Under Lewis, the game really progressed, with a forward vision, professional set-up and decent sponsors.

Barwick has been a waste of a seat.

Nigel Wood has been too erratic. He's clearly tried his best, but ultimately he's been hamstrung by an unwillingness to challenge a small group of top championship/bottom super league clubs whose interests are contrary to the interests of the game as a whole. As a result, far too much of his focus has been on what's come to be known as the Middle 8s, and not enough on the whole sport and its shop window in SL.

Why do people insist on giving out high-profile off-field roles solely on the basis that they were good players? Sinfield has zero credentials to do this job.

chief executive of a sports club. I felt that I needed to give myself the academic background behind it, so that if those jobs or opportunities arise later on, I’d be in a decent position to apply for them."

Whilst this on its own isn't enough to say he should get a top job in the RFL he certainly isn't someone tipped or suggested to get a job just because of his on field performances alone.

That's great, so do thousands of other people. What has he done to even be remotely mentioned in passing other than being good at playing rugby?

And I mentioned that it wasn't enough on its own.



That was pointed out to you previously and I'm guessing your were unaware of it before being critical of the suggestion. Neither the Masters degree or his rugby career individually should be taking too much, but both together (and it's not just a good career it's being a cornerstone of the best most successful run club of the SL era) should at least get his name thrown out there.

Why should it? His brief tenure as England team manager not withstanding, why should he be considered any more than one of the other thousands of sports business Masters graduates, who wouldn't be considered at all because they have no experience of running a major governing body?

"Because he was good at playing rugby" is going to be your answer which is bordering on insanity IMO, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

It's not "because he was good at playing rugby".....you honestly think that being involved in the sport at the highest level for 20 years at the best run club at that time doesn't give him some insight/experience/ideas that other non RL experienced can't offer?

Like I said it shouldn't be enough to get him a top job.....but at the same time it shouldn't be dismissed like you're trying to do. His name should at least be in the mix and not dismissed by someone simply because he played for a rival club.

Lol who do you think my 'rival club' is? I like Sinfield and admire him as a player. But he shouldn't even be considered at all for a job like this. Ryan Bailey was around Leeds for most of that time, do you think he should also be considered? No, you're basing it on the idea that Sinfield is a good leader because he was a leader on the pitch. It's a totally bizarre, backwards mentality within the sport, the same mentality that saw Peacock appointed to a totally unsuitable role at Hull KR and get the club relegated, or Cunningham given the St Helens coaching job when it was clear that he was a million miles away from being a capable Super League coach. It happens in other sports too, like when Maradona was coach of the Argentina football team. Very strange mentality that people have.

There's no evidence that Sinfield has any ability at all as an administrator and he doesn't have anything even remotely approaching the level of experience to be considered for this. There's nothing to separate him from the thousands of other sports business Masters graduates, of which probabilities would suggest that he would almost certainly not be the most capable. You're advocating him because you are a fanboy of him as a player and can't separate what he did on the field from the person off it. Get a grip, he has no business even being discussed for this role. If anything, based on your arguments you should be advocating Gary Hetherington who was the one actually running Leeds, not someone who happened to be a good player for the club at the time.

No his career as a RL player is an attribute. He has being working on planning on going into an administrative role for several years including getting a Masters degree at university so to compare him to Ryan Bailey going for the same role is idiotic.

What's happened is you didn't know the Uni bit about Sinfield and just tried to jump on the suggestion he should be considered. Instead of accepting your mistake you're now digging a hole and trying to suggest him Sinfield getting the role is no different to Ryan Bailey.

I'd agree if you say he shouldn't just be given a role. To say he shouldn't be considered at all is stupidity

ANY Rugby League who has worked hard academically,got degrees and spent several years aiming to have a role in the administrative side of the sport should always be in consideration for roles....not given them solely on them being past players....but considered and in the mix.

No, I was aware he was at uni, I just didn't care. I don't think a fresh-faced graduate is a suitable person to be considered for the CEO of the RFL, regardless of whether or not they were a good player or played for a good club.

If you have 5 sports business masters graduates applying for a job in RL, one of them is Kevin Sinfield, one is some random guy who played for Gloucestershire All Golds and the other three have never played RL, which one is best for the job?

So folk are glad 'Mr Blobby' has left.....now what !?

I'm actually with headhunter on this one. Sinfield might be a good choice to be an assistant to whoever leads the game because he understands the sport from the inside and most people involved in the game will respect his opinions. But actually running an organisation when he's never done anything remotely like it before? Nonsense. Especially given how fractured the game is and reliant on clubs sometimes making decisions in favour of the sport as a whole at their own expense.

I think the head coach comparison is a really good one. Appointing former players straight into the role is lazy recruitment because its popular with some fans due to playing records. But coaching isn't what it was in Alex Murphy's day - it is or should be a highly technical role requiring good man management skills as well. Most players, even captains of clubs, are probably hopelessly ill-equipped to become head coaches the day they retire.

Running our game is far more difficult, and to be honest I'd far rather we look at people with business experience and contacts in industry. If we ever get a presence in North America we should definitely look at getting them involved in running the game. Shock horror, they might even understand marketing.