Lenighan & Co are still overlooking the legally binding agreement they ALL signed remains in place for another couple of years at least so at the moment it's hot air & waffle.

They haven't. They have specified in so many words that the funding remains at current levels for the duration of the existing contract.

What has changed is the realisation that we are a sport in serious decline that is falling further and further behind our contemporaries and main rivals. If that doesn't change we'll continue to decline until we no longer have a professional sport. All this has been clearly spelled out in the press conference and elsewhere. What exactly are you finding hard to understand in regards to this?

Do they not deserve something? Well that depends on if you think the drag effect on the top tier is not harming us as a game and as a commercial proposition. It also depends on whether you want to compete on the best possible terms with our rivals. I would also say that it also depends on whether you think that the current modus operandi is a sustainable business model. It seems clear that the general consensus across SL is that it isn't.

This is bull with respect and it really would help if you tried to understand the dynamics of the TV deal before you go repeating talking points.

1. Sky came to the RFL/SLE several years before the contract was due to end and years before the negotiations were due to start.
2. They had a hard deadline - an upcoming stock market announcement they wanted to make revealing renegotiated packages across a whole host of sports. This to settle market nerves after the increasing threat of BT.
3. They did give a take it or leave it - the leave being, stick with the existing, lower deal which was an option. Did this place the RFL in a difficult place? Yes - Sky aren't stupid. Did the clubs, including Lenagan who has whinged about it non stop for the last 4 years vote for it? Yes they did because it was a decent deal.

The great irony is that the same people who say the last TV deal was a poor one are complaining that the next one won't match it, even if negotiated by these genius businessmen (not genius at RL but apparently outside it). Which is it to be folks?

Having an SL manager or CEO is fine and I think everyone supports it, including Hetherington.

The structure is negotiable although both sides have vested interests and Leeds appear to be the only one, given the present situation, voting against those vested interests.

What is not fine is SL clubs, purely because they can't grow their own businesses, taking the relatively small (to SL clubs) cash amounts from the lower leagues to plug the gaps in their budgets. It's pathetic and the greatest admission of failure on their part and the greatest reason we should be cautious about empowering a group of failed RL administrators to run the game.

Well put, Ghost. Reeks of desperation on Lenagan's part and although the additional cash won't remotely address his shortfall it's slightly less ludicrous than his masterstroke of playing home games at Millwall.

As much as it pains me to say it being a Bradford fan, but if RL in this country had been run the way Leeds Rhinos have for the last 20 years, the sport would be in a much stronger position today.

SL chairmen, in the main, can barely run their own clubs. But yet they expect the rest of the sport to cheer as they take over the running of the sport?

Doesn't sound sensible to me. Especially when Lenighan's definition of West Yorkshire seems to include places like Newcastle, York, London and Cumbria

ghost, what a fantastic post. most of these chairmen can't even run there own clubs properly.

Very good posts "The Ghost of '99"

I would add that Elstone appears to have been backtracking ever since his original, pretty disastrous, introduction. The latest concession was that the lower divisions wouldn't get a smaller amount of cash than they do now if the next TV deal is the same or larger. Now that could be an admission that he thinks he won't get a better deal (but yet his buddy Lenagan says the old deal was crap??) but still, he's quickly realised that he has lost control of the situation and become identified with some/a pretty toxic individual(s), in RL terms and in the view of the wider RL family.

SL have brought in a quality adminstrator who has significantly more commercial nouce than the rest of them put together.

Rob Elstone is a very clever man and an experienced sports adminstrator who has operated on a different level to anyone currently operating in RL.

These pronouncements make very good sense if you actually take the time to listen to him - sadly no one on here can be bothered to listen to his point of view/logic before actually slating his ideas.

What choice did the clubs have and how did they end up that situation?


Probably because the leadership coming from the RFL - predominently sponsored by GH were way out of their depth and quite frankly bone-idol - no wonder the clubs don't want this to happen again. Elstone wont be the push over Wood was.

He needs to be allowed to negotiate the next deal free from the likes Ralf Rimmer sticking his nose in. Listen to him and his tactics they are way ahead of anything currently trotting around in RL.

The new is unlikely to be as good because the the RFL and the likes of GH have nutured and progressed the product/game. It is now a worse offering devoid of star players and credible sponsors - but hey Featherstone and Batley get a load of cash so that's OK

When the sport has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator via a salary cap that hasnt really moved in 20 years and if the likes of GH had his way it would have actually regressed to a level affordable by the worst club. These are facts - something has to change.

Listen to him and you will see what you have put above is clap trap - all they ever said was that the clubs that generate all the revenues should get a a bigger share - not an unreasonable stance. They have never said the championship clubs should not get any money. Elstone has never changed his point of view on this.

In which case Widnes, Wakefield, Salford etc should get a reduced share ala the Championship clubs.

Not true - in the original press conference and subsequent interviews he said he felt the Championship clubs got too much money. In the most recent interview(s) he has said it will remain the same both for the duration of this deal (which was a given anyway as it couldn't be changed despite Lenagan's demands) AND for future deals at an absolute level, assuming there is a contract increase.
Now we can assume if there is an increase it won't be huge so the %s heading down the game will not reduce much and it is therefore a clear concession and an evolution from the original position.

"How did they end up in that situation"??? What are you talking about?

The situation where Sky came to them after two years of a five year deal and offered them more money, including cash up front but with a tight deadline? Sky are smart people and they know that most SL club owners are two-bit businessmen whose clubs are so badly run that every thing is hand-to-mouth (or handout-to-mouth) who would grasp such a deal if offered. And the RFL couldn't exactly not pass the offer on to the clubs, despite coming completely outside the negotiating cycle.

Call bull all you want mate, but I know different.. and direct from inside Sky.

The sport has the remainder of this contract to get things right. I'll say no more on the subject. Carry on believing what you will.

Yeah I'm sure you do.



It doesn't take someone with "inside knowledge" to know that!

No, what he said was the championship clubs get too big a share of the monies for what they are bringing to generate the monies.

Elstone genuinely believes there are opportunities to increase the value of the deal - what he is saying, quite rightly IMO, the teams that generate the additional revenue should be keeping it. He actually thinks the championship clubs bring less to the game than the bigger amateur clubs - it is not rocket-science to see why.

Whatever way you slice it we are now in a position where he has guaranteed the lower leagues their distributions won't go down when the next deal comes into effect as long as a better deal is agreed.

That's a much more attractive proposition than the previous threats, mostly from Lenagan, of cutting the money.Clearly if the deal is lower there are still problems. But there will be issues game-wide in that scenario.

And the continual dismissal of Championship clubs is more than annoying, it creates a false narrative. The amateur clubs may well be the place most development happens but if you wilfully destroy the local pro team you destroy the fulcrum of the sport in an area, the team that people identify with and who they have an emotional stake in. Even putting aside the relatively trivial amounts we are talking about, it makes no sense to do that.

How many Championship clubs are the fulcrum of the sport in the area? Do you think Halifax are the fulcrum of the attention for all the junior clubs in the area - seriously, same goes for Featherstone, Dewsbury, Batley etc. The attendances in the Championship are pathetic - only 2,300 at the Halifax v Featherstone. I don't know the rest of the crowds but I would hazard a guess - Toronto apart - that was the biggest of the rest which is a sad indictment on the competition and it does beg the question as to what they are actually bringing to the sport other than a place for over-the-hill players, those not good enough to play SL, those who can't get a SL game that week.

SL is consistently providing 15% of the players on a weekly basis.

how many at Salford? Huddersfield? Widnes?

Sorry, my error. I forgot you know more than anyone else on the subject and no one could possibly have any inside information if you don't. After all you are the font of all human knowledge aren't you? Like I said mate, believe what you want. You're clearly happy in your ignorance.

P.S. If you are also aware that we need to sort things out, why are you supporting the current regime that you must also know is currently failing to do just that? Somewhat of a contradiction, don't you think? Unless, of course, you don't "know" anything at all.

Average attendances YTD 2018 season:
Huddersfield 6,116
Widnes 4,612
Salford 5,568

How many Championship clubs have that level of support?

Huddersfield is skewed as they had 9k for letting people in for free. I would say 5k is there average.still crap has ever you paint them