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?