In an interview with the Warrington Guardian, [url=http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/wolves/wolvesnews/10414657.Smith__concerned__about_rugby_league_s_leadership/?ref=twtrecTony Smith speaks his mind about the quality of leadership at the RFL[/url.

Do you agree with what he says? On the whole, I think I do (although I don't think docking points from Salford was justifiable given the precedent).

I'd agree in general with him, but as you say I don't think the RFL could have docked Salford points given the previous "punishment".
Once again it's a difficult situation, in the past we've heard cries a plenty of 'the RFL need to listen to the clubs" amongst crap about "ivory towers" and the like. So most major decisions are made by the clubs by a vote. Issues like the SL sponsorship, the academy comps and the change to a new structure have all been decided the clubs not the RFL.
So I'd agree that I think they're daft and retrograde decisions and that I'd rather the RFL didn't listen to amateurish clubs who would struggle to run a bath, but Smith needs to look around at his fellow clubs as well as the RFL.

Tony Smith is right on the money.

He is right oon two critical points: (1) you can't judge the value of the current system in the midst of a terrible economic recession (2) you don't make judgments of what is best for the game by going out and asking people with vested interests. That is abdication of leadership.

I have never had much faith in Nigel Wood as a leader. Now I know that Brian Barwick is also a poor leader.

By getting the opinions of the Championship clubs (obviously they want a change that gives them a chance to be promoted to SL more easily) and the lesser lights in the structure of RL, the RFL leaders have abdicated leadership.

That's Tony Smith's point though, it SETS a precedent. It isn't acceptable to have 14 on the field at all. What if this happened in a cup semi, a cup final, the play offs, Old Trafford? It makes a mockery of the game. Salford's 'Dr' has already threatened to break the salary cap, what's to stop him instructing an extra man on the field. It might sound like a target Salford post, but the implications of 1 extra man when defending are massive, especially at the back end of a game. Ultimately in the "dead" rubber style rugby us bottom clubs play in, it doesn't really matter but it could easily make the difference between relegation or not or promotion, not just 2 dead points as on this occasion.

From all that, this was his best point in my opinion:

Despite thinking personally that he is a ' Smug git ' , I agree pretty much with all he says in that article

Its almost as if they are saying , " We dont know the answer , so if you pick , it's not our fault "

Not very inspiring , then again they havent inspired confidence in me for a long time

Regarding the bold Doctor, I can't see why he's shouting his mouth off re the salary Cap. Salford are actually nowhere near it at the moment (or if they are, they're wasting an awful lot of money). Spend to the Cap, then shout your mouth off, and don't threaten to break the rules just because you've got the money.

Totally agree with him on the RFL side of things.

Pretty useless by the sounds of it at the top at the moment.

Agree with all of it.
On the Salford issue, if we are holding on to a tight lead in an important game, stick the extra man on and I'm sure Mr Moran will happily write out the cheque.

I wonder if the fine was so they didn't have to admit incompetence on their own behalf, the refs assistants should have spotted it before it happened too.

That's how I see it. They don't have the strength and conviction to make a leadership decision and enforce it, so they make the clubs to vote on it and wash their hands of any kickback. Very poor.

Yep , Same here .

But when the rfl put criteria to the clubs and the clubs vote against it,what are the rfl suppose to do?

Couple of interesting points in there. I agree that Salford should have been docked the points, at the same time the 4th official is supposed to monitor substitutions. It doesn't have to set a precedent. All it needs is the RFL to say next time it happens it will be a fine if you loose and a fine and the points if you win. We'll all know where we stand then.



I completely agree with that bit, it's in direct contradiction to what was said on SL backchat where it was muted that Warrington and St Helens were to 2 main clubs pushing for it to be scrapped.

Here is the interview in full: www.warringtonwolves.org/tv/?v=512

Here is the interview in full: www.warringtonwolves.org/tv/?v=512

I don't agree about the docking of points but the direction the RFL have been moving in since Lewis left is very worrying.

Just out of interest, how much did the official in charge of the interchange cards get fined? Does anyone know?

Leadership isn't about chairing a committee and saying "you decide, and by the way, if it goes wrong you can't therefore blame us". Leading a sport in a democratic setup IS hard, don't get me wrong, but that's why you need really good people who can inspire enough people to make things happen, by winning the trust of sceptics, and creating sufficient consensus. Otherwise we get an aeroplane designed by a committee, with 7 engines and no wings.

Franchising is another area where leadership is needed. Its no good hiding behind an auditor. Most of the stuff that matters will be the clubs forecasts and plans for the future. The realism or otherwise of those plans are best assessed by Rugby League people, not auditors. Yes, the audit is important, but it doesn't guarantee anything, and hiring an auditor doesn't mean your job is done. I've heard people laud the RFL for their leadership in hiring top accountants. Huh? Anyone could and should do that, why is that something we're supposed to praise them for?

Like it or not, money is a great winner of respect. Had the RFL turned up with good sponsors, they'd have more people listening to them. For me, they've lost all credibility. Such that, were they to come up with the best idea since sliced bread, it would be a waste of time, because they're not respected enough. The failure to produce a good sponsor, the Crusaders debacle, etc, etc should all have led to honourable resignations. But instead we have this horribly undignified self-congratulation all the time which just winds people up and loses even more respect.

Do you realise this will be some local lad who does a bit of reffing in the local leagues. At best he would have received small change to put petrol in his car and a pie afterwards to keep him awake when driving home.

And you want to dock him £100

I was asked to do a 5th refs job years ago for the Quins v Pies but turned t down as I couldn't guarantee my impartiality. If Trent Barrett had got 10 in the bin I may have extended it!! Now that shows my inbred hatred of all things cherry and white

Top that (I didnt shop in JJB for 20 years because of there connection with Wigan!)

I haven't seen it asked (Sorry if I missed it) so here goes.
Does the new ideas (especially option 3) mean the club tie ups have to be thrown in the bin.
How can a comp that will suddenly involve all 24 teams allow for 2/3 of those teams to share a playing pool?

The governing body is supposed to govern and show leadership.
What are we supposed to do when they do both badly, or do neither.

Smith is bang on the money and taking the points off Salford, would have been fair punishment.

Agree wholeheartedly with Smith's comments re the game in general, also with his suggestion that Salford should have been docked two points [iassuming that a points deduction was within the range of punishments available to the RFL under competition rules.[/i

I need to have a read again, but I am not too sure whether I entirely agree with him on the RFL issue. How often do we hear complaints that the RFL doesn't consult relevant parties? The RFL offered leadership on the issue of youth development and clubs voted against it. Rock and a hard place.

There's some truth in that, for sure, but again, if clubs are constantly voting down the RFL, where does the fault lie? Almost certainly in a number of places. Every governing body has to, to an extent, win battles with the clubs it represents in order to steer the sport in the direction which is ultimately good for all of them. There'll always be a tension between self-interest and 'good of the sport' - no matter how much we berate short-sighted club chairmen, we must also remember that they are themselves 'serving two masters' - they have to be both selfish with respect to their own club, but - we hope - have a wider insight into what's good for the game. But we can't expect them all to get the balance right at all points in time - even the 'fairest' chairman in the world will have issues and timings where he or she has to massively prioritize local issues.

All this is why it's essential that the governing body has dynamic and powerful leadership that is capable of winning over local issues, winning the confidence of chairmen and winning enough to support to get things done. If the RFL haven't got the respect and influence they need to make things happen, then it doesn't really matter who's right and who's wrong, it needs a change.

Warrington concerned at some clubs snubbing the rules?
Cough salary cap cough!

Whilst there is merit in the article, the comment on leadership is flawed.

Leadership is based on power, no power, no leadership.

The RFL is an advisory body to the SL chairmen. Nothing more, that was the way SL was set up, with the power and the money in the hands of the clubs.

The RFL is a great scapegoat for anyone with an axe to grind, blame them they are the governing body, but they can't govern diddly without the say so of the RL chairmen. I'd be keen to see how many RL chairmen are going to give up their voting rights to allow the RFL to become a stronger leadership body that can impose rules rather than just suggest them???? I'm not expecting a lot will be doing that.

I have no problem with either system of governance, both have merits and draw backs, but it's a bit cheap for the power brokers to lay the blame at the advisory body.

The issue on enforcing the rules is fair comment though, the RFL is the civil service of the SL chairmen, so they should enforce the rules.