SL clubs look to reinstate Nigel Wood.

[phiggins]

The panel that will do this review has now been named: https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/rfl-strategic-review-nigel-wood-1039268

Beaumont and Hetherington are done in terms of the work set out in the resolutions on the RFL Council meeting, and their input should (in theory) be at the same level as every other club owner.

[RigbyLuger]

Abi Ekoku is a blast from the past.

[Archie Gordon]

49 minutes ago, phiggins said:

The panel that will do this review has now been named: https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/rfl-strategic-review-nigel-wood-1039268

...

Still at the stage of vague ambition but looking forward to seeing a scope or ToR published soon.

[Martyn Sadler]

Here is my Talking Rugby League article in this week's League Express telling Nigel how to sort it all out!

Sooner him than me!

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Here is my Talking Rugby League article in this week's League Express telling Nigel how to sort it all out!

Sooner him than me!

Nigel will have it sorted on day one.

As did Trump.

[Archie Gordon]

10 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Here is my Talking Rugby League article in this week's League Express telling Nigel how to sort it all out!

Sooner him than me!

So Wood *is* an executive chair, tasked with that list of major operational things you assign to him that ought to be the CEO's responsibility.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

22 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Here is my Talking Rugby League article in this week's League Express telling Nigel how to sort it all out!

Sooner him than me!

You might say it's semantics and an element of 'jump before pushed' but this reads like Johnson lost a no confidence vote - which to my knowledge, he didn't? 

Further to that, it's clearly the how/why the motion was brought about that the outgoing directors are eluding to, when they say 'contrary to good governance', or at least that's my interpretation. As you say, It can be their right to do that but also question the motivation behind it, as well as the wisdom. 

[LeeF]

36 minutes ago, Griff said:

Nigel will have it sorted on day one.

As did Trump.

So a bad tan. A press conference where he signs a piece of paper and on the golf course by lunchtime

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

You might say it's semantics and an element of 'jump before pushed' but this reads like Johnson lost a no confidence vote - which to my knowledge, he didn't? 

Further to that, it's clearly the how/why the motion was brought about that the outgoing directors are eluding to, when they say 'contrary to good governance', or at least that's my interpretation. As you say, It can be their right to do that but also question the motivation behind it, as well as the wisdom. 

I think Johnson was about to lose a confidence vote, hence the resignation. But neither Daley nor Newton were.

[Gooleboy]

5 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

And Dave Whelan.

Wigan were fortunate to have a local millionaire to rehouse and refinance them.

And Tesco for buying Central Park.

[Expatknight]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

The panel that will do this review has now been named: https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/rfl-strategic-review-nigel-wood-1039268

Beaumont and Hetherington are done in terms of the work set out in the resolutions on the RFL Council meeting, and their input should (in theory) be at the same level as every other club owner.

I may have missed something or just plain stupid (either is possible) but isn't this review what IMG have been employed to do? 

[Angelic Cynic]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Here is my Talking Rugby League article in this week's League Express telling Nigel how to sort it all out!

Sooner him than me!

 It was Elstone,appointed by Lenagan and Co. who apparently went for the private equity.Not the RFL.

The World Cup in 2022 was hampered by,and therefore didn't make a profit because of Covid and how the government handled the pandemic;not because Mr Wood wasn't at the RFL.

Still without the facts about what the last RFL staff did,or didn't do,to bring about their unseating,when even with the 'elite' club owners bringing in Elstone,and then IMG,they didn't unseat the RFL staff  - just took some away to assist IMG.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

I may have missed something or just plain stupid (either is possible) but isn't this review what IMG have been employed to do? 

Yeah, it's part of what they did, the commercial focus, which led to the creation of RLCom. They didn't focus on things like participation which is the RFL's remit.

The RFL and clubs can absolutely influence and deliver increased revenues through RLCom, which they are all part of.

That part of the review is weird.

[Chrispmartha]

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Here is my Talking Rugby League article in this week's League Express telling Nigel how to sort it all out!

Sooner him than me!

I may have missed it, did you explain how this simple formula you say exists for having on field promotion but no relegation works?

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I may have missed it, did you explain how this simple formula you say exists for having on field promotion but no relegation works?

I think this is the rather major problem we have here. 

We've tried:

1. Standard P&R (1 up and down, 2 up and down, even up to 4 up and down IIRC)

2. P&R with minimum standards - by this I mean meaningful standards, that actually stopped clubs moving up, not just lowering standards every time as we did with the likes of London.

3. Super 8's. A mish-mash of a system which overlapped divisions. Scrapped pretty quickly.

4. Licensing. Off field primarily selected the teams. We foolishly (imo) tried to retain some form of P&R, I assume to get it voted through and guaranteed a team would be promoted - which basically gets rid of standards. Scrapped as it was too hard.

5. Grading. A flavour of the above, focusing mainly on commercial activity - the element of P&R is worse than with licensing (IMO) in that it actually creates the worst level of uncertainty of any system - something that apparently is a key driver of moving away from traditional P&R.

And now people are suggesting new systems that we should try - whether that is 2x10's, promotion but no relegation, whatever.  My conclusion on the above is that none of them are silver bullets, and none of them are horrendous. They all have decent elements, they all have things to grumble about. Clubs have gone into financial difficulty during all of them, others have thrived - and that (imo again) is because the system isn't critical. 

There is no silver bullet - we need to stop looking for one. Land somewhere and stick with it and crack on with the really important things. 

[JohnM]

"...to produce a transparent strategic business plan that will make the sport an investable, sustainable and economically viable sporting competition by conducting a wide-ranging fully encompassing indepth whole of game strategic review.’ ..

Quick question.

Which "transparent strategic business plan that will make the sport an investable, sustainable and economically viable sporting competition" are we talking about?

The next one?

This one?

The previous one?

The one before that?

The one before the one before the one before the one before......?

Still, it IS promised to be transparent, so we'll be able to see the review plan, schedule, meeting attendances,  meeting agenda and minutes,...

[LeytherRob]

2 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

 It was Elstone,appointed by Lenagan and Co. who apparently went for the private equity.Not the RFL.

The World Cup in 2022 was hampered by,and therefore didn't make a profit because of Covid and how the government handled the pandemic;not because Mr Wood wasn't at the RFL.

Still without the facts about what the last RFL staff did,or didn't do,to bring about their unseating,when even with the 'elite' club owners bringing in Elstone,and then IMG,they didn't unseat the RFL staff  - just took some away to assist IMG.

That's weird, I must have imagined the threads on here discussing the many poor decisions made in the planning of that tournament - not least the pretty baffling venue choices at times.

[Anita Bath]

8 hours ago, phiggins said:

The panel that will do this review has now been named: https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/rfl-strategic-review-nigel-wood-1039268

Beaumont and Hetherington are done in terms of the work set out in the resolutions on the RFL Council meeting, and their input should (in theory) be at the same level as every other club owner.

Some bloke whose experience is in rugby union…what is that about? Havent we got enough folks in and around our game to fill out this panel….and if we need to go outside the game…why rugby union, whose problems are far greater than ours.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

Some bloke whose experience is in rugby union…what is that about? Havent we got enough folks in and around our game to fill out this panel….and if we need to go outside the game…why rugby union, whose problems are far greater than ours.

It is a swap for Agent Rimmer who went over to the Dark Side

[Cerulean]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think this is the rather major problem we have here. 

We've tried:

1. Standard P&R (1 up and down, 2 up and down, even up to 4 up and down IIRC)

2. P&R with minimum standards - by this I mean meaningful standards, that actually stopped clubs moving up, not just lowering standards every time as we did with the likes of London.

3. Super 8's. A mish-mash of a system which overlapped divisions. Scrapped pretty quickly.

4. Licensing. Off field primarily selected the teams. We foolishly (imo) tried to retain some form of P&R, I assume to get it voted through and guaranteed a team would be promoted - which basically gets rid of standards. Scrapped as it was too hard.

5. Grading. A flavour of the above, focusing mainly on commercial activity - the element of P&R is worse than with licensing (IMO) in that it actually creates the worst level of uncertainty of any system - something that apparently is a key driver of moving away from traditional P&R.

And now people are suggesting new systems that we should try - whether that is 2x10's, promotion but no relegation, whatever.  My conclusion on the above is that none of them are silver bullets, and none of them are horrendous. They all have decent elements, they all have things to grumble about. Clubs have gone into financial difficulty during all of them, others have thrived - and that (imo again) is because the system isn't critical. 

There is no silver bullet - we need to stop looking for one. Land somewhere and stick with it and crack on with the really important things. 

Perhaps tangential to the point that you were covering, but responding to your final paragraph and the "really important things", most of the discussion concerns a few teams around the bottom of the Super League structure - or more important to those few teams comfortably lodged at the top of the structure, about who will make up their list of opponents, which seems to be the unstated basis for most of the conversations here.

What has not been significantly and seriously examined is the appearance and the playability of the sport, its profile amongst the wider population of those who may be prepared to contribute enthusiasm and commitment to the sport, a genuine attempt to create interest wider than already exists. Shuffling around the composition of the top division will have little impact on the game’s appeal: changing the perception (and ask around amongst those outside the sport, or peripheral to it, to find what that perception is) from a high-speed battering contest played by a very few teams with any sort of national awareness under a label which is not even the name of the sport, to a sport which can be enjoyed for its playability, its accessibility, for rugby league’s undoubted qualities of thrilling ball movement, running, evasion, positional awareness, and many other elements now hidden behind a near-incomprehensible battle to control what happens at the end of each tackle.

If the game wants new customers, it needs to offer and promote something different: if it wants to continue to please a few comfortable teams, then rearranging their opponents can be argued over.

Just possibly, a new review might address wider issues.

[gingerjon]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

There is no silver bullet - we need to stop looking for one. 

Every action taken at a 'strategic' level is always in the belief that we are a quick fix away from solving everything.

It was said, by me and others, at the time of the IMG launch that the absolute obsession over structure meant that everything else would either be overlooked or played down.

And so it is. Despite decades of evidence that the structure itself really plays quite a minimal part, it is almost certainly what the fanfare announcements to come from this review will be about.

[Just Browny]

52 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

a high-speed battering contest played by a very few teams with any sort of national awareness under a label which is not even the name of the sport,

I was trying to think of the successful sporting events that played under a label that was the name of the sport. Certainly not the Premier League, the Six Nations or the County Championship*. Maybe the FA Cup at a push.

 

 

*stretching the definition of 'successful' here I will admit

Edited March 20 by Just Browny

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Cerulean said:

Perhaps tangential to the point that you were covering, but responding to your final paragraph and the "really important things", most of the discussion concerns a few teams around the bottom of the Super League structure - or more important to those few teams comfortably lodged at the top of the structure, about who will make up their list of opponents, which seems to be the unstated basis for most of the conversations here.

What has not been significantly and seriously examined is the appearance and the playability of the sport, its profile amongst the wider population of those who may be prepared to contribute enthusiasm and commitment to the sport, a genuine attempt to create interest wider than already exists. Shuffling around the composition of the top division will have little impact on the game’s appeal: changing the perception (and ask around amongst those outside the sport, or peripheral to it, to find what that perception is) from a high-speed battering contest played by a very few teams with any sort of national awareness under a label which is not even the name of the sport, to a sport which can be enjoyed for its playability, its accessibility, for rugby league’s undoubted qualities of thrilling ball movement, running, evasion, positional awareness, and many other elements now hidden behind a near-incomprehensible battle to control what happens at the end of each tackle.

If the game wants new customers, it needs to offer and promote something different: if it wants to continue to please a few comfortable teams, then rearranging their opponents can be argued over.

Just possibly, a new review might address wider issues.

The leader of the review did run the game for over a decade, a senior exec for 20, which does give me some doubt.

[Archie Gordon]

16 hours ago, Expatknight said:

I may have missed something or just plain stupid (either is possible) but isn't this review what IMG have been employed to do? 

Indeed.

And given the game's strategic partner isn't party to this strategic review - which we've been told will end with a "necessary reset" - it doesn't look good for them in terms of their future involvement.

[dkw]

19 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Abi Ekoku is a blast from the past.

Hes an estate agent, has been for 15 years, has he been involved with RL clubs also?