There are 7 cities in Yorkshire and Rugby League is played in six of these but when we look behind this simple statement we find some very worrying details.

Whilst Hull and Leeds have teams in reasonable financial health, Bradford, Sheffield and York, some of the most powerful cities in the country, have failed to sustain a single RL team each and Wakefield has been pulled back from the brink of extinction too many times but is now thankfully in rehab and sticking to its treatment, even though many would encourage it to fall like a failed addict and go back to spending beyond its means.

What is the problem? Why is RL unable to thrive at a time when club rugby union is burgeoning? Clearly the answer is money but is anyone addressing the reasons behind RL's very poor public profile. If they are, why are we not seeing even a hint of progress in that area.

We are coming towards the annual borefest of the 6 nations competition and many people who have no real interest in sport are beginning to talk and plan to watch these games. When I suggest they watch Rugby League instead to see some proper skills the reply is invariably that they have tried it but it's too slow!!! In reality, the game is too fast. Sky's obsession with speeding up the game has caused it to become frenetic and then managed by coaches through introducing the wrestle. The people charged with the stewardship of our game have failed appallingly for the past 20 years or more and there is a real threat that the game will become unsustainable on a professional level. Yet even pastimes like darts and snooker are financially secure and drawing good TV audiences.

We really do have to remove the rose tints and look at our game objectively before it is too late. The casual observers see RL as slow because of the staccato nature of the play the ball as opposed to the "fluidity" of the endless phases of RU inactivity. Over the last 40 years the play the ball has gone from a contest for possession to a penalty fest. Some new thinking must be brought to this area urgently. RU has made its game watchable by generally ignoring its own rules and this is something we should learn from. For example, should a tackle only count when the player is put to ground and if the player is halted and held up he must be allowed to quickly play the ball without the tackle counting. As it is still the same tackle there would be no need to retreat the 10 yards but the "ruck" must be clear of interference.

The rulemakers have an urgent and essential job to do but more importantly the whole game needs to embrace a truly professional approach rather than the haphazard, amateurish leadership the game has been saddled with for too long.

Just a starting point for me, but explain football to someone who isn't a fan. Win a game, get three points and the team with the most points finish top and win the league.

Then try and explain Rugby League to the same person. It's no longer about the action on the field, it's become a gimmick and thats before you discuss the video ref at just two games per week, and the Magic Weekend where the governing body unfairly decide who plays who. It's just too complicated to attract new fans.

You are so right.

In fact I think I know more people who don't go to matches any more because of exactly this than those who still go to games.

I couldn't agree more; the way the game is played now does not lend itself to a particularly exciting spectacle. The obsession with 'winning' the ruck and slowing down the ptb to allow a set defence has had two marked effects - the ruck is a slow, messy affair that rewards cheating; and the subsequent play is much more easily defended as more often than not, the line is set. I watched a game with a first timer fairly recently and his view, "it just looks like a series of small fights." He was of course referring to the tackle and subsequent ruck, where as many people as possible pile onto the ball carrier and scrag him all over the floor, then peel off slowly one by one.

There are some things that could be done to improve the way the game flows - but year on year, the governing body does not seem minded to wrest back control from coaches and players who, by default, push the envelope in terms of what's legal, to ensure they win the ruck and control the speed at which the game is played.

The envelope has been pushed even further with the deliberate concession of on-line penalties to disrupt the attacking flow and allowing defences to take a breather and reset. Oh for the quick tap penalty instead of watching the ref play charades.

Well, independent research shows that the ball is in play,on average, 43.75% of game time in RU and 62.5% in RL .
To me RL suffers from insecurity and over critical fans.
I do not infer that all is 'rosey in the garden' and accept our game has its faults, but RU fans, such as my brother in law , just think their game is superior and do not constantly criticise it and clamour for change.
So come on everyone, get behind our great game, be critical yes, but at the same time advertise its good points.

Is the answer having 2 refs on the pitch?
One for the defensive line and the other at the PTB.
I suppose not having enough refs in the game doesn't help and another wage to pay will be the excuse.
Didn't they experiment with a few clubs last season?

Not sure whether it is relevant or not, and maybe it should be on a thread itself, but I have just seen on Facebook, that it is said that Nigel Wood is on £230k, per year.

True or not, given the state of our game at the moment, and the plight of a few clubs, I think this salary is quite obscene really.

It is more than what most Super League players earn in a season and more than the Prime Minister.

As said on Facebook, it is about 10 times the average salary, and anyone with a honest and true interest in the game, with a decent business brain, could probably do as good as, or even better job that what is currently been done.

Has anyone seen this.

We're on to a whole new subject here and possibly not for a RL forum.
The salary is way over the amount that "the working man" can earn, however, it's less than half of the salary of the FA's top man.
How much should someone in his position get ?, serious question.

Most directors of large charities, organisations and businesses are on circa £100-150k, that would be where I'd roughly expect the chief of the RFL to be. The top of the FA has a much larger organisation to run that the RFL which is why it's reflected in their wage.

The difference I suppose comes from the profitability of the RFL, they don't make much money at all, and they hardly market the game. They're paid as much if not more than most top executives but seem to be able to get away with a general level of mediocrity which other high earning executives couldn't irrespective of their business

Much larger fish, again but, the Chief Exec of The RFU is on 600k.
As you say, it's all about worth and with RL being in such a perilous state, despite the positive spin that comes out periodically, I agree that Wood's alleged salary does seem too high.
However, if it were to be halved, it would make very little difference to the game as a whole.

It'd give them £100k extra to spend on a decent marketing executive and campaign

I suppose the question is "Would we notice if he wasn't there?"
I rather suspect that we wouldn't so he is pinching a wage. We should be better spending twice the amount on someone who would make a difference.

My thoughts focus on 3 distinct areas which are holding the game back.

Firstly Red Hall and the leadership shown by them particularly Nigel Wood, who in my opinion not fit for purpose for the position he holds. The whole organisation is surrounded by ex players with no experience in the positions they hold. I know of no other organisation with such a jobs for the boys mentality although it has to be said that is somewhat of an issue within the clubs as well. Too many people in leadership positions at the RFL are looking after their own self interest rather than that of the game who is their ultimate employer, another issue through the club structure as well to be fair.

The second issue to me is the on field product. I feel the standard of player and play across the board has reduced. There are many issues for this in my opinion, however I can't think of a sport where standards have gone backwards quite so dramatically. Perfect example Wigan winning SL last year with such negative tactics and throughout most of the season poor performances. I still however think the on field product is something we should be very proud of but for me it is concerning. Watching Wakey at times was a breath of fresh air in relation to their free spirited play.

Finally the fans do love a bit of a moan and negativity. I can't think of a sport whose fans are so quick to abuse opposition players, boo them talk them down in the pubs and generally fail to talk our sport up. Ido always smile when a player changes clubs and they go from useless and pollock putting it kindly to top lads and players the second they sign. The ability of our fans to give the Toronto franchise for example absolutely blows my mind!

The game is clearly facing some major issues, sadly I have 0 confidence in the leadership at Red Hall to do anything to take the game through this period, which is without doubt the biggest issue of the 3.

I think that's a perfectly adequate salary for the CEO of the RFL, who provides vision, leadership, clear thought and a sound strategy - and in whose hands the game is thriving and has a secure future.

That CEO however, is not Nigel Wood; he's a committee man from the very oldest of old schools, the type who thrive in RL because it's such an inward looking, backward and colloquial set-up, which isn't in any way in touch with the modern world. He needs to go - he's presiding over the slow death of RL in the UK.