Love to hear your list of things the individual clubs are doing to 'stuff this sport up' that's greater than:
- failing to operate a commercial programme that delivers central revenue anywhere near other major sports in the UK (including a period where the sports premier club competition was sponsorless)
- overseeing an expansion programme that's going in reverse
- has managed to have little influence over an international programme (which would generate significant interest from the general public) which has essentially only two other partners, when is the next major international fixture taking place at Wembley that will capitalise on the success of the WC semi final?
- has shown little interest or serious support in developing a club in the capital city where business and media are located
- has overseen a decline in officiating standards to the point where it's a taking point in nearly every game, with fans becoming disillusioned.

In a sport where margins are actually quite small compared to football, just a solid commercial programme would make a significant difference to the clubs in the UK, but the RFL can't even do that.

To be honest, I've actually never been anti-RFL, they've got a tough job. I just think they're going backwards at the moment, they're communication skills are the poorest I've seen of any organisation for a long time, and things like this really don't help them.

I am stunned Gus Mac wasn't tapped for the job........after the outstanding work he did in 3 short years in London! That kind of butchery is just what the sport needs......

Surprised they didn't ask you, the ray of sunshine the sport needs.

.....they couldn't afford me!

The standard response of the incapable/unqualified/blowhard.

Back to the original discussion; it seems to me that Ian Leneghan has a perfectly reasonable argument - this is a key role in what is meant to be a modern, forward thinking SGB. As stakeholders in the process, SL Chairmen should have been consulted and their views taken into consideration - if it were me, I'd have had one of them on the interview panel, for the sake of transparency.

As it is, regardless of the motive, the amateurish way it's been handled suggests an underhand, closed shop, jobs for the boys kind of culture at the RFL, which is exactly what they need to get away from; not just doing it, but being *perceived* as doing it. The way they've gone about things means that even if Blake Solly was the best, most qualified applicant for the job, those people with an axe to grind won't perceive him that way - that's not good for him or the RFL.

But is it that key a role? It's not a board position and is subordinate to Wood as head of SLE.
I don't remember the clubs having to be consulted or be part of the interview process when Solly was appointed to his current position, which is very similar to his future role.
Especially when all the big decisions are still subject to clubs voting.

Storm in a teacup for me.