No surprises really but think its a blow to the sport. www.sportengland.org/funding/ngb ... 13-17.aspx

No surprises really but think its a blow to the sport. www.sportengland.org/funding/ngb ... 13-17.aspx

That's a very significant drop of £11.5 million in Sport England funding for the game.

2009-2013 - £29 million.
2013-2017 - £17.5 million.

Ouch!

Some tough decisions need to be made about the future direction of the game ASAP.

I guess the propping up of failed SL franchising experiments might be the first among many fanciful short-sighted indulgences to be given the axe.

Think it's more to do the fact the RFL haven't got the required numbers playing at grass roots. It is a massive drop and the RFL do need to give some answers.

Disappointing thing is that I feel Sport England could have backed RL a lot more with us hosting the WC. Think it's a real missed opportunity for the sport. But obviously Sport England weren't impressed with the numbers presented by the RFL.

Maybe the absence of Richard Lewis made a difference?

I think unfortunately Sport England have jumped on the Olympic bandwagon and are funding lots of Olympic sports that have seen participation increases just after the games.

I was at Headingley a few weeks ago where Hetherington said that the RFL had been warned the funding would be cut but weren't sure by much, from his tone at the time I think he was expecting a bigger cut actually, but effectively the message is that the onus for funding development at grass roots is now upon the SL clubs rather than on the governing body. So development officers that were prdviously funded by the RFL with Sport England money will now have to be funded by clubs. Which might explain the SL clubs desire to merge academies and save money from there earlier in the year, if they knew this was coming down the track.

This money is entirely earmarked for development and increasing the number of players at grassroots. None of it goes to the professional game.

RL has seen numbers decline because of the new counting system Sport England have introduced. To be counted as "regularly participating" a player needs to be involved X times a week (think it's three), over a sustained period. So lots of people who had previously been counted are now no longer included. This same system has seen practically every sport experience a drop in numbers.

Considering that the RFL are unable to spend any of the money they were getting from Sport England on the professional game then it would be very odd to link the two.

This is a terrible blow, the biggest drop in funding out of any sport, wendyball gets an increase, on the back of what? Why can't they self fund given all the money being chucked down the drain. Man City alone pay out £500M/season in wages, how about a PL grass roots tax of 0.3% which would give around £30M to soccer (on a notional £3Billion PL player wage)

Does £4.7M for talented player development come on top of the £17.5M?

Also given the below statement, does it refer to the BARLA/Northern amateur game in relation to switching to summer, because we've been playing 'summer' rugby for yonks everywhere else outside of Yorkshire/Lancashire/Cumbria and SL has been that way since the 90s

"The RFL has recently switched its main competitive season to the summer to provide a better experience for players and to avoid disruptions to the playing schedule through poor weather. To reduce the number of games cancelled further still, the RFL will use £1 million of capital funding to continue with its programme to improve and renovate pitches.

£4.5 million of Sport England’s funding will be used to support the development of talented players, creating better alignment with the Super League clubs and smoothing the path between the transition between the community and professional games.

Sport England’s Director of Sport, Lisa O’Keefe, said: “Changing the competition season and focusing on club and league development are sensible ways to increase the number of people playing rugby league. The plans for the contact version of the game will help to keep more people in the game while the expansion into touch will help attract new players, and those who have less time, to an exciting game.”

I agree with that actually, I forget what the specifics of being counted as a participant were but I remember reading the Sport England stats for rugby league a year or so ago and thinking that I wouldn't actually be counted in the stats, despite coaching for about 10 years, plus I understand it only includes over 16's.

The RFL are thinking of cutting all staff in the midlands. I doubt it will come to that but to lose the community coaches will be a big blow after all the advances of the last few years.

Major failure on the rfl's part sadly.

Thought they could have proposed a greater focus on touch RL which would see many more participants, especially female.

Good knowledge that!!

Agreed, but that's what you get from people who shoot first and ask questions later.

Premature ejaculation over 'negative' rugby league story!

Union have received similar cuts too.

Is it really any surprise numbers are falling? kill interest in the sport outside of the super league with heartland clubs recording lower and lower crowds season on season and you wonder why interest is dieing in our sport with people not wanting to have a go at it.....awaits the usual suspects telling us everything is great

Are clubs outside SL really drawing smaller crowds than previous decades? I can remember plenty of sub 1000 crowds in the late 80's/early 90's when my club was outside the first division.

Anyone know how the 'grass roots participation' numbers work? Reason I ask is that on that basis I'm actually suprised (but happy) that we get close to same amount as Union. Their grass-roots participation is much higher - virtually every town in the UK (including the RL towns) has a Union club with 3, 4 or more sides turning out, plus veterans, etc.

It's surely time for Nigel Wood to move on. Let's not even focus on his performance - just that he's been there a long time, and unless a person is doing a genuinely spectacular job ( and I don't think many would claim he is) there usually comes a time for fresh thinking. Let him hang around to deliver the World Cup ( I wish it wasn't in his hands, but its too late now ) and then wish him well.

Interestingly, the RFU's figures show a similar performance to the RFL. Starting from a high 4 years ago, dipping, but generally flat over the last 2 years.
The reason for the reduction in funding is not that participation has decreased from last year, but that Sport England targets are significantly higher this year than last year. So whereas in Oct 2011 the RFL were above target, in Oct 2012 the RFL are below target, despite little change in the actual figures.

It's also worthy of note that the figures do not include under 16's and the participation definitions would not include several people who I know, who I would describe as either rugby league players or coaches. Yet, according to the woman from Sport England who was on 5Live today, if you go for a run once a week you would be counted under the Athletics figures.

I did hear that RL was a victim of a different accounting system for players. Previously the RFL provided player numbers counting registered and schools players and this showed a year on year increase which is realistic.

This time however the funding was based on scaling up from a representative national survey of the population...this will underestimate sports with high local hot spots.

rfl made big emphasis on post 16 players and put all eggs into touch rugby, meanwhile hardly any development work done in junior scholls therefore less young players playing which means less teams and therefore less participation

I wouldn't agree with that at all. There has been a big push by the RFL on schools in recent years. With the number of school kids playing increasing from just over 5,000 in 2002 to 27,500 in 2012.
There's still plenty of work to be done and lots of potential in schools, but it's wrong to say the RFL have ignored schools.

We need to become fashionable,cool ,hip or whatever.
Promote Sinfield ,Tomkins etc more.
The establishment do not need much encouragement to to put us down
Clare Baldwin for Chiel Exec. of the RL.

i work in schools mate and the rfl have not been into many, champion schools participation has increased but look at the amount of walk overs, development officers are very rarely in primary schools as they were told there remit was to increase post 16 participation, this is not opinion but fact, the rfl have not been to a single primary or high school in the kirklees area

They set up an U18 league in the midlands because of the drive but it's a disaster only 1 in 3 of scheduled games went ahead last year (half went ahead if you take out NEW Ravens who withdrew). Pretty much players doubled up in the U18 game and then A team game afterwards leading to more A team games being cancelled. Only 3 teams are confirmed at this level next year with 3 mayes. All 3 of the definites called off multiple games at either U18 or A team level last year. The Under 16s league on the other hand is very successful and Cumbria and the North East have successful development missing the U18 step out.