If some clubs break away from the RFL at least we'll be without the joke disciplinary and the eveb worse refereeing....
The RFL have shown time & time again they are not fit for purpose, the sport could/should be so much more and the old farts in charge really haven't got a clue..
The sport is infested with maggots eating at rotten flesh

not all clubs voted! Pearson at hull fc was dead against the stobart deal! it was pushed through by O'Connor at widnes,(who ironically were sponsored by stobart too!) at the time persuading the rfl that it would be the better deal, when in fact it was the worst sponsorship deal the game has ever known!

not really, it was an oppertunity for a lot of cross promotional work with an internationally reconised brand which was brought about because the RFL had failed to organise anything themselves,

unfortunately the clubs failed to act on this and many wanted a small cash injection upfront rather than going for potentially greater long term gains.

much the same way as licencing, the clubs who embraced the system have generally done ok, its clubs who basically produced a licence document then pretty much ignored it after they was accepted who have shown no signs of growth in the last 6 years

A month or so ago I was at a Founder members meeting at Saints, in which senior members of the club were present.

I cant remember the specifics but there was agreement about the new league system, Saints apparently see it as a way of increasing revenue streams.

They were however not so happy about the games ability to generate revenue.
They used the example of the Rhino Rugby ball contract. They felt this summed things up.
The RFL went into this agreement to generate revenue. However the amount of sponsorship is apparently pitiful, less than £20k, and in terms of what it meant to each club, I think they only benefited by a few hundred quid over the Steeden contract.
They then pointed out that because the Steeden ball is being used in the world cup, the English players will be at a disadvantage in kicking and passing the ball, which means it will be harder for England to compete. That could then cost the game millions in lost gate and commercial income.

Personally think that the clubs are to blame to some extent. Each has their own agenda and are trying to push things in directions that naturally benefits them. The big clubs west of the Pennines I see as wanting the grow the game. Wire, Saints, Wigan and Salford are all backed by big money men with ambitions. They have money and they would like to spend it.
The Yorkshire clubs I feel are quite happy to be small time professional yorkshiremen.
Leeds seem to prefer the status quo as it protects them as the games biggest club. The last thing they want is for the likes of Hull or Wakefield to be run in a dynamic forward thinking way, by money men. Best to let clubs be run by individuals with little money and therefore power, who wont be able to challenge their Yorkshire hegemony.

I think it is indicative of how poor the RFL is that it proposed to vote on a league restructure just two weeks before a world cup took place. How utterly clueless. Apparently it would appear the EGM has now been postponed but unless it is going to be postponed until after the world cup the bickering and willy waving will threaten to undermine what has the potential to be an extremely successful world cup competition.

However, what I would hate to see is an oligarchy of rich and self-interested chairman in charge. Didn't the sport have a similar group in charge before Richard the Tennis Player was appointed (and duly calmed the seething waters)? Does the sport really want to return to that kind of chaos?

There is a glorious opportunity to both market the game and attract commercial revenue just along the pathway and all the egos come out to spoil the party. Pathetic.

The time for talking was last year. However, in the absence of sensible forward planning, all the arguments should wait until the world cup is over.

there wasn't any greater long term gains though were they? if not the sport has come out worse! an opportunity that was ill conceived and badly thought out, when clubs wanted or needed the money from a proper sponsorship it was too late as they seemed badly advised by some, hence the contract with stobart being cancelled! its ok taking the moral high ground when offered sponsorship by betfair but atleast it was a cash offer! now the sport struggles to attract a main sponsor as they want it for peanuts, the blame in my eyes lays at the door of the those who pushed the stobart deal through!

And what did "Richard the Tennis Player" achieve commercially? Naff all as far as I can see.

As to a load of "self-interested chairman in charge" who is the alternative between them and the RFL because if you think a bunch of self-interested chairman isn't the answer, neither is leaving things as they are with the RFL running it.

I am not saying either is the right idea by the way, I am asking the question.



Do you actually think an organisation who makes the excuse they were too busy with licensing to address the commercial issues the game faces is going to be able to exploit the glorious opportunity you mention?

They have zero credibility in that dept.



Well if the RFL want to lay down any new rules now at this point in time they obviously can't.

Meeting looks to have been postponed. Seriously, this is a massive decision that should have been decided months ago! Two weeks before the WC bad enough, but now it's going to be delayed even longer. When will they tell everyone whats happening? At the beginning of next season. The whole thing is a shambles.

The RFL don't have a clue, but why have the SL clubs decided now to challenge the RFL. Surely when we started hearing the barmy idea of a split they SL clubs should have challenged them.

This will be doing wonders to attract new sponsors!

It's the similarly named Niel Wood who is at Salford, on a secondment from the RFL.

If the clubs felt so strongly about this, why have they not acted sooner? They leave it a few days before the EGM to publicise their vote of no confidence?

I understand the need for this, but the timing is farcical especially with a World Cup just around the corner

This is the RFL's way of saying the dog ate their homework.



We have a [url=http://www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-league/2012/03/05/rfl-appoints-marketing-guru.htmlMarketing Guru[/url and a [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/24535/rfl-appoint-new-commercial-directorCommercial Director[/url, neither whom have delivered anything in over 18 months that is worthy of their salaries.
Marketing Guy has produced a series of cartoons that have seen attendances in both first grade comps fall, as well as the embarrassment that was the autumn international series with it's poor attendances that could and should have been used as a trial run for this RLWC.

Commercial Guy has made varying veiled comments about lots of small partners being better than what we had....give we had nothing when he arrived, no ing surprise there, but in reality, whereas the RFL used to blow their own horns hard about financials (1.7 mill a year from Engage), not a ing word has been said about the Foxy Heinz bollox...I am so looking forward to the release of financials for 2012 and 2013 from the governing body...they will show exactly how clueless they are.

Ian L and the others are bang on the money here. The RFL are trying to sneak in their changes in the shadow of the RLWC and he has called their bluff. Without the TV Cash, the RFL are buggered and without those teams, the TV deal is dead in the water.

I'm not worried about the impact on the World Cup - these sorts of drama get you in papers, even if for the wrong reasons. Last week working down south, virtually nobody knew there was a World Cup on. Even if they read about it in an article highlighting club/RFL squabbles, it's better than nothing. Not ideal PR, but net net, a zero loss for the RLWC IMO. As for the oligarchy, I'm not so worried about that either. Its easy to caricature owners as being solely concerned with their own club. It's sort of true, but these are not generally stupid people, and they do realise that you need some half-decent opposition against which your dream team will play. In fact the more like oligarchs they are ( i.e. the richer ) the less stupid they probably are. Give me a Koukash over a small time scrap metal dealer who's made a few bob any day of the week. Self interest is fine, it just needs to be smart enough to recognise that a successful competition is also in your own interest. The self interest of the small time chancers is more dangerous than that of the really big money guys ( as I would argue we have seen demonstrated )

Whilst I'll admit I have absolutely no idea what these changes are that the RFL has planned, I think this disagreement has the hallmarks of a classic 80s/90s RFU mess. An argument that is caused by frustration and stubbornness on all sides and which has no obvious solution.

What are the disenchanted sides going to do? Moan and pull out and potentially scupper the new TV deal and league re-organisation? Great, what will that achieve exactly? Where will we be then with two competitions of roughly 6 sides (I'm assuming London and Wakefield have their life support turned off as the rest of the sides are scrapping around the beds) with no new money coming from anywhere.

Where exactly could this whole mess end up? Are there any possible outcomes that are in any way positive?

Yet ultimately RU got itself into a much better place. In fact, you could argue that had they had their disputes earlier, they'd have got into a better place quicker. When there's serious tension in a sporting structure, better to have the fight and get it over with than go absolutely nowhere for years with endless petty squables.

Pure speculation.....but

Bradford: will support RFL if RFL ratify new owners.


Leeds: will support RFL if their boss gets the nod for the top job in future.
Salford: will support RFL as is an ally of tub'o'lard
Widnes: Will probably sit on the fence....for now but could be swayed.
Catalan: Probably not in the plans for the sooper dooper 10 team comp....no skin of the broadcast partners nose either way and probably not spoken to by IL
Wakefield: In need of cash and probably not prepared to gamble (yet)
Castleford: In need of cash and probably not prepared to gamble (yet)

I don't see the RFL being in a strong position. There is not a cats chance in Hell SKY would buy into a comp with only leeds as a viable drawcard....that would leave the RFL with their good buddies at Premier Sports.

Let's hope they all sit down and work something out, because if this is allowed to fester on during the RLWC then I can see it ending badly for the sport in general.

Massive few weeks for the game! on the field we have a World Cup that could either boost RL and take us forward, or flop and keep us in decline. Now off the field we have all this. Scary but exciting at the same time.

you think this is exciting? Get yourself down to watch London broncos the stoop...hang on, the Hive....hang on, Griffin park,...oh, wait a minute, The Valley! or should that be Harlequins Rugby League

Maybe the rfl were including other things not so far mentioned in the restructuring which pushed these chairmen over the edge.

Maybe they were waiting to see if a Wigan vs Warrington final sold out before making complaints (nothing more embarrassing then complaining that the sport isn't advertised right only to a week later have a sell out final).

Maybe, live the republicans they are trying to use the time dependent nature of the upcoming World Cup to get things changed (chairmen have complained for years about the rfl on deaf ears, with ticket sales seeming relatively decent so far having issues should be the last thing the rfl want) maybe they'll go a step further and threaten to withdraw their players from the World Cup if the rfl continue to refuse to listen to them (I don't know if they actually can do this its mere speculation)

Whatever the reason, I agree the rfl has been poorly, inwardly thinking, run that lurches from one gimmick to the next - I cannot for the life of me see them building anything like a long term strategy for the sport which is something every chairmen should be concerned about. If you look at saints Wigan Warrington, commercially they are doing about as much as they can, for them to continue to grow, they need rl to grow and they have every right to demand that of the rfl.

There is a very interesting split of clubs though for and against.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the whole bureaucracy need an over haul from top to bottom, the central administration needs control of the amateur and youth teams (which a separate body has currently) all the way through to the very top - especially with the proposals about reducing the number of academies. The refereeing system needs over hauling as well, my brother was a ref for youth teams and the meetings and support are a joke according to him - and it's no wonder we can't create refs as good as is needed. Then with a good strong message, marketing strategy and PLAN, we will see the improvement as more kids get involved at the bottom , work through the system, and into our sport

I don't think this 'split' in the clubs is as marked as people say. There is most likely a whole lot of politicking going on, and I have no doubt there are people with feet in both camps. There is a bit of an RFL power grab happening and the clubs are kicking back. I think the end result will be more autonomy for SL and possibly heads will roll at the RFL, but there won't be a split.

Problem is the 'rebel clubs are yet to put forward their alternative.

There can't be a split. A split will simply mean the end of RL as a pro game.

Saints and the like voting for a split would mean a nice shiney new stadia, empty with no team playing there.

The shareholders of the clubs would have spent alot of cash on nothing.

You can't run a 6 team league, even with Wigan and Saints in it, even a 10 team league is pushing it.

It sounds like more of a childish tantrum by those clubs. But the PR will do the game no harm at all.

A split wouldn't kill the game, there would be 10/12 teams in An SL that administers itself. I don't really think a split would be all that damaging, it's preferable to avoid it. I also font think this is a childish tantrum, there have been murmurings of discontent for a while about this proposed structure, clubs can't allow themselves to be bounced in to it.

Whatever happens, whichever faction wins is pretty much irrelevant. What is important is they put a structure in place that is the right structure, the best structure for the next 20 years minimum.

From my reading, some clubs just weren't mentioned. There wasn't necessarily a split. The article just stated that it was believed those clubs were in support.

I don't know the ins and outs so I could be wrong, BUT....

Could it not work like the Premier League in football? That stills fits in the FA League and cup structure but does it's marketing seperately.

No need for a complete split and could be the shake-up the game needs.

I think they proposals will be 12 teams. P&R. Top 5 play offs. You know, the system we had when we were arguably the strongest we've ever been.

I think the idea of the split league will cost Wood his job. If the RFL went with the system mentioned above, we would have had it all done and dusted now.

Interesting times

going back to what didn't work before would just be silly.