Just out of interest, how much did the official in charge of the interchange cards get fined? Does anyone know?

Leadership isn't about chairing a committee and saying "you decide, and by the way, if it goes wrong you can't therefore blame us". Leading a sport in a democratic setup IS hard, don't get me wrong, but that's why you need really good people who can inspire enough people to make things happen, by winning the trust of sceptics, and creating sufficient consensus. Otherwise we get an aeroplane designed by a committee, with 7 engines and no wings.

Franchising is another area where leadership is needed. Its no good hiding behind an auditor. Most of the stuff that matters will be the clubs forecasts and plans for the future. The realism or otherwise of those plans are best assessed by Rugby League people, not auditors. Yes, the audit is important, but it doesn't guarantee anything, and hiring an auditor doesn't mean your job is done. I've heard people laud the RFL for their leadership in hiring top accountants. Huh? Anyone could and should do that, why is that something we're supposed to praise them for?

Like it or not, money is a great winner of respect. Had the RFL turned up with good sponsors, they'd have more people listening to them. For me, they've lost all credibility. Such that, were they to come up with the best idea since sliced bread, it would be a waste of time, because they're not respected enough. The failure to produce a good sponsor, the Crusaders debacle, etc, etc should all have led to honourable resignations. But instead we have this horribly undignified self-congratulation all the time which just winds people up and loses even more respect.

Do you realise this will be some local lad who does a bit of reffing in the local leagues. At best he would have received small change to put petrol in his car and a pie afterwards to keep him awake when driving home.

And you want to dock him £100

I was asked to do a 5th refs job years ago for the Quins v Pies but turned t down as I couldn't guarantee my impartiality. If Trent Barrett had got 10 in the bin I may have extended it!! Now that shows my inbred hatred of all things cherry and white Top that (I didnt shop in JJB for 20 years because of there connection with Wigan!)

I haven't seen it asked (Sorry if I missed it) so here goes.
Does the new ideas (especially option 3) mean the club tie ups have to be thrown in the bin.
How can a comp that will suddenly involve all 24 teams allow for 2/3 of those teams to share a playing pool?

The governing body is supposed to govern and show leadership.
What are we supposed to do when they do both badly, or do neither.

Smith is bang on the money and taking the points off Salford, would have been fair punishment.

Agree wholeheartedly with Smith's comments re the game in general, also with his suggestion that Salford should have been docked two points [iassuming that a points deduction was within the range of punishments available to the RFL under competition rules.[/i

I need to have a read again, but I am not too sure whether I entirely agree with him on the RFL issue. How often do we hear complaints that the RFL doesn't consult relevant parties? The RFL offered leadership on the issue of youth development and clubs voted against it. Rock and a hard place.

There's some truth in that, for sure, but again, if clubs are constantly voting down the RFL, where does the fault lie? Almost certainly in a number of places. Every governing body has to, to an extent, win battles with the clubs it represents in order to steer the sport in the direction which is ultimately good for all of them. There'll always be a tension between self-interest and 'good of the sport' - no matter how much we berate short-sighted club chairmen, we must also remember that they are themselves 'serving two masters' - they have to be both selfish with respect to their own club, but - we hope - have a wider insight into what's good for the game. But we can't expect them all to get the balance right at all points in time - even the 'fairest' chairman in the world will have issues and timings where he or she has to massively prioritize local issues.

All this is why it's essential that the governing body has dynamic and powerful leadership that is capable of winning over local issues, winning the confidence of chairmen and winning enough to support to get things done. If the RFL haven't got the respect and influence they need to make things happen, then it doesn't really matter who's right and who's wrong, it needs a change.

Warrington concerned at some clubs snubbing the rules?
Cough salary cap cough!

Whilst there is merit in the article, the comment on leadership is flawed.

Leadership is based on power, no power, no leadership.

The RFL is an advisory body to the SL chairmen. Nothing more, that was the way SL was set up, with the power and the money in the hands of the clubs.

The RFL is a great scapegoat for anyone with an axe to grind, blame them they are the governing body, but they can't govern diddly without the say so of the RL chairmen. I'd be keen to see how many RL chairmen are going to give up their voting rights to allow the RFL to become a stronger leadership body that can impose rules rather than just suggest them???? I'm not expecting a lot will be doing that.

I have no problem with either system of governance, both have merits and draw backs, but it's a bit cheap for the power brokers to lay the blame at the advisory body.

The issue on enforcing the rules is fair comment though, the RFL is the civil service of the SL chairmen, so they should enforce the rules.

Agree with that. People like to criticise Hetherington because he will go on Boots n All or talk to the papers about issues within the game. Maybe if more of his colleagues did the same we would find it easier to move forward.

This being the case would now be a good time for us to actually follow the NRL model and look at some sort of independent SL leadership group, which isn’t the RFL and isn’t the clubs, but has some say from the RFL and the clubs but is able to make decisions the clubs may not be happy with. Say a 5 man committee with 1 RFL appointed member, 1 amateur game appointed member and 2 independent SL members and a chairman separate from the individual clubs voted for and given a 5 year term.

Agree with that Smokey, but its far too sensible to be adopted

You have it completely wrong. St Helens and Warrington were the only clubs who OPPOSED the scrapping. Strangely Leeds, Hull and Wigan (all wealthy clubs) were FOR scrapping it. Read into that what you will.

From a Saints POV, we are probably in agreement with Smith's views on the RFL.

That Leeds and Wigan actually had a real plan to make dual-reg a success?

Like most things dual-reg was what a club made of it. Wigan got hold of a good lower league club in an expansion area and worked with them to offer a pathway to an entire new player-pool. As well as using them as a breeding ground for welsh players and a local club for fitness etc.

Leeds got hold a lower league expansion club, somewhere they had previously done some good development work. They are using them as a new player pathway to get access to an entire new player-pool. They have also got together with a local club and come up with a fantastic plan to help youth development in the entire city right from the lowest levels and age groups through to SL, a really positive innovation.

Some others just registered their squads wholesale and then wondered why they weren’t making the best use of it.