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.

What school are you at? I work for a Sports Partnership in Kirklees and know that the Giants do still go into schools, they have run a free curriculum programme for the last 2 years though are now charging a nominal fee due to the funding cuts. Batley and Dewsbury also go into schools though their resources are less. Not true to say that the 'RFL' havent been into a single school in Kirklees.

Who she?

To add to what Seth has said, how does the increase of 22,000 players happen if the RFL haven't been pushing development in schools?
I'd agree more can and should be done in schools but to say nothing has been done is flatly untrue as the stats and facts show.

Prior to the last 3 years I worked as a community Rugby League coach in Leeds and delivered a programme to 57 schools, primary and secondary. I know their remits changed since I left though this was as instructed by Sport England and there has still been flexibility to deliver in schools, in fact almost 80 schools in Kirklees were offered free curriculum sessions in the academic year 2011-12 (Ive just had a quick look at their development plan that they sent me for that year). This doesnt include the Batley and Dewsbury schools figures either.

There was "clarification" for RU's cut from Sport England. It was expected, and not to be seen as a punishment - as it is basically a drop in capital funding for infrastructure projects which are now completed.

Why can RL not have one-off capital funding for infrastructure? Do we have all the infrastructure we need?

My understanding is the Sport England monies are targetted at increasing ADULT participation and the RFL do a pretty good job of getting our sports share of that money.

As its Sport England money and targetted - the RFL cannot divert too much from achieving what Sport England are 'buying' - which is mainly adult participation numbers (hench the touch, masters and other forms that get a lot of attention).

Individual development officers however will be funded by a cocktail of funding - Sport England matched with Pro Club monies, Local Authoriy money, 'project' bids etc. and hence, there is usually different demands by each funder that need meeting. This can be restrictive (if the funders just want adults, then the officer is going to really struggle to justify in-school work). However, it can also build in flexibility...how it has worked in Bury is that there has been in-school work, but in summer there is a mjor concentration on new adult participation through touch and 'try-it' sessions with netball teams and other sports.

Shame to receive a funding cut in the run up to RLWC 2013

I'm in Oxford, so can't speak about other parts of the country. But we've just seen a new Champ 1 team land in the city with funding from the RFL (for 2 years, I believe). And yet the RFL have cut the funding which kept the community clubs in the area viable (helping to cover the costs of coach/ref development, basic equipment etc.) They have also pulled the miniscule amount of cash committed to administrating the league in which my local amateur team plays, and withdrawn all development officer support.

As a volunteer, who puts his own time and money into promoting, and keeping our great game alive in the area (along with a good handful of others, I should add), I can't really see what motivation there is to keep doing so, when the governing body is retreating at a rate of knots.

At least it all makes some sense, now that we know about the Sport England funding cuts. But it seems that tough decisions have already been, or are being made at the RFL. And some of them threaten the immediate future of the game in some parts of the country - including the very city where they're currently making a concerted effort to expand (the professional game).

Worryingly, I've also heard talk (although admit, that's all it is at the moment) that the successful Champion Schools initiative will not happen in 2012. By the RFL's own admission, Champion Schools is "one of the greatest success stories for the sport" and saw nearly 28,000 kids, in over 1,600 teams take part last year. If this is true, what does it mean, and what impact is it likely to have on grassroots RL? Anybody know anything concrete about this, and what, if anything, might replace Champion Schools?

According to this thread, funding is based on participation numbers. The 5 or so London fans keep telling us that there are close to 3.5 billion kids in London Playing RL do surely we should be getting funding that is equivalent to what other minority sports of a similar size to us get, like tennis, polo or chess?

This thread also pointed out that under 16's aren't counted in the Sport England participation stats.

Tennis is to receive £17.4m
Equestrian sports to receive £6m
Chess doesn't get anything as its not an "active" sport. Yet bizarrely Angling is to receive £1.8m while snooker gets nothing.

Rugby League is to receive £17.5m

if you combine the sport england money that league and union get, then its a fair chunk of money for two variations of the same sport.

I suspect the root of the problem with this reduction is that RL, by hook or by crook, massively over-achieved in the last funding round. In its own right the funding being received over the next few years is good money. But look at where RL was in the past round:

Cricket £38.0m
Rugby Union £31.2m
Rugby League £29.4m
Tennis £26.8m
----------------------
Football £25.6m

It's disappointing but in many ways it was an amazing coup to get so much compared to other sports in 2008. Thanks Richard Lewis

Wasn't this Sport England money one of the reasons we abolished GB?

Clearly you have underestimated the number of children in that there London/Home Counties et al as the numbers swell by at least 500M every other month


As far as I have seen the participation figures for u16s(which as pointed out aren't counted for the relvance of SE funding anyway) have increased year on year for quite some time with more and more kids attending 'camps and/or minis/full contact tournaments at all age levels. Medway Dragons being one of the huge success stories with massive increase over the last 3-4 years.
Instead of having a pop at anything you don't understand (seemingly everything) why not try some constructive discussion...just a thought

No otherwise there would be no Olympic Team GB!