We all visit this forum because we love the game and the respective teams that we follow. As we all know the RFL have the most influential role in shaping the game for juniors, amateurs, professionals and supporters alike.

Some have the opinion that the game 'on and off' the field is at it's strongest ever, and some would oppose this position saying that it is on the brink of collapse.

How good a job are the current crop of senior RFL officials doing, and are their actions in your opinion good for the future of our game at all levels?

Lets see what the general opinion is!!

(b)

Is there a test people have to take before being allowed to vote on this thread, to determine that they understand the difference between the RFL, SLE and their own incompetent club management?

I have no faith in them to do what the sport needs. They are simply not experienced enough or competent enough commercially to bring the growth and development the sport requires.

They will maintain Super League and RL in general, keeping it ticking over. The two biggest deals for the RFL are the Sky TV deal and the competition sponsorship deal. They have failed to secure a meaningful Sky deal and the most recent one was absolutely awful. Given the disparity in viewing figures, the TV deal should generate far more than what Union get, yet we don't. Then you throw in the sponsorship deal with Stobart, which is an absolute disaster. I'm convinced Stobart made the offer as a joke because they didn't want to pay for it and the RFL bit as no other companies were interested. To generate £0 from a competition sponsorship deal is just comically bad business. To put it into perspective Aviva paid £20m over 4 years to sponsor Union's Premiership and Heineken have paid £10m per season to sponsor their Cup competition.

Then we could start on the franchise process. It was needless and weak from the start and was a complete farce with no clubs being cut from Super League and the one added not worthy of a spot anyway. The process let Bradford into Super League and London, who are getting crowds of 2,000 and seem to be receiving no help in improving that or any threat of punishment if they do not.

Then we could start on the Crusaders farce, but I can't be bothered, we all know what happened there.

In summary, the RFL will probably maintain SL for the next 10 years, losing a team every couple of seasons. They will not develop or improve the sport in the way it deserves under this administration.

Thanks for proving my point.

The sponsorship deals with Stobart and Betfair were put to the vote of SL clubs, who decided to accept the Stobart deal on a 9-5 vote IIRC.

There was an alternative cash offer on the table, in the region of £750k I believe. It was the SL clubs that chose not to accept it, not the RFL.

But who generated those offers? Who was it that went out to sell the product and did such a good job that there were the best offers?

Your point would have had some validity if the offer from Betfair was £5m a season.

750K to be a Major Sponsor?

I Know that Manly were getting that from Pepsi a decade ago + bonuses.
Its a sign of things to come.

Are you experienced enough or competent enough to give such a strong opinion?


Isn't the recent Sky deal the best we've ever had? Aren't there rumblings that companies in France may soon be in a position to want to pay for SL because of the RFL's investment in bringing Catalans over? Do you know the difference between viewing figures and viewing demographics?

As for the sponsorship, it was voted for by the clubs. If you're going to start comparing to RU, then you're always going to be disappointed. It's not because of the people they have in charge. It's because they are established, have influence, etc. If you think life and business are just that easy, you will always vote for a "complete rethink" because you don't appreciate how difficult it is and never will.


So who would you have had in? You've just cut three clubs there. Name three clubs in the Championship that would offer more?
How many clubs do you think could handle the drop in this economic climate? And you want it to happen every year?


Crusaders was a farce, I'll give you that. That is the "odd blip" for me.


They won't develop the sport or improve it? Are you just wearing SL glasses? What about participation figures? New areas playing the game at amateur? New semi-pro clubs coming in? Changing the seasons? Bringing BARLA together with us? Setting up the RLEF which has seen the game spread all over Europe (and beyond)?

The RFL have done f'ing loads. Loads. But one or two of the more high-profile decisions have gone bad and it's their fault. In fact, one or two of the high profile incidents haven't even got feck all to do with the RFL yet people blame them because they are sheep and it's just the easiest/laziest thing to do. It's always someone else's fault.

Some decisions are good. Some decisions are bad. Some people choose to focus on the good ones. In Britain, more people are obsessed with the bad ones.

They make mistakes yes, but everything they do is in the best interests of the game as a whole.

Unlike the chairmen of the Super League clubs (and championship clubs to be even) who only look after their own interests.

As Andy Gilder said, there should be a test before people can vote and comment on this thread.

IMG.

Yes they should have demanded that Apple Inc sponsored the Super League for a billion pounds.

Being quite geographically disconnected from the ‘heartlands’ of Rugby League and without any connections whatsoever in the higher echelons of the sport, I cannot comment with any authority whatsoever on whether the behaviour of the senior staff at the RFL is ‘good and honourable’. Therefore I decline to vote

Although, having said that, I usually find that a good rule of thumb on these matters is to take whatever Saddened! says and the opposite is normally true

The only worthwhile and accurate comment so far.

Saddeneds speech, no matter how passionate, shows the greatest lack of understanding I've read in a long time. He seems to think that Richard Lewis pulls all the strings, makes the clubs overspend, can force sponsors to come to the table with billions, and make Sky give us a massive increase every season.

However, in the real world Richard Lewis is the Chairman. He delegates jobs to other members of the board - this is what the Chairman of any oganisation does. I'm sure some of the blame can be laid at his door, but to claim he's the sole cause is laughable. Similarly, it's the clubs themselves that spend the money, not the RFL.
Sure, if the sponsors were fighting over the rights to sponsor RL there would be more money in the game to cover some of these debts, but the simple fact remains that this situation only exists in the minds of fantasists like Saddened who believe that we have the most in demand product in the world. I hate to bring this news to you all.... we don't. RL is still very much a niche product, and doesn't have any great commercial potential.
Similarly, Sky may get better value from us in terms of viewing figures than they do from the RU, but that isn't what counts - what counts is the amount of money Sky can get from advertisers during our games. The last I was aware, the RU games shown on Sky were of a much higher commercial value than those watching RL. Why is this? Quite simply because the game isn't seen as being followed by fans with as much spending money as RU.
It's not because Sky are ripping us off, it's what their commercial department will be telling them we're worth.


Oh, hang on..... I'm wrong.

It's Richard Lewis' fault after all.



Sigh.