubs what to do, then let someone/ something else find the money that the clubs need. 

[GUBRATS]

36 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Yeah that NRL commission has been a total failure hasn't it. Why would we want to emulate their success 

Who is he ?

[Kayakman]

37 minutes ago, SL17 said:

They could let  them back in and still not allow them any central funding.

Nope that would be it...OVER.   Its not a bluff its a call.

[nadera78]

8 hours ago, The Daddy said:

Why oh why oh why are clubs that cannot even manage their own affairs properly allowed to have a say on whether Toronto Wolfpack should be in Super League? 

Why are these same clubs most of which have a turnover of a small/medium business allowed to decide what structure SL and the Championship will be for the next 2 years? 

Why is Neil Hudgell throwing his toys out the pram?

Club chairmen should in no way believe that they have power to decide the destiny of the sport.

Clubs SHOULD NOT be running the sports top competition!!! 

We desperately need an independent commission. 

2 club reps, 2 RFL reps, 3 independents. And if the players union grows and develops into a more mature organisation (still early days for them tbf) then potentially 2 players reps. That would take into account all the main stakeholders and also allow for a level of independent thinking.

[Mr Plow]

10 hours ago, The Daddy said:

If the league does go to 11 clubs and they pocket the extra tv money then that sums up a sorry situation 

You’d hope that if TWP don’t get back in they promote one of the championship clubs for 2021.

Will be interesting to see how Ottawa get on with central funding. I wonder what attitudes will be to them

[dkw]

Fully agree, too many of these clubs are only interested in whats in it for them, they have no care at all for the greater good of the game and just want to see the money coming in. Self interest is destroying the game completely.

[Kayakman]

3 hours ago, SL17 said:

You stated in another thread you couldn’t care less what league you where in. Funny how things change and the dictating starts again, with a new sponsor on board.

There should be some sort of independent due diligence in these scenarios.

For me it would not matter...I enjoy Championship and would be more than happy to go to and watch the games.  

[Dave T]

This seems to be a constant criticism, however these things appear to contradict that view:

1 - Original SL and the relegation of 'heartland clubs' to be replaced by London and PSG

2 - Admission of Gateshead

3 - Admission of Catalans and protection from Relegation

4 - Admission of Toulouse to RFL pyramid

5 - Admission of Toronto to RFL pyramid and SL

6 - Admsision of Ottawa to RFL pyramid

7 - Introduction of licensing

8 - Introduction of parachute payments

9 - Guarantees of funding for parts of the game outside of SL

10 - Introduction of Super 8's

11 - Introduction of standard P&R

12 - Salary Cap, plus recent increases plus marquee introductions

 

The reality is that many of the above things are contradictory, but it is wrong to say that everything that happens is purely for the benefit of existing clubs. I firmly believe that clubs are doing the best they can and trying to do the right thing, they just have very different views on what is the right approach (not unlike here!).

What the real issue is that many of the decisions are short-sighted and without an over-arching strategy. Ultimately club owners and CEO's can change and their view as a club can change, but there needs to be a strategy that the leaders are working towards so that we aren't dealing with a load of tactical decisions in the here and now. The leadership team should be delivering the strategy with as little input from club owners as possible, once they have signed off a 5 year strategy. 

An example of what I refer to is around this 11 v 12 teams point. The SL clubs are getting hauled over the coals for being short-sighted and full of self-interest by wanting 11 teams and to share the money. What I suspect will happen is we will end up with 12 teams, as we pretty much always have, and people making these claims will just move onto the next bit of criticism. We are in fake news territory, and it is damaging the sport, the narrative is out there that the clubs are short-sighted and they get bashed whether they do these things or not. A lot of critics are not bothered about truth, just the message that the clubs are selfish, that works.

We have already seen Eammon McManus come out with some really positive comments about the number of teams and approach to TWP - but ultimately he is being tarnished with this criticism of things that haven't actually happened. However, perception is important, and the creation of a proper leadership team and strategy (all published) can help with how people see the way it is run.

[whatmichaelsays]

I mentioned this on another discussion, the club owners claim to want growth - they just don't want the "disruptors" that are necessary to drive that growth. As a result, the game is paralysed by tall poppy syndrome. 

The clubs have too much sway over the strategic direction of the sport and all this talk of "having a strategy" for expansion is all smoke and mirrors to justify their self interest. Nobody is taking charge of the issue because nobody wants to take charge of it. 

• The SL clubs don't want to do it because at best, it increases the cost of participation and at worst, it's an existential threat to them. 
• The RFL won't do it because people ask "WhAt AbOuT cUmBrIa?" and accuse them of not "HeLpInG tHe HeArTlAnDs!" that have 125+ years to get their act together. 

Which leaves you relying on the likes of Argyle, Hughes, etc and the risks & limitations that brings.

This won't change without voting reform. At the moment, the inmates are running the prison, voting to keep outsiders out, voting to lower player earnings, lower standards and keeping the cost of competing pegged at what the most poorly-run clubs are comfortable with. 

The board really needs to reflect the views of all stakeholders. Personally, and this is just fag-packet ideas, I'd like to see the voting structure something like:

48% of the vote lies with the clubs (12 clubs receiving 4% each).

20% - Elstone / Independent SL executive.

20% - Players union.

9% - England team management / elite player performance management.

3% - Broadcast and sponsorship representatives. 

If, under such a model, a 50%+1 vote is needed to force a change, every vote has to have the agreement of more than one party so it forces a focus on issues that the sport has neglected for so long. 

[DimmestStar]

Yes people putting loads of their own money in should have no say and control given to fans with an axe to grind.

[Hela Wigmen]

13 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Yes people putting loads of their own money in should have no say and control given to fans with an axe to grind.

No one is saying they shouldn’t have a say. 

[dkw]

29 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Yes people putting loads of their own money in should have no say and control given to fans with an axe to grind.

Who said they shouldnt have any say?

[Dave T]

54 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

This won't change without needs voting reform. At the moment, the inmates are running the prison, voting to keep outsiders out, voting to lower player earnings, lower standards and keeping the cost of competing pegged at what the most poorly-run clubs are comfortable with. 

 

Is this true though?

Keeping outsiders out - in 25 years of SL we have seen Paris, London, Gateshead, Catalans and Toronto admitted to SL. Most of it done on the cheap with poor implementation, but that hardly shouts out that we are keeping outsiders out.

Voting to lower player earnings - whilst the reluctance to increase the cap has been poor, we have seen many increases in recent years with exemptions, % increases, minimum salary introduced, and marquee player rules added. 

There are many things I would like to see changed, but maybe, just maybe, clubs don't want to see unsustainable wages that crippled the game in the 80's/90's. I agree they have been over-cautious, but that doesn't mean that they weren't making decisions based on the best interests of the game.

[whatmichaelsays]

45 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Is this true though?

Keeping outsiders out - in 25 years of SL we have seen Paris, London, Gateshead, Catalans and Toronto admitted to SL. Most of it done on the cheap with poor implementation, but that hardly shouts out that we are keeping outsiders out.

Voting to lower player earnings - whilst the reluctance to increase the cap has been poor, we have seen many increases in recent years with exemptions, % increases, minimum salary introduced, and marquee player rules added. 

There are many things I would like to see changed, but maybe, just maybe, clubs don't want to see unsustainable wages that crippled the game in the 80's/90's. I agree they have been over-cautious, but that doesn't mean that they weren't making decisions based on the best interests of the game.

In fairness, I can't recall the ownership structures or the admissions process for the likes of Paris and Gateshead. Toronto earned their place in SL based on the prevailing requirements. Crusaders were admitted as a franchise, which was not a decision made by club vote.  

I think the crux of the issue I have is that we have very different levels of ambition, vision and ability in Super League and I think that naturally, if albeit inadvertently, manifests itself as a hostility to outsiders. We have, for example, one club chairman on record as saying that he wants RL "to be the second biggest sport in the north of England". That statement naturally excludes "outsiders" and, frankly, isn't that much of an ambition - particuarly when you can make the argument that RL already is that. 

So yes, I do think that we have a cohort of clubs that are essentially voting for a 'race to the bottom'. It suits certain individuals to keep the cost of running an RL club as low as possible whilst, at the same time, voting to hold back those that do want to invest in growth under the guise of "maintaining a competitive competition". As a compromise, they've allowed the salary cap to become this confusing Frankenstein's monster of a system that sees a very small group of players do very well, whilst the rest stay on contracts that erode in value due to the cost of living. The salary cap really should be a much simpler FFP-style system that encourages growth. 

In the end, the people who pay for that are the players, who have seen real-terms pay cuts and the fans, who are being short-changed by top talent going elsewhere and loop fixtures.  

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

In fairness, I can't recall the ownership structures or the admissions process for the likes of Paris and Gateshead. Toronto earned their place in SL based on the prevailing requirements. Crusaders were admitted as a franchise, which was not a decision made by club vote.  

I think the crux of the issue I have is that we have very different levels of ambition, vision and ability in Super League and I think that naturally, if albeit inadvertently, manifests itself as a hostility to outsiders. We have, for example, one club chairman on record as saying that he wants RL "to be the second biggest sport in the north of England". That statement naturally excludes "outsiders" and, frankly, isn't that much of an ambition - particuarly when you can make the argument that RL already is that. 

So yes, I do think that we have a cohort of clubs that are essentially voting for a 'race to the bottom'. It suits certain individuals to keep the cost of running an RL club as low as possible whilst, at the same time, voting to hold back those that do want to invest in growth under the guise of "maintaining a competitive competition". As a compromise, they've allowed the salary cap to become this Frankenstein's monster of a system that sees a very small group of players do very well, whilst the rest stay on contracts that erode in value due to the cost of living. The salary cap really should be a much simpler FFP-style system that encourages growth. 

In the end, the people who pay for that are the players, who have seen real-terms pay cuts and the fans, who are being short-changed by top talent going elsewhere and loop fixtures.  

All fair, but the point I always come back to is that if the majority of clubs believe that the cap should be at a certain level, then who are we to argue? That is not a race to the bottom if it is the majority of clubs. If we have 7 clubs struggling to spend more on wages, that is an issue for the game, but it is where we are and isn't necessarily bad decision making.  On the flip of this would be a few strong clubs voting for unsustainable and reckless increases, but they would probably be applauded through because the perception is that they are more ambitious and therefore better. 

And whilst I agree with you on the soundbite of "2nd biggest sport in the North" not sounding particularly impressive, if we were 2nd for levels of participation then I expect we would see a hell of a lot of growth and a far stronger game than we currently have. So actually, it may be a really smart aim - and remember that aim doesn't exclude expansion.

Ultimately it all comes down to individual take on the situation, my view probably isn't as negative as yours, I am happy with the investment outside of the squads - clubs are very different beasts from pre-SL - facilities are far better, training bases improved, lots of community work, increased marketing and promotion, customer activity - all can be better, but are all better than pre-SL and tbh I put much of that down to the Salary Cap - I think we have seen clubs needing to invest in being a strong club rather than having the biggest budget. In fairness I would always have inflation increases, but I'm ok with the other decisions around it.

[The Rocket]

20 hours ago, The Daddy said:

We desperately need an independent commission. 

It is equally as important then to get the correct people on that commission. The best minds, with the experience and nous to drive the game without fear or favour from the clubs.

Katie Page drove the `Women in League` push in the NRL and has been a spectacular success. Over 1 000 000 women involved in league in his country all being honoured this week. Essential.

It was Grant that drove the push into Digital , which the League wouldn`t relinquish the rights to in recent negotiations with Foxtel. Despite a lot of pressure from Fox. Some experts say the League could be sitting on a gold mine with that platform.

Smart people who love RL and what what`s best for the game.

[Robin Evans]

20 hours ago, The Daddy said:

Why is Neil Hudgell throwing his toys out the pram?

He can do what he likes when he likes. He has no obligation to answer any such question from anyone.

[Robin Evans]

5 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

Smart people who love RL and what what`s best for the game.

Aye but there's the rub. There are smart people with polarised opinions on how the game should be run.... who love rugby league and who want the best for the game