Much has been written over the years about the competence (or otherwise) of Messrs Wood, Rimmer and co. However, I don't recall reading any first-hand accounts of what they are like to work with, as colleagues or clients. I'd be interested to hear your stories.

I have encountered Wood just the once, prior to a RLWC game. He ignored the 'Team13' volunteers and made his way straight to the lounge, where he seemed to sit with family and friends without any efforts to 'work the room.

I once handed Wood my version of the Framing the Future document, which was based upon the NRL one at the time, this was 2002 or something.

He discounted it without reading it.

The NRL is now a billion dollar industry and the SL nowhere to be seen really in comparison. I would have thought my 20 page overview was at least worth a read but no.

Did you hand him the document at eye level or waist level?

Draper seems to be appearing and speaking out more about RFL matters than Woods recently. Perhaps a more positive front person than Wood. Can't say I pay much attention, but never seen anything complimentary.

I am not a fan of picking on personal issues, just is he a good administrator or not.

www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby- ... -decisions Good to know the big chiefs at RFL are in control of the leagues. If they can't control their own sport, how can they work with outside companies..

www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby- ... -decisions Good to know the big chiefs at RFL are in control of the leagues. If they can't control their own sport, how can they work with outside companies..

As much as I tend to agree, the world is not fair and first impressions count.

Around 12 years ago we attended a RL seminar on expansion of the game, Mike Nicholas the Wales and ex Warrington player had a consortium lined up through a dutch business group on expanding the game into Wales. Nigel Wood dismissed it straight away he wanted to do it his way and wasn't interested in other alternative parties, big Nige came across as very blinkered and inflexible.

Mr Wood earns an annual salary more than the majority of Championship clubs receive in central funding. If we were flying forward as a game based on RFL leadership, then that would be justified, but......

Sorry to be pedantic, but do you mean "earns" or "receives"?

His salary is crazy, considerably higher than any Super League player will be on, why do the players and clubs accept that? I'm sure if the job was advertised at his salary level it would attract a lot of interest from experienced people.

He has a funny handshake

Many a true word spoken in jest!!

On one hand Chief Exec of RFU has a salary double that of big'Nige, only problem is their profits are many millions more.

On the other Wood is also chairman of RLIF, so may take a salary there, which might explain the pay increase.

[url=https://www.change.org/p/rfl-nigel-wood-rfl-vote-of-no-confidence?recruiter=88800533&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=share_for_starters_pagepetition[/url

The issue for me is that he's answerable only to himself, and holds positions at the RLIF, RFL and SL. Who holds him accountable? Who sacks him and advertises his job - himself?

I'm not really sure what the answer is. There are so many elements of our game that seem to be collapsing or run in a chaotic fashion.

The number one problem with our game, is the fans.

Is it Woods fault that we cant sell out two modestly sized stadiums for what should be one of the most important games of the season?

As i mentioned previously when the the RFL annual report came out the whole of the RFl upper echelons awarded themselves above the recommended pay rises, these recommendations were made by an external group (it's all in the report).
So not only pigging at the trough year on year but ignoring the advice of the very people you employed to set the pay rates.
It's easy to make out that X year was a record income wise when you have a World Cup on home soil but the sport is run by clueless robbers who are only out for themselves and doing the bare minimum to keep the chairmen off their backs. Even then they are virtually untouchable, the elect from the executive for all sorts of 'independant' panels/groups and no doubt more expenses for those as well.
I've signed it.

So your first proposition, in your view, has no causal link to the second statement?

If the sport is not selling seats to important games, surely the administrators bear some responsibility for that? Don't they have a duty to ensure that the product is attractive enough spectators that they want to attend live games? It's too simplistic to fall back on the stay away fans excuses - fans stay away for reasons, and it's not enough to suggest that the only reason is because they're too tight to pay full price for a game.

This is where there is a real lack of joined-up thinking from the RFL and the other key stakeholders - the clubs.

There is a fair criticism to be made that the sport is poorly marketed. What I think is unfair is how most of the blame for that is pinned on the RFL. If you actually look at attendances for the main events that the RFL is responsible for marketing (the Grand Final, Magic Weekend and the CC Final), the trendline points upwards for each of those events.

The vast majority of the events in the RL calendar are league and cup fixtures where the responsibility for marketing those fixtures falls onto the clubs - and that is the biggest failure of the sport in my view.

Whilst the RFL has its responsibilities to market the league as an entity, as a very basic 'Marketing 101 approach', you have to grow the audience at the main point of consumption - and this is invariably at local level. That local engagement then feeds into support for international events and the wider sport.

What seems to happen at the moment is that the RFL provides some branding and some collateral at the start of the season, but the clubs seem free to use that as much or as little as they want. There's very little consistency of activity, and very little joined-up thinking between the RFL/SLE and the clubs.

We have 12 Super League clubs, and very little growth at the majority of them, so we really need to look at why - and what they are doing to engage new supporters, to encourage ticket sales, to speak to and cater for the sorts of audiences that we want to attract, and the audiences that will attract the sort of sponsors that we want to attract, to engage young people through their community system to play the sport - all pretty basic points of marketing. The clubs know their local markets much better than the RFL. They know their proposition much better than the RFL and they know their business models much better than the RFL - the onus is on them to all deliver audience growth at a local level.

Forgive the anecdote, but I know of two clubs that have no documented social media marketing plan - despite this form of media offering enormous opportunities to overcome what many in the sport percieve as a media bias against us. I can tell you of another that is spending 60% of it's social media advertising budget advertising to people who are already buying the product being advertised. This is basic stuff that they should have been getting right five years ago - not still struggling with today.

It's not the RFL's fault that certain clubs can't sell tickets for a true, sustainable market value. It's not the RFL's fault that some clubs struggle to engage new supporters. It's not the RFL's fault that some clubs still play in grounds that really aren't condusive to attracting people new to the sport. It's not the RFL's fault that around half of the England squad in the Four Nations came from the acadamies of three clubs. It's not the RFL's fault that clubs can't get basic marketing principles right, or that they see marketing as a cost centre.

The RFL deserves it's criticisms but there's no doubt in my mind that it is being hamstrung by pretty much all of the member clubs in one shape or form. It's time we started sharing the blame accordingly, rather than always looking to Red Hall.