Was it actually an 'outburst' or merely portrayed that way to give journalists a better story.

Whether anyone agrees with him or not I honestly believe he has the best interest if the sport at heart. He (along with others) has identified an ineptitude in the governing body and is trying to do something about it.

Where as woods and Solly are actively trying to destroy rugby league?

Whether or not journalists have spun the article, quotes are quotes - if his intention wasn't to attack the rfl (again) then don't say what he did.

I find it interesting that everyone else is staying quiet on this from the other clubs

Speaking out is every chairmans right to do so, ultimately they are (in the majority) funding our great sport. I just wish that the dummy spit was reserved for big deals, where a majority disagree (on one decision) with the rfl, and it was done in a constructive manner, without the need for petty insults. As I say, does Doris the cleaner need to be cleared with lenaghan as well?

51% is a majority, we are NEVER going to have votes that are unanimous (in fact, I'd suggest most changes pushed through take too much compromise already.) - if poor leadership is on show, it's decision by committee, rather than not being inclusive to it's members.

If it's in the majorities self interest it is right for decisions to be called up, because what is good for the majority is (generally) what's best for the game. When your kicking up without a majority, there's no way to say if your complaints are good for the game. I doubt altruism comes into any decision made by any chairman.

I also feel quite sure the usual loudmouths would of backed up the comments lenaghan made, and given the contrary remarks on the matter between Solly and lenaghan, is it not possible that he did have opportunity to talk out against the appointment? Even if that's not the case, he still didn't have to resort to insults on the matter - there are ways to be constructive, even on matters like this,

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.

No, things like this really don't help them. So lenaghan is damaging the sport. What communication skills do you want? Every decision the rfl makes to be run past the fans, the clubs and the stakeholders? How much communication does the fa have? I'm a casual football watcher. I couldn't tell you who the chief exec is. Fans just seem to think it's their birthright to complain about everything done. We complained there was no marquee exemption, it was voted on and we complained they took a vote, let small teams run the comp etc end and that they should of just done it. Now, it's the other way around.

Why would RL's commercial revenues be similar to major sports? We don't have anywhere near the national profile of other major sports. Football is way ahead on it's own. Union is similar domestically but is way way ahead internationally and so that feeds into domestic commercial revenues. Same goes for cricket.

What expansion programme? All the RFL can do is give "new" clubs/areas the opportunity. The success or failure of them is down to the individual clubs. Hence London and Celtic's failures but Catalans success.

The RFL isnt in charge of international fixtures. Blame the RLIF.

I agree they should've done more to help London. But that would have drawn severe criticism and objections from plenty of other clubs, especially with relegation back. And would it have been a complete waste of money/time when the leadership at London seem so bent on self-destruction?

The point on referees has no evidence or merit to it whatsoever. In my opinion the refs are better than ever. Should they be better? Yes. But I've seen no discernible decline in refereeing, merely far, far more focus on specific decisions in specific games either by the Sky commentary team or paranoid fans. It's amazing how some fans of every club seem to think the RFL/referees is biased against them.


Now let's move on to clubs failings shall we:
- an inability to count
- an inability to act in a professional manner
- a shockingly poor attempt at marketing from the vast majority of clubs
- an inability to engage their local communities, especially local amateur clubs
- an introverted, selfish and backward attitude at too many clubs
- a blame anyone but themselves attitude

Solve these issues, get some professionals into clubs rather than some of the amateurs that are masquerading as club officials and board members right now, get clubs to actually go out and market themselves rather than sticking a poster up 100 yards away from the ground and thinking that'll do, and this game would be an awful lot better off.

We don't have a big national profile. Partly our own fault as a sport (we're still paying the price for clubs over-reaching in the 80's and 90's and some shocking club management since) partly a consequence of a sea change in UK media from regional to national (and London based and oriented). This means clubs can't adopt a Man Utd approach and just sit back and watch the punters roll in. We have to go out and get them and clubs, in general, are incredibly bad at this, especially in their own communities.

Whilst I don't agree with everything the RFL does, and there's plenty I'd do different, the problems of Salford (pre-Koukash), Celtic, London, Bradford etc are not the fault of the RFL. The blame for their predicaments lie firmly at the door of the people running those clubs at the time.
Unless we want the RFL actively running clubs, and until we get a larger national profile (which can only be done through internationals in my opinion) then the clubs will always be the main drivers behind RL's success or failure.

It'd be like Leeds United blaming the Premier League for Peter Ridsdale & co bankrupting the club.

Good leadership would have meant Leneghan and. Co have no need to walk out, there is a big difference between consensus and majority. You seem to think that anything with a majority should be implemented regardless . That type of thinking is why we have chairmen speaking out.

If all we had to do was implement the majority decision, and that is the total of Nigel Woods skills then he and his highly paid execs can be let go because we don't need a chairman, md, CoO, we don't need leadership or the skills of those positions bring all we need is a secretary able to count to 14.

He may well be a accomplished businessman, so are the many of the other chairmen in superleague, who may well suppor the appointment of Blake Solly

When it comes down to making a decision there has to be a majority. If not then it's not a democracy as the minority overrule.

You can vote Yes, No or Abstain.

Saying that Yes only got 50 odd + of the vote so should be rejected is the same as saying the No vote wins regardless.

In the up an coming elections the turn out will be less than 50% just to many abstaining (not bothering). They can't argue that the majority decision should be overturned due to a lack of consensus.

You can gain consensus prior to a decision, but if a consensus is not reached then the majority have to decide. Doing nothing is the same as voting no.

Many votes demand a certain level like 75% is reached! this doesn't make it undemocratic simply that we have a higher threshold of support for changes.

If you want to force through changes then you are going to do it in the face of resistance, this is the end result, this is what you will see when you drag people along with you instead of getting their buy in.

Yep, perfectly reasonable that a sport that achieves higher viewing figures than RU for it's elite club competition can't achieve sponsorship for it. Don't know why I mentioned it.



So the governing body of a sport held back by it's geographical has no responsibility over expansion, it's down to the clubs. Really? No wonder it's not working...



The RFL has a seat at the table at RLIF and I would have thought, as ther're one of only really 3 serious players, they should have a considerable voice and should use it to force some kind of plan, don't you think? Especially as for RL in the UK this is far more important than in Aus where they seem to do very nicely without an international programme (mostly due to State of Origin and the profile of the sport in general).



There's areas of the club that the RFL could have very reasonably justified investment as it would have been for multiple purposes. They've done this in areas of youth development and the amature team and no one is questioning that because it delivers results. Why they're not doing this in the areas of marketing, communications and commercial is beyond me.



Seriously? Better than ever? Oh, wow. OK - yes, I agree that every team thinks referees are biased against them (and I cringe sometimes at fans wailing about decisions that are clearly right). However, you have to admit the disciplinary process is inconsistent and lacks transparency, and for the RFL to recently claim it's the envy of other sports is laughable.



Agree with all the above. Didn't say the clubs operated well. But I would still assert if the RFL led by example and delivered a solid foundation for the sport then the clubs would be starting in a better place.



No, it's not. The PL delivers considerable revenue for it's clubs through considerable sponsorship and TV deals. If the clubs mess it up with that solid base then they really only do have themselves to blame.

Where's William Eve when you need him? Categorisation of viewer, marketing analysis and corporate image (a road that has been well trodden on this forum is the gambling/ alcohol sponsorship argument) all affect the sponsorship generated from tv exposure. Whilst I'm no union flag waver, viewing figures for the 6 nations would probably generate significantly more sponsorship options then the entire super league season on sky. That's no slur on sky, and it think the next deal offers a very reasonable price for the current state of the game, but it doesn't offer the opportunities you think it should.


a) Do you think the game is only played at super league level? We've seen lots of initiatives to grow the amateur game across the country, with relative amounts of success too. Whether those amateur clubs to on and become competitive at the elite level is entirely in their hands. In fact, there's rather strong evidence to suggest that the rfl artificially promoting clubs past what it achieves is a recipe for disaster. If in 10 years we have oxford and Hemel competing in the grand final will you be singing the rfls praises?

b) the rfl take an awful lot of flak for said over promotion of "geographically significant" teams - now they're letting them live or die (as was demanded by some on here in the off season) they're not doing enough to help them? Can't and win spring to mind

I'm not sure you understand how the international game works. Even taking everything you say as true - and even assuming the big three are the only ones who vote on matters, that still only gives the rfl 33% of the votes - aka not enough to force anything through - do you want them to come out and stomp their feet in similar style whenever they don't get their own way in an RLIF meeting? Would that make them better? Perhaps instead of canvassing the rfl for improvements on that front, you should look at RLIF.


Well limitations of money springs to mind, a long term strategy, and working toward realistic goals? None of those matter if we have a flashy ad? Also, why should the rfl market games between clubs? Why don't clubs do so?

Again, what communications do you want? Every decision to be washed out in public? In general were kept up to date very well. Just because you haven't been asked whether accounting can get another coffee machine for their office isn't bad communication.


No, they are not inconsistent. If you think they are, it's because you support a team and they don't (or shouldn't) - there's an ex-judge on the panel for goodness sake. It's amazing how one tackle can look like the worst thing in the world (Matty Bowen round 1 vs Huddersfield) and another nothing (sia soliola round 1 vs Warrington) just by who I support!

No, they are transparent. They explained the process in absolute detail after hudgell had his little moan. Go and read it, then there's literally nothing more to know about the disciplinary process. (Assuming of course people take the time to actually go off and read the rules)

Did i say they were perfect? No, do they make mistakes? Yes. Would anyone in their position? Of course.


Shifting the goal posts? The original comment was the clubs are run worse (at times and places) than the rfl, since you say you agree what Him says, you agree with that original statement. If the clubs were better ran, the rfl wouldn't have to keep bailing them out, putting pressure on it's commercial team to keep them afloat, and that money could go towards the flashy tv ad you want.


Whilst I don't have the figures to hand, 99% of that will be the tv deal. Also, it's scales of economy. It provides them with as solid a base as our tv deal offers our clubs - what stops PL going bust is better management teams, and more liquid assets, so they can limp out of sight into the lower leagues and die off (like Leeds did)

Because you can't seperate the 2 with Union. The Union internationals drive money, interest and commercial opportunities to all areas of the game, including the domestic game. Again, why would a sport with a lower national profile (and considerably different fan base) achieve the same commercial revenues. To assume it would is just daft.

Expansion - No I didn't say it had no responsibility, but without the RFL actually running a club how can it be made responsible for a club's failings ie London.

Internationals - to force some kind of plan? What plan? How can the RFL force another country to play a game? Let alone commit to a multi-year international schedule. Would you blame the FA for the World Cup going to Qatar? Why didn't the FA simply force a different plan?

London - so that's youth development, amateur game, marketing, communications and commercial, what's left? So the RFL would be running the club. Where do they get the money from? What if the owner of the club doesn't agree? Don't you think, at a time when development officers across the country have been got rid of, pumping millions into London Broncos would have brought severe objection and criticism from clubs? What if, thanks to that extra money, London avoided relegation this year?
If the RFL is to run expansion clubs then the other clubs will have to give up a good chunk of their tv money to go to the RFL to fund these clubs. If London is getting significant investment from the RFL then Catalans deserve it too, as do Sheffield and most of the clubs in C1.

Refs - yes, better than ever. I don't see falling ref standards. I see standards not as high as they should be for full time refs.
Hang on I though we were on about referees not the disciplinary. They are 2 very different issues. So which is it you don't like? Refs or the disciplinary?
Why is the disciplinary inconsistent? Is it because Neil Hudgell and Adam Pearson had a massive whinge about it?
Why is the disciplinary lacking transparency? The members of the panel are named and their decisions and reasons for their decisions on every single case are published online. How could it be any more transparent? Or is that just a word people like to throw around when they don't like something but can't quite work out why?

A solid foundation? Like giving the clubs enough money to pay their entire playing wage bill?

Why is the PL giving clubs a more solid foundation than the RFL?
If it were how come PL clubs keep losing money?
SL clubs get enough money from the RFL to provide a foundation, it's then up to the clubs to be able to add up. If they can't do that that's the clubs fault not the RFL's.

Who are the other accomplished businessmen in Super League, apart from Simon Moran and Marwan Koukash (Adam Pearson is not in their league, if you'll pardon the pun)?
How do you know what their opinions are on this matter?

Eamonn McManus. Director at one of the worlds biggest banks. I'd say that's successful.

He's a big fan, spoke very highly of him at the last fans forum.

Is he the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the bank, or just a member of the board. Big difference. The latter isn't [ide facto[/i a businessman and may not have to be a successful businessman in another context to get on the board. For example retired politicians are often invited to be on the board of banks.

Anyway what exactly is Eamonn McManus's past business experience apart from being Chairman of St Helens?

Perhaps I should have clarified the kind of businessman I am referring to: an entrepreneur. Lenagan, Moran and Koukash are all great entrepreneurial businessmen. Being a member of a bank board of directors doesn't require being an entrepreneur. Entrepreneur is what the RFL needs urgently if the business of rugby league is to grow and not contract.



He's a big fan of whom or what?

This thread just goes to show why the RFL need to take control of what direction the sport goes in.

Theres no chance whatsoever of the benefactors/decision makers of the SL clubs, ever agreeing on any decision, that can take the sport forward.

I still think Lenaghan is still moaning like a well serviced pussy because a little bit more money is filtering down to the rest of the pro game.

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"Is he the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the bank, or just a member of the board. Big difference. The latter isn't [ide facto[/i a businessman and may not have to be a successful businessman in another context to get on the board. For example retired politicians are often invited to be on the board of banks. Anyway what exactly is Eamonn McManus's past business experience apart from being Chairman of St Helens? Perhaps I should have clarified the kind of businessman I am referring to: an entrepreneur. Lenagan, Moran and Koukash are all great entrepreneurial businessmen. Being a member of a bank board of directors doesn't require being an entrepreneur. Entrepreneur is what the RFL needs urgently if the business of rugby league is to grow and not contract. He's a big fan of whom or what?'" Blake Solly, apologies for not being clear. And I could not disagree more strongly, too many "entrepreneurs" have had our hands on our great sport, lurching from one "great idea" to the next. No, now is the time of the bank manager. Reasonable plans, realistic targets, slow sustainable growth. Boring? Yes. But totally necessary, and to whatever god please put an end to the hare brained schemes that get compromised and altered so much nothing does any good. McManus "dabbled in the Asian markets" to make his money (still does to my knowledge) whilst becoming a director for HSBC (I'm sorry that isn't qualification enough?) his area is finance, and is very good at it I can only assume. He's generally quite protective of his background, but a brief biography is here :- www.saintsrlfc.com/content/eamonn-wins-honour . He has also got a few commodity analysts on the board to (who he's mates with)

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"Is he the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the bank, or just a member of the board. Big difference. The latter isn't [ide facto[/i a businessman and may not have to be a successful businessman in another context to get on the board. For example retired politicians are often invited to be on the board of banks. Anyway what exactly is Eamonn McManus's past business experience apart from being Chairman of St Helens? Perhaps I should have clarified the kind of businessman I am referring to: an entrepreneur. Lenagan, Moran and Koukash are all great entrepreneurial businessmen. Being a member of a bank board of directors doesn't require being an entrepreneur. Entrepreneur is what the RFL needs urgently if the business of rugby league is to grow and not contract. He's a big fan of whom or what?'" Blake Solly, apologies for not being clear. And I could not disagree more strongly, too many "entrepreneurs" have had our hands on our great sport, lurching from one "great idea" to the next. No, now is the time of the bank manager. Reasonable plans, realistic targets, slow sustainable growth. Boring? Yes. But totally necessary, and to whatever god please put an end to the hare brained schemes that get compromised and altered so much nothing does any good. McManus "dabbled in the Asian markets" to make his money (still does to my knowledge) whilst becoming a director for HSBC (I'm sorry that isn't qualification enough?) his area is finance, and is very good at it I can only assume. He's generally quite protective of his background, but a brief biography is here :- www.saintsrlfc.com/content/eamonn-wins-honour . He has also got a few commodity analysts on the board to (who he's mates with)

we need to get barry hearn in.

Darts and snooker have never had more viewers sponsorship or prize money.

Ken Davy, Jack Fulton, Paul Caddick.

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.