RFL's Strategic Plan

[Lowdesert]

Agree with you 100% Lowdesert. So what do we do about it? As a start it would help if we all raise the issue of the RFL strategic plan in as many places that we can, especially online newspapers that cover RL and allow readers to comment on issues. If this topic gets raised in enough places, then eventually an RL journalist will start digging and embarrass the RFL into engaging with the paying spectators who ultimately pay everyone's salaries - including the administrators. We - the paying customers - are the true stakeholders of RL ; and we deserve honest communication from the sport's (temporary) guardians.

I am not in a position to raise such things or be a part of any kind of campaign mate. Although The RFL go about things in strange ways, now and again, overall I think our game is doing well.

I think we need more detail on how the Plan works to be able to make a more informed opinion and that information should be available. Maybe in another month, as some have said.

Considering SKY gave us a large amount of money, purely for development, shouldn't they be following up on their investment?

These forums will be riddled with journalists who will be glued to every board to get a story.

[Lowdesert]

What did we want them to do?

Realistically when the game is tied to pay TV schedules, the expansion of the game has stalled, and rivals national codes of football are outgunning us, and players leaving for the rival NRL it would have been be a really positive albeit challenging plan to have said that the RFL's plan was to hold onto what we have.

Had the RFL done that then there would have been been uproar and everyone would have been calling for a clear out at the RFL. Had the RFL not published any plans for going forward at all there would have been a similar uproar.

Nice one, we need to stop the Paul Daniels "just like that" suggestions and get real.

As above if they don't do a plan, or don't plan for progress you'll be gunning for them along with others who think it reasonable the game can grow with some smart management. So they have to plan for progress otherwise it's off with their heads.

The "true" stakeholder is SKY TV, the game sold itself out to that 20 years ago.

There are many one client companies who rely entirely on that client, and that is professional Rugby League.

The supporter base has reduced somewhat and so clubs started to go bust, So the supporters hardly pay everyone's salaries. It was SKY who upped our contract to cover those debts.

And if SKY go will the "supporters" stick around? Will we still see average crowds of 8.500 in a semi-pro Superleague where many more top players leave for down under?? Not a chance so the supporters aren't the lifeblood of the game at all.

And so the RFL will continue to fob off moaning fans with these "plans" and "visions" of where they are taking the game, whilst in reality they are clinging on to SKY, and quite right too.

Seems a simple answer to 'what did we want them to do'. - achieve their objectives.

The RFL have a Plan. I am asking to see more detail in order to see the progress and how they will achieve that Plan.

I would hope that all Clubs aspire to implement or manage their clubs 'smartly', probably also including the acronym SMART at some stages. Do you think Clubs should not do this?

I would have thought that a key principle of a spectator sport is to have spectators. Although SKY are a massive stakeholder, matches without any spectators would not go down well with SKY, sponsors, service providers, Local Authorities, local shops, transport providers, merchandisers, cafes, fast food providers or public house among others. Why are 'stakeholders not the lifeblood of the game' at all?

[The Parksider]

Considering SKY gave us a large amount of money, purely for development, shouldn't they be following up on their investment?

 

BskyB paid £17,800,000 towards "coaching" and the clubs "charitable foundations"........... 

[Dave T]

Seems a simple answer to 'what did we want them to do'. - achieve their objectives.

The RFL have a Plan. I am asking to see more detail in order to see the progress and how they will achieve that Plan.

I would hope that all Clubs aspire to implement or manage their clubs 'smartly', probably also including the acronym SMART at some stages. Do you think Clubs should not do this?

I would have thought that a key principle of a spectator sport is to have spectators. Although SKY are a massive stakeholder, matches without any spectators would not go down well with SKY, sponsors, service providers, Local Authorities, local shops, transport providers, merchandisers, cafes, fast food providers or public house among others. Why are 'stakeholders not the lifeblood of the game' at all?

well the rfl agree with you and one of their goals is to increase spectator numbers. They beeak this down by SL, Challenge Cup and Championships.

Their goals are relatively detailed in the deck, not sure the detailed plans would be shared publicly, and not even created when that deck was written.

[The Parksider]

The RFL have a Plan. I am asking to see more detail in order to see the progress and how they will achieve that Plan.

I would hope that all Clubs aspire to implement or manage their clubs 'smartly', probably also including the acronym SMART at some stages. Do you think Clubs should not do this?

I would have thought that a key principle of a spectator sport is to have spectators. Although SKY are a massive stakeholder, matches without any spectators would not go down well with SKY, sponsors, service providers, Local Authorities, local shops, transport providers, merchandisers, cafes, fast food providers or public house among others. Why are 'stakeholders not the lifeblood of the game' at all?

 

The RFL will always promise progress that's just how life is, trying to catch them out is for what purpose? We can bash them all day, but do you really think there are people out there who can make the real progress you crave in the current climate?

 

The clubs have the development money you speak of to make the progress, maybe that is the better place to look and see if it's actually going on grass roots development. Then bash the clubs if it isn't,

 

The lifeblood of the professional game is SKY. Of course the clubs need to chase spectators, but for spectators to believe their money creates the sort of professional game we currently have is a falsehood. So many of them are spectators because SKY enhance/subsidise the product.

 

The speccy pays his £20 and watches the game and the deal is over, contract finished. No "right" to question the RFL.

[GaryO]

What did we want them to do? 

 

The "true" stakeholder is SKY TV, the game sold itself out to that 20 years ago.

 

There are many one client companies who rely entirely on that client, and that is professional Rugby League. 

 

The supporter base has reduced somewhat and so clubs started to go bust, So the supporters hardly pay everyone's salaries. It was SKY who upped our contract to cover those debts.

 

And if SKY go will the "supporters" stick around? Will we still see average crowds of 8.500 in a semi-pro Superleague where many more top players leave for down under?? Not a chance so the supporters aren't the lifeblood of the game at all.

 

And so the RFL will continue to fob off moaning fans with these "plans" and "visions" of where they are taking the game, whilst in reality they are clinging on to SKY, and quite right too.

It seems that you condone this status quo that the RL find ourselves in, having a contract with Sky which allows the management to sit back, occasionally peddle some waffle to keep the fans quiet, and have a easy laid back lifestyle.

Whilst I agree with your theory, having as you describe it a single customer is a total recipe for disaster, contingency plans in any company to promote and sell their product to a larger market need and should be an ongoing priority, if we have a management incapable of attracting new and former paying customer's they should be removed from office and replaced with people of the right quality.

The ones who should be shouting the loudest are the majority stakeholders, those who are in terms of money coming into the sport in this country SKY TV. Would it not make sense that the more bums that can be put on seats in the stadia, and the more interest in the game that can be promoted, then more subscriptions could go Sky's way?

"If you stand still, you are also going backwards, it takes great effort to maintain forward movement" a direction I cannot see Wood & Company capable of taking us, they had the opportunity to gather momentum from the '13 World Cup but instead of seizing the initiative they let interest diminish and erode.

[Lowdesert]

well the rfl agree with you and one of their goals is to increase spectator numbers. They beeak this down by SL, Challenge Cup and Championships.

Their goals are relatively detailed in the deck, not sure the detailed plans would be shared publicly, and not even created when that deck was written.

I don't expect much either Dave. I'm just hoping to see something in the annual reports but, I imagine, it will be brief.

[The Parksider]

"If you stand still, you are also going backwards, it takes great effort to maintain forward movement" 

 

Well I've been in business meetings where the slogans are thrown around like confetti, but by the end of the meeting the cold hard facts have to be faced.

 

The hard fact could be the business just needs investment because it looks like there's a good return

 

Or the business risks going backwards if it spends money it doesn't have on investment and it doesn't look likely to give the return,

 

In which case it's a matter of standing still. I'm afraid I know many businesses who have stood still for year and years and none of the owners see themselves as going backwards. The business may be small the business may be hand to mouth, but the owner enjoys it and makes a living and stays out of debt.

 

This is why I don't see there is any shame in the RFL holding onto what we have? 

 

We always have this idea that if we do XYZ crowds will grow, more people will play, more people with money will come into the game etc etc etc.

 

That obviously works for many businesses who have an attractive product, space in the market place they trade in, and investors willing to take a big risk.

 

But we have a declining quality of product, no space in the sports market, and nobody wants to invest big......However......

 

We have been in a position that we have to try to hold what we have, but as Low Desert points out BskyB have made an investment of £18M for clubs to run "Foundations" probably along the lines of the Leeds foundation that I think was the market leader??

 

This is clearly where the game has got some money invested in it.

 

So surely we need to look at how the SL clubs are doing with that investment rather than the tedious RFL bashing?

[Lowdesert]

The RFL will always promise progress that's just how life is, trying to catch them out is for what purpose? We can bash them all day, but do you really think there are people out there who can make the real progress you crave in the current climate?

 

The clubs have the development money you speak of to make the progress, maybe that is the better place to look and see if it's actually going on grass roots development. Then bash the clubs if it isn't,

 

The lifeblood of the professional game is SKY. Of course the clubs need to chase spectators, but for spectators to believe their money creates the sort of professional game we currently have is a falsehood. So many of them are spectators because SKY enhance/subsidise the product.

 

The speccy pays his £20 and watches the game and the deal is over, contract finished. No "right" to question the RFL.

I want them to achieve their objectives and haven't mentioned catching them out.

[The Parksider]

Whilst I agree with your theory, having as you describe it a single customer is a total recipe for disaster, contingency plans in any company to promote and sell their product to a larger market need and should be an ongoing priority, if we have a management incapable of attracting new and former paying customer's they should be removed from office and replaced with people of the right quality.

 

The whole of the business universe is looking for "people of the right quality" Gary mate, It's just another slogan.

 

How well any management team can do can only be gauged against what is reasonably achievable.

 

There are people who make £Millions who are pretty useless because their opportunity was one where they could have made £10's of £Millions.

 

There are people who preside over the business going bust who worked miracles to keep their black lead grate polish, or cardinal red step paint businesses going for so long.

 

The RFL were judged to be lacking by several SL club chairmen on their failure to engage with BT over the TV deal, and their adoption of the swiss soccer system.

 

If we believe the RFL are failing then that is the ground to make that case on. Not some public relations type"strategic plan"

 

And yet those who seek to bash the RFL somehow miss those alleged Howlers?

 

Did the RFL's mis-management lead to the loss of a £220M BT contract and guaranteed P & R? And did that in turn lead to declining crowds and stagnation?

 

Why not make me a judgement on that Gazzer.

[The Parksider]

I want them to achieve their objectives and haven't mentioned catching them out.

 

Their objectives?

 

They represent the clubs and the clubs objectives included a bigger TV contract from BT and a return to P & R?

 

Why not comment on them achieving those more real objectives?

[Dave T]

Oh ffs.

This is a thread about the rfl's stated strategy and aim Parky. You cant rewrite that for them.

Bore off!!!

[Dave T]

Their objectives?

They represent the clubs and the clubs objectives included a bigger TV contract from BT and a return to P & R?

Why not comment on them achieving those more real objectives?

liar

[Airlie Bird]

Speaking personally I've no desire to bash the RFL or try to catch them out just for the sake of it.    I also accept that they have a difficult job to do, not least because of the media bias against RL.     At the same time, Nigel Wood and the other senior people working at the RFL don't actually own the sport ; rather, they're the current custodians of the game and as such should seek to act in the best interests of RL as a whole.    

I applaud the fact that we have a strategic plan, and think the main objectives seem sensible.   All I'm looking for at this stage is for a progress report that tells us what the actual performance is compared to the plan.   Quite often when organisations review progress against strategic plans, they find that they're hitting some targets, overachieving on some and underachieving on others ; the key challenge is then to decide what steps to take in those areas where targets aren't being met, to get things on track.   Nigel Wood and his fellow senior colleagues are no different to most senior executives in the business world.   Namely they're paid reasonably well to do a difficult and challenging job, and ultimately have to be accountable for the results achieved.

[Dave T]

Speaking personally I've no desire to bash the RFL or try to catch them out just for the sake of it.    I also accept that they have a difficult job to do, not least because of the media bias against RL.     At the same time, Nigel Wood and the other senior people working at the RFL don't actually own the sport ; rather, they're the current custodians of the game and as such should seek to act in the best interests of RL as a whole.    

I applaud the fact that we have a strategic plan, and think the main objectives seem sensible.   All I'm looking for at this stage is for a progress report that tells us what the actual performance is compared to the plan.   Quite often when organisations review progress against strategic plans, they find that they're hitting some targets, overachieving on some and underachieving on others ; the key challenge is then to decide what steps to take in those areas where targets aren't being met, to get things on track.   Nigel Wood and his fellow senior colleagues are no different to most senior executives in the business world.   Namely they're paid reasonably well to do a difficult and challenging job, and ultimately have to be accountable for the results achieved.

indeed, it is an interesting thread, as they have been quite specific in their goals.

 

Thankfully the RFL don't believe they should be treading water and have targeted growth in all areas.

[Viking Warrior]

the real author of the plan

 

 

[Oxford]

indeed, it is an interesting thread, as they have been quite specific in their goals.

 

Thankfully the RFL don't believe they should be treading water and have targeted growth in all areas.

It is interesting how little we seemed to be aware of, which is sad. The thread is interesting and may even be in that group of "One of the more productive ones."

 

 

I think the treading water image comes not from what they do or don't achieve but our knowledge or lack of it about both.

 

I hope you don't mind groundhopper

that I use your words

 

"I think to some extent the lack of the knowledge of the game is holding back crowds in the development areas. That the game is not fashionable to watch in these areas is a problem, especally when being part of the in crowd seems a requirement, Social media only works if others steer you in the right direction"

 

In both the marketing thread and this Strategic plan one, without answering this key question it would seem very hard to move forward.

[The Parksider]

Speaking personally I've no desire to bash the RFL or try to catch them out just for the sake of it.    I also accept that they have a difficult job to do, not least because of the media bias against RL.     At the same time, Nigel Wood and the other senior people working at the RFL don't actually own the sport ; rather, they're the current custodians of the game and as such should seek to act in the best interests of RL as a whole.    

I applaud the fact that we have a strategic plan, and think the main objectives seem sensible.   All I'm looking for at this stage is for a progress report that tells us what the actual performance is compared to the plan.   Quite often when organisations review progress against strategic plans, they find that they're hitting some targets, overachieving on some and underachieving on others ; the key challenge is then to decide what steps to take in those areas where targets aren't being met, to get things on track.   Nigel Wood and his fellow senior colleagues are no different to most senior executives in the business world.   Namely they're paid reasonably well to do a difficult and challenging job, and ultimately have to be accountable for the results achieved.

 

Numbers of persons watching the game have slid over the last couple of years which has been steadied by a larger aggregate attendance from more matches.

 

More matches are putting a strain on the players so there's more injuries.

 

Overall numbers playing the game have continued to slide as well.

 

TV deal has been criticised, and sponsorship deals continue to be thin.

 

There's your performance, if the RFL were accountable to you how would you judge it?

 

What would you do with them?

[Oxford]

Numbers of persons watching the game have slid over the last couple of years which has been steadied by a larger aggregate attendance from more matches.

 

More matches are putting a strain on the players so there's more injuries.

 

Overall numbers playing the game have continued to slide as well.

 

TV deal has been criticised, and sponsorship deals continue to be thin.

 

There's your performance, if the RFL were accountable to you how would you judge it?

 

What would you do with them?

Seem reasonable criteria to apart from the tv deal which saw more money come into the sport than ever and I think the RFL now have a larger portfolio of sponsors than ever before.

 

 

But the numbers don't add up to a good performance.

 

But what to do with them?

 

Guillotine, hangings too good, make them present Blue Peter, Force them to watch the One Show, castration, drawn and quartering, tied to a chair and made to watch One Man and His Dog and then watch both them again watching from the stands on repeats of rugby special, and Busby Berkely dance routines from old black and white films.

[The Parksider]

Seem reasonable criteria to apart from the tv deal which saw more money come into the sport than ever and I think the RFL now have a larger portfolio of sponsors than ever before.

 

But the numbers don't add up to a good performance.

 

But what to do with them?

 

No the TV deal was stated to be a poor one by several top clubs because BT were apparently interested in paying more so SKY made their deal take it or leave it and the RFL grabbed at it

 

So none of it was a great performance in the eyes of many including the majority of the club chairmen they serve.

 

So we can all beat about the bush rattling on about some old "plan" and go on about taking the RFL to task over it but in the real world in the eyes of six rebel clubs the RFL have not performed and as per the Solly replacement ultimatum to the RFL by the rebel clubs, they have already told the RFL what they must now do about that poor performance and get someone in to serve them better.

 

Your post ends in silliness not debate, and the silliness includes all the daft posts on this thread and on others in the last few months threads about how the SL clubs don't have a problem with the RFL.

 

Now we get this daft thread questioning the RFL's performance against some old critera the RFL published, when they have already angrily been questioned over their actual performance by the SL clubs, reference Neil Hudgell's public condemnation which was waved away as meaningless.

 

Not as meaningless as this daft old plan being dredged up and calls for the RFL to answer their performance against it when the RFL chairman have already called for that.

 

You couldn't make it up - geddit?

[The Parksider]

Speaking personally I've no desire to bash the RFL or try to catch them out just for the sake of it.    

 

I applaud the fact that we have a strategic plan, and think the main objectives seem sensible.  

 

All I'm looking for at this stage is for a progress report that tells us what the actual performance is compared to the plan.   

 

The real world plan was to change the league structure and funding and accept SKY's take it or leave it deal years before they had to, this would they saod lead to financial stability and increased crowds.

 

This is what they planned and executed, and your from Hull, didn't you hear Hudgell coming out and actually saying the performance of the RFL/Solly was rubbish against the actual plan they executed and Solly's replacement must work closer with the SL clubs??

[Dave T]

No the TV deal was stated to be a poor one by several top clubs because BT were apparently interested in paying more so SKY made their deal take it or leave it and the RFL grabbed at it

anyone ask Parky for a source for this truth, or is he just blatantly making stuff up again.

I am looking for evidence that several clubs criticised tge deal because BT wanted to pay more.

That as far as im aware is a blatant lie, and cant keep going unchallenged.

[Lowdesert]

Their objectives?

 

They represent the clubs and the clubs objectives included a bigger TV contract from BT and a return to P & R?

 

Why not comment on them achieving those more real objectives?

Which clubs specifically disagreed with the TV contract at the RFL meeting?

We are commenting on the Thread. Are the RFLs objectives not 'real' objectives?

The RFL Strategic Plan is a current 'live' document. How is it 'old'?

[Airlie Bird]

Parksider : I really don't follow your argument on this.    The new TV deal was announced at the end of January 2014, with the 2015-2021 strategic plan being announced 14 months later in March 2015.  Which means the strategic plan was written well after it was known what the new TV deal was and what the new league structure would be.    So I don't see how you can claim that the strategic plan is "old" when it was only published 15 months ago

Personally I don't accept that the subsequent developments regarding the 6 rebel clubs invalidates the plan.    But if any events do arise that seriously question the validity of the plan, then the appropriate way for the RFL to respond would be to acknowledge this and say that they are going to revisit relevant sections of the plan and update them as appropriate - not to simply say nothing and hope the whole thing gets forgotten.

[The Parksider]

Which clubs specifically disagreed with the TV contract at the RFL meeting?

We are commenting on the Thread. Are the RFLs objectives not 'real' objectives?

The RFL Strategic Plan is a current 'live' document. How is it 'old'?

 

Salford (Koukash who condemns the RFL's poor performance, did it again on the radio this last week), Hull (Pearson, who has stated we can dump the new structure in 18 months)  HKR (Hudgell warned the RFL publicly to ensure Solly's replacement must be right for them), Wigan (Lenegan led the rebels against the RFL) and Huddersfield and Warrington whose chairmen are less voiciferous.

 

Live document/dead document/PR guff about what the RFL are going to do, call it what you want.

 

The RFL's real objectives they actively pursued to a conclusion were to:- 

 

1. Get a new improved TV deal to primarily arrest the problem of clubs falling into debt stated to be £68.000,000.

 

It can be argued they did this, it can be argued Hudgells reduction to 12 clubs in SL may have done this, it can be argued there was far more money to be had dealing with BT, it can be argued SKY's ultimatum had the RFL over a barrel.

 

So if anyone wants to engage in that aspect of the RFL's FINANCIAL performance please do so, I'd be interested to hear what they think?

 

2. Rejuvinate the game itself post the expansion/licensing failure in which.......

 

SL crowds pre-licensing 9819 end of licensing 8041

CC crowds pre-licensing 2047 end of licensing 1095

 

This was hardly a good performance, but RFL & Solly gave it their best and introduced a new league structure to arrest the falling attendances.

 

It can be argued that the drain of players to NRL was a factor in the fall, but not sure of what else. It looks like the RFL's performance in turning round the decline in attendances is not too good but maybe someone can make a case for them?

 

My point is a simple one about how the RFL had to sort out the debt crisis and the attendances crisis and they actively did that to a conclusion, so we can now look at how they performed. 

 

How do you think they went?  Anyone else want to pass an opinion about how well the RFL did in what we must admit were difficult circumstances.

 

Six rebel clubs with six smart businessmen at the helm may have said they don't think the RFL did very well, but that goes onto raise the question could THEY have done any better??