The Strategic Review has landed

[Martyn Sadler]

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/RL Club-Led Strategic Review.pdf

[Spidey]

--

It's all a bit meh to me - nothing new - just a commentary on what's already in place for 2026.  I don't really see a strategy for the future

Edited February 5 by Spidey

[Martyn Sadler]

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

So actually its 113 recommendations, not 130 - probably somebody misheard when that was previously 

It's all a bit meh to me - nothing new - just a commentary on what's already in place for 2026.  I don't really see a strategy for the future

I don't think you've read it all.

There are 144 recommendations.

Probably around 134 too many!

[Spidey]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

I don't think you've read it all.

There are 144 recommendations.

Probably around 134 too many!

Oops... my bad, i missed a section, it was that riveting 

 

[Tommygilf]

Some good things in there, bit of a wait and see to work out what, if any, will happen.

[Coggo]

More a wishlist of nice-to-haves than an actual strategy.

[Tommygilf]

A suggestion of a Championship and Super XIII joint comp! Its as if people read these boards

[Chrispmartha]

Hang on I thought Strategic Reviews were actually a thing to be published?

[gingerjon]

Interesting ...

Quite a lot of trojan horses in there.

[gingerjon]

Up to 15 NEDs to be appointed.

I seem to remember their existence and cost was a reason for change.

[Damien]

How did it take so long to come up with that? 

The vast majority isn't insightful and 90% of it is just a wish list that anyone could come up with in a day. Reading most of it the saying no **** Sherlock comes to mind.

[Archie Gordon]

Quite bizarre.

No actual review at all, just a list of things, many of which are just restating current practice.

If I had commissioned this, I would be furious. If I had been the one commissioned, I would now be hiding. 

Remember that we had this review because it was an emergency. There is no mention of that emergency, is there?

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

How did it take so long to come up with that? 

The vast majority isn't insightful and 90% of it is just a wish list that anyone could come up with in a day. Reading most of it the saying no **** Sherlock comes to mind.

Few interesting things:

- They want to move the Challenge Cup final
- Women's Cup Final will become standalone
- They give lip service to an NH international calendar featuring England
- They are absolutely going to set Toulouse and Catalans financial targets they won't set anyone else
- Around 30 of the points are league structural which is, at best, laughable in a strategic sense
- When it gets to commercial/broadcast, a lot of the point replicate each other and show a distinct lack of market intelligence
- RL Commercial to have a role in setting rules is interesting
- Jobs for the boys is baked into this from start to finish

It's also not a strategic review.

[dufftown1]

That is worse than i could have imagined. Half of it is just a particularly unambitious wishlist and half is just unreadable word salad. 

There is lterally no overarching vision, no cogency of ideas. No identification of the primary problems.

It reads like youve been cornered in the kitchen at some 5am after party and someone is just listing all their half ideas. "Yeah digital, for the kids, and magic weekend 2, that'll do it"

[Archie Gordon]

This must just be Appendix 1: Recommendations. 

The actual review will also be published, right?

[Click]

Well, that felt disappointing after reading all of that.

[Pulga]

"77 Consideration should be given to improving dialogue with the RFU around the opportunity for a unified wheelchair game and global expansion."

 

No thanks.

[zylya]

This isn't a strategic review, at least not in any traditional sense. Most of the recommendations are "should" based and, if there was any data to back up those assertions, it's not been included.

It definitely has the feel of a group of people with specific, vested interests putting things down that they think would help, rather than any analysis as to why these things should be there.

Not that this means that any individual recommendation is wrong - but without any rationale or analysis, it's essentially the same as this forum answering "what would you like to see change in RL?"

Obviously there's no single way to conduct a strategic review, but some areas that really need to be in there:

• Overall vision/destination of travel - what are we reviewing against?
• Analysis of current problems, including data
• Some thought to prioritisation of those problems - e.g. does "40 Consideration should be given to investing in new technology to improve the on-field product and to enhance levels of player welfare." really form a meaningful part of a review? Is there ever a time when you wouldn't consider this?
• Some of the recommendations of a review could be to explore further where the answer isn't immediately clear and that's not a weakness because you would build these into strategic planning and implementation phases

[Padge]

It seems a few people skipped page 1.

Basis of work undertaken It is important to stress that this report constitutes a Strategic Review. It is not a Strategic Plan. The production of such a plan is the next logical step, if and when the recommendations contained within the review are adopted. It should be for the RFL Board of Directors and the Executive to undertake the work to create the Strategic Plan and associated strategies.

[The Phantom Horseman]

Reading through it and it's hard not to think of this scene

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Pulga said:

"77 Consideration should be given to improving dialogue with the RFU around the opportunity for a unified wheelchair game and global expansion."

 

No thanks.

I didn't even notice that one, Jesus wept. We have far and away the better wheelchair version, even RU fans were envious during our World Cup as theirs is nothing like Rugby full stop. To just give that away as we have with Touch, tag and whatever else, which is what will happen, is madness.

[Tommygilf]

Some of it seems a bit wishy washy - "consideration" makes a few too many appearances in it that it often comes across as vague or surface level.

This particularly applies to things like the CCF Venue, round of 16 Magic Event, strategy in Wales, Ireland, Scotland and London, on the road type events etc. Which is a shame because I like those ideas potentially.

'Everyone needs to promote the challenge cup more' seems a bit surface level too, doesn't really address the strategic problem the cup faces.

 

It also suggests an 8 team playoff format is the preferred option, which in a 14 team league I think isn't great.

 

 

A lot of the aims are pretty loosely defined, which I think is a problem.

I worry that the primary focus in this from a lot of English club owners will be led towards the "renegotiate the status of French clubs" and that the commercial terms must be "fair" without really defining what any of that actually means.

It leaves a lot open to interpretation IMO.

 

There also doesn't seem to be any appropriate referencing throughout backing up why these specific recommendations are good or what the further literature discusses The absence of Primary and secondary sources leaves it seeming like a list of opinions which whilst some may be valid, lack the weight and kudos of a properly referenced piece of work. That could lead to some bits being ignored.

 

The clearest aspects of the list seem to relate to RFL/RL Commercial rights. That I think is solid, for example I particularly like the recommendation for Marquee players to be made available for RLCom activities and events. There's also a bit about on the road games needing to be consulted with the RFL first and to form part of a wider strategy that I think is sensible.

 

I am just about to start a big period of annual leave before starting a new job in March. I could be tempted to review each reccomendation. Watch this space!

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

It seems a few people skipped page 1.

Basis of work undertaken It is important to stress that this report constitutes a Strategic Review. It is not a Strategic Plan. The production of such a plan is the next logical step, if and when the recommendations contained within the review are adopted. It should be for the RFL Board of Directors and the Executive to undertake the work to create the Strategic Plan and associated strategies.

People saw it, they just expected much more after 1 year rather than something that could have been done in a weekend.

[Dave T]

Only made it to the first page so far, but this tells me plenty:

Consultees

In completing this whole-game review, the Group has attempted to include all areas of the professional game (including club owners, CEOs, players, coaches and match officials) and each area has been extensively involved in the process, along with relevant stakeholder groups including the All-Party Parliamentary Group, broadcast partners, commercial and strategic partners and the Community Board.

Not a mention of fans.

[Dave T]

Still on page one. One of the least ambitious aims I've ever read. Utterly uninspiring positioning. 

The intention behind the recommendations is to do the most good for well-run and appointed businesses. The aim should be that the economics of the sport are organised in such a way that well-run clubs playing in well-appointed stadia can achieve sufficient revenues to achieve break-even without over-dependency on benefactor income.

 

I won't be reviewing it all like this - I promise