Interesting article on the Serious About Rugby League website which I'm sure someone with far more idea than me can put a link up on here in which Neil Hudgell Hull KR chairman refers to Andrew Chamlers as a "complete irritant "and accusses him of working behind smoke and mirrors.

rlLink To Storyrl

It seems that he's trying to deflect away from what has actually been said by the Leeds camp - namely that the sport needs to move as a whole rather than 12 elite clubs at the top lining their own pockets to the detriment of the rest of the sport.

As sickening as it is for me to say, if RL in this country had been run in the way Leeds Rhinos has been for the last 20 years, the sport would be far stronger.

Of the 10 clubs who voted for the change, how many are actually making a profit? Increasing their crowds? Adding to the home grown talent pool?

And he's rounded on Chalmers because he's a dissenting voice to the "SL should be in charge" argument and is also in charge of the largest club outside of SL.

Completely agree. They've run their business the correct way since the inception of Super League.

Mr Chalmers has discussed the 'grass roots' and the 'best interest of the game',albeit in another country,as far back as 2007.

Long before Hudgell got involved.He also has some qualifications.

Interesting interview,among others, rlHERErl

It's nauseating the way that Hudgell always talks as if he is a fully established member of the SL elite.

12 months ago he was in the Championship - and Derek Beaumont was sitting in his seat

And in a few months, he might be the chairman of a Championship club again...

It's squeaky bum time already for Leigh to get Derek's bum back in that seat, at least for 2019.

Would be quite interesting though to see Hudgell sitting next to his "constant irritant" at the "lower table". If there's a punch up, Chalmers should have it streamed for all! But only if certain Cumbrians agree.

Hi. I read the article this afternoon, and I was interested to see the reaction.

Just to note a couple of things...



Hudgell took over as Rovers’ chairman in 2005.




Apologies if you’re joking and I’m being dim, but he specifically makes that point in the article. ‘I was in the Championship last year and I could be back there at the end of this’

No, apologies are due from me, I glossed over that bit. And I was coloured by watching him on Back Chat a few weeks ago when he seemed to have the attitude that he was a member of the elite.

The point is basically still valid though. And it is thiswhy should 12 club chairman decide the future of the game when several of them might not be in a position to make that decision in a few months?[/i

That said, I don't Andrew Chalmers has covered himself in glory with some of his comments and - perhaps more so - the [iway[/i in which he expresses them

I broadly agree, and ideally we’d have a whole sport solution with wide buy in. I find the current divisions pretty concerning.

I don’t know much about Chalmers, so I was curious to see whether he was popular with you guys. Do you feel like he is getting your club back on the right track?

It may have been the year earlier,actually.

It was about that time Chalmers was a board member on the New Zealand rugby league and was elected chairman

in 2007 - and a member of the RLIF.rlBefore He Swallowed A Dictionary And Learned Business Speakrl

People with strong opinions are often classed as irritants. Reading the article , Hudgell’s main target is Hetherington not Chalmers .
The most impressive case I’ve heard against the Super League “ power grab” was made by Carl Hall ( Doncaster CEO on Back Chat a few weeks ago. His argument was based on the belief that you start building a structure from the foundations ( grassroots ) not the roof ( Super League). Quietly effective.
Hudgell’s appearance on Backchat was far less convincing - to me he seemed distant and not prepared to engage in debate. As Paul Walker comments:
“He seemed to have the attitude that he was a member of the elite”
Perhaps that’s why Hudgell concentrated on Gary H - a peer rather than an underling.
Going back to Chalmers
He has turned round our club. Not only by recruiting a good coach and protecting the Academy structure but seemingly running the business side pretty well. There have been blemishes such as the occasional outburst but all in all he’s done a good job, especially given that the joint owner Graham Lowe cannot travel and is not able to share the day to day running of the club.

As you have mentioned Graham Lowe, he has actually sold his 50% of the club and is no longer involved with the Bulls. No clue who it was sold too.

https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/1388503 All information available here.

https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/1388503 All information available here.

Overall he's doing a tremendous job considering where we were when he took over. As others have said, they have been issues along the way with his outbursts. Hudgell did make me laugh abouy him swallowing a business speak book though.

Regarding the structure, he's been appointed as one of the front man to stand up for L1/Championship clubs, hence his clashes in the media with SL chairmen (although i don't think he's said anything as confrontational as what the fev, fax, Batley or Hunslet chairman said) but for obvious reasons we're the club that will rile others up. Personally i'd rather us just be quiet and just get on with our rebuilding, but obviously Chalmers feels they are greater stakes in regards to the structure, hence taking his fight to SL. He's getting a lot of stick for his role in the structure, but IMO he's doing it as he genuinely believes it could damage the sport as a whole. If he was just looking at hselfishly it would impact the Bulls, he would probably join the SL teams in calls to reduce championship funding as Bradford would be one of the few would could survive due to their fanbase. We'd be much weaker, but probably the strongest in the second tier. Look how strong the championship is now due to the funding.

I personally don't like the 8s, Widnes could finish bottom for the second year in a row and not get relegated. They could get 3 bites at the cherry (finish bottom of regular season, weakest SL team in M8s, then MPG and still survive) and i don't think for a minute 4 sl clubs are in danger of going down. so i agree with sl chairman that it needs changing, im dead against them having more power though. The SL chairman still voted through the Stobart deal, scrapping reserves, dual-reg. Lenegan mentioing loop fixtures returning should be setting the alarm bells off.

Anyway all chairman (and i include my own in this) need to stop the mud slinging in the media, get around a table and thrash out the differences.

To Chalmers by the looks of it. The new shareholder is FOURFOURONE Investments, of which Chalmers is listed as one of 2 shareholders.