I'd tend to agree. At the moment, the clubs tend to have power in the wrong areas, and don't have enough responsonility / culpability in others. It was one of the reasons I supported the principle of franchising, but the way it was implemented was all wrong.

There needs to be a clear vision for the sport in terms of where we see ourselves in 5, 10 and 20 years time, about the sorts of sponsors we want to be engaging, the crowd growth we want to see, about the audience demographics we want to reach and the levels of revenue we should be generating from media, supporters and commercial.

Where the big disconnect lies is that such a vision then needs to be handed down to the clubs to deliver on, and that is the key point of failure. Franchising should have been used as a way of addressing that - any club that doesn't make a significant contribution to such a vision is at risk of losing their place - but franchising was never implemeted in that way. Instead, we had criteria that was based on the wrong things, and encouraged the wrong behaviour - attendances criteria that only encouraged clubs to give out cheap tickets rather than actually do some proper marketing for example. The clubs should have less power to vote for things like real-terms salary cap reductions or the abolition of reserve teams because again, it encourages the wrong behaviour.

Personally, I'd like to see a proper franchising-based structure that really focuses on raising standards off the field. I don't think we'll get that, because too few clubs want to make that effort and investment, but it's what the sport sorely needs. People clamouring for a Hearn are simply clamouring for an easy answer.

Until we have those higher standards, the RFL is marketing the sport with one hand tied behind its back. It's going to broadcasters like Sky with an audience that is falling, and is made up of people that advertisers don't care about. I don't care who you are, that's a hard sell when the TV rights renewal comes up.

I agree about the value of each league game in Super League now. Whilst the Grand Final is obviously a pretty good event as a standalone and there have been some terrific matches over the years, you have to look at what it does to the quality and intensity of the rest of the season.

The NRL has a Grand Final and turns out high quality intense matches every week throughout the season over there however they have genuine squad depth leading to genuine competition for places, as well as potentially lucrative contract rewards for playing well regularly.

Over here we seriously lack squad depth, there is often little competition for places in teams and everyone knows that they only have to peak for the last 3 weeks of the year to win the grand prize. Difficult to sell a mid-season game lacking intensity and enthusiasm, the apathy of the teams spreads to supporters and they turn their backs.

The issue with allowing the SL teams to retain the power and decision making is that the likes of Wakefield and others potentially wouldn't be part of a bigger extended game and as such they will prevent expansion at every opportunity. Hence the need for an independent central long term strategy.

but clubs have had 12 marketing men for over 20 years and the problem is that if they are ok in their jobs within each club then nothing progresses. The game has shown no real signs of saving itself from within for as long as i can remember (with the possible exception of getting rid of Wood), so the alternative is to get someone in from the outside, a new broom to sweep through the sport if you like. whether Hearn is the man is open to much debate but at least he's prepared to give it a go, unlike a lot of people from within the sport.

the problem with RL is that it is too insular, full of people who don't like change, love the heartland and s*d everyone else. you only need to look at all the sniping about toronto to see that, or alternatively just look at a lot of posts on this forum

That's because the sport has been engaged in this 'race to the bottom' for those 20 years. There can be no consequence for failure if year by year, the club's keep voting and acting in a way that keeps lowering the bar between success and failure.

Can't generate revenue growth to be able to compete with the top clubs? Just vote to keep lowering the salary cap in real terms to make it harder for top clubs to retain and recruit talent! Chairman fed up of underwriting operating costs? Instead of looking at revenue opportunities, save £300k by pulling the plug on the reserve team! Need to meet an average attendance target for your franchise application? Just slash the price of season tickets to unsustainable levels!

People pointed the finger at Wood for a long time and whilst he had undoubted faults, he wasn't the cause of the game's biggest issues. His departure solves nothing in that regard, and I don't see how Hearn will bring anything more to the table than a gimmick.

The game has the power to address the vast majority, if not all, of its biggest challenges. The question is whether each and every club is prepared to pull their respective weight.

Look at it another way. If the Hearns do come in, and if they don't take this sport to the level it needs to be at (because not everything that they've touched has turned to gold), then what? Who do we turn to as our next saviour or messiah? What does it actually take before the sport is motivated to address the root cause of its problems?

would be interesting to know what hearns ideas are but they will be a secret for now

what it would be we dont know, would we like it as fans? dont want to see anything like changing the points in games for a win and a draw or bonus points

Agreed. I see where Bramley is coming from but carrying on doing the same things and expecting different results is a sign of madness. The 12 SL clubs that want th power, are the same people who voted in the Stobart, scrapping of reserves etc Lenegan has already upset the L1 and Championship clubs with his proposal of making L1 amateur without bothering to consult them, creating divides straight awayl and felt like a proposal through the back door approach.

It's a discussion worth having, is spending the limited funds we have on someone like Hemel who are effectively based up north, playing in front of 112 people the best use of resources? To counter that, is taking money away from clubs like Keighley who bother to run a reserves, and York who got a bigger crowd than some sl teams (due to excellent marketing...fancy that) and giving extra money to someone like Salford who aren't getting great crowds and don't run an academy going to benefit the sport?

Gareth Walker also made a great point in the paper. Sport is cyclical. Is it right that just because a team is currently in SL at this particular point they should have such a big say in the direction of the sport?

Nothing wrong about speaking with Hearn

That's all it is right now.

Did Wigan go to Australia for the benefit of European SL or for the benefit of Wigan?

Why not both?

If Wigan (and Hull and Leeds for that matter) generated a return from their trips to Australia, if they engaged new audiences and commercial partners, then that is potentially beneficial to their clubs. The stronger our leading clubs are, the higher the standard gets set and stronger that should make our competition as other clubs strive to reach that standard.

Do the other nine Super League clubs see an immediate direct benefit? No, but why should they? They weren't the ones who found a backer, took the risk, jumped on the plane and put in the effort.

So nothing centrally coordinated for the benefit of the game. Just add hoc short term arrangement's that may bring small benefits to some.

See why we need something central.

I'm not disputing that there needs to be a central vision. My argument is that without actually having a way to enforce a level of standards, any central strategy is doomed to fail because ultimately, we have 12 individual businesses with 12 individual owners, 12 individual business plans, 12 individual budgets and 12 different mindsets.

What we currently have is a series of ad-hoc club-led initiatives precisely because we don't have a joined-up approach that every club is equally bought into. We have a centralised brand, we have the RFL doing some decent work on digital media, but different clubs then go off and do their own thing to different degrees. Some see that there are opportunities out there to tap into, whilst some see marketing or media relations as an expense to be controlled, and others either don't know how or can't be bothered to capitalise on such opportunities.

If Wigan wants to partner with the NSW Tourism Board, plaster 'Visit Sydney' across their shirts and go to the expense of flying their playing squad to Australia, then they should be allowed to do that. But they shouldn't be expected to share the fruits of that labour with a club that thinks "marketing" is simply updating the fixtures board outside the ground and whose vision is to see everything on the balance sheet as a cost centre that needs to be controlled, rather than an investment that delivers a return.

You can have as many centralised plans and goals as you like, but the fundamental issue is that the clubs will never work equally towards that goal. That is one thing that any so-called "saviour" cannot fix.