I'm not interested in the politics. Get rid of the chaff.

Most of what he said made perfect sense, IMO.

He did well at identifying the problems - including the serious lack of money in the game (funny no-one has identified that before, mind...).

He did less well at proposing practicable solutions, but then so do most of us on these forums.

With regard to the argument about the lack of money in the game, surely it's the RFL's responsibility to bring the high-level money into the game, ie TV rights, competition sponsors, Sport England funding, and I fail to see how people can argue that hasn't been massively successful over the last decade. Or have we really got such short memories?

If you want to indulge in traditional RL navel-gazing, look no further than the clubs for the majority of the problems. How many clubs continually and historically fail to develop players, fans, finances, grounds, administrators, coaches etc etc? Yet still they have a major say in the running of the game.

Finally, if you think RL has bad governance then you've never looked closely at RU, cricket, football and many others ... what's wrong with simply enjoying the greatest game with all its strengths, weaknesses and differences?

We always getter better viewing figures than the Union club game and I hope the RFL are using that to there advantage.

Does the RFL produce an annual report showing playing numbers, jnr registrations, income of RFL and SL etc?

Quote ="JB Down Under"Does the RFL produce an annual report showing playing numbers, jnr registrations, income of RFL and SL etc?'" + www.therfl.co.uk/about_the_rfl/annual_report

Quote ="JB Down Under"Does the RFL produce an annual report showing playing numbers, jnr registrations, income of RFL and SL etc?'" + www.therfl.co.uk/about_the_rfl/annual_report

You mention the sport and then just cite examples from the Super League

Rugby League is much much more than the Super League and the RFL manage the sport of Rugby League far more professionally than any time I can remember

Here are some stats for you to chew on from the 2010 RFL annual report... I would say the sport is ‘ticking over’ quite nicely

[ufrom the Participation& Community section[/u

From 2003 to 2010 the RFL has undertook 35 unique projects in improving or developing new facilities in the communitygame. The total investment by the RFL is £3.37million in the last seven years. In addition through these 35 projects the total investment to the community sport is over £11.65million.

2003-2006 – 8 projects £1.66million
2006-2008 – 17 projects £1.26million
2009-2010 – 10 projects £450k

In the last fi ve years 1,000,000 people aged between five and 19-years-old have received coaching tuition from professional players.

There are 120 college and university teams (HE and FE) within the UK with 2,500 players.

The combined services (Army, Navy ,and RAF) now has in excess of 40 teams with over 800 players.

There are 2,437 teams competing in all forms of the game

There were 71,391 adults (16+) players who played any form of the game in 2010.

[uAnd from the Carnegie Champion schools[/u

1,700 teams and 29,800 pupils took part in the 2010 Carnegie Champion Schools tournament making it the biggest Rugby League tournament in the world.

[uAnd from London[/u

In terms of players, the biggest growth area was in our junior clubs. We had 800 junior players registered in 2008 – but we expect that to reach 1,500 by 2011 across 17 junior clubs

[uAnd the women’s game[/u

There are 2,872 females playing contact Rugby League (including Champion Schools) plus a further 4,100 playing noncontact Rugby League

I have had 3 Beers with my BBQ but I can not work out the improvement in some of those stats?

2003-2006 – 8 projects £1.66million
2006-2008 – 17 projects £1.26million
2009-2010 – 10 projects £450k

Is that an improvement?

From a distance and I do not put all of the problems at the RFL door by any means...
The RFL looks very poorly operated, when I look on the web for info etc that the RFL should be in charge of I am disappointed.
No info, hardly any updates, its one of the worst websites from any sporting body in the World.
Any mug company can maintain a website and pay a half assed kid, bugger all to maintain and update it.

Are you sure about this?
Look at the figures again look at the time slot and the channel, even then what you have stated is incorrect.

Essentially, it is written as a 10 year report – these figures are showcasing what the RFL have invested in the last 10 years... there may not have been an increase in 2009-10 but it is the same board that many are criticising that has made the investments over the years

The fact that the numbers are decreasing (money) does not worry you?
Its a company annual report that is going broke.

The more I look at the figures and expenses I am trying to figure out if the Rugby League (RFL) has a bigger budget than the EBL the England Badminton League, it could be a close call.
No wonder Aussies are shoring up the home game, it will be a Southern Hemisphere game only in a decade or so.

Agreed and and in recent hostory run more professionally than most other sporting bodies.



Given the amount of funding the RFL gets from SportEngland very little money is being spent on community projects.


This contradicts sport england statistics and by a very long way.


Something is seriously wrong with those figures, teams/clubs with an average of 20 players obviosuly some people are playing for than more than one team.



Be nice to know the number of clubs and the breakdown of the teams they have.


Again there is lack of depth in that figure.



Is a fantastic achievement and one the RFL should be very proud of.

Problem with these figures is they contradict SportEngland figures (playing numbers are about the same level of 5 years ago), they have not met their own targets. What is RFL doing with all the SportEngland funding they received over 25 million GBP 2003 -2010 yet have spent less than 10% of that on the community game based on the RFL statistics. Typically RFL stats have to be taken with a large pinch of salt trhey previously have provided inflated participation figures to SportEngland and what they publish often lacks depth or transparency.

No and no

Quote ="Thoth"Are you sure about this? Look at the figures again look at the time slot and the channel, even then what you have stated is incorrect.'" No, I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie but what the OP said was in no way incorrect. www.barb.co.uk/

Quote ="Thoth"Are you sure about this? Look at the figures again look at the time slot and the channel, even then what you have stated is incorrect.'" No, I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie but what the OP said was in no way incorrect. www.barb.co.uk/

The NRL is bargaining for a a massive TV deal that is spread amongst the Clubs.
At least hundreds of million dollars.

The money that the RFL spend seems small and is probably small in comparison, but 450k? or 1million?
Thats really small business figures, my company that is really small and local spends 100k on motor racing sponsorship

Why don’t you come back when you have had less beer

The figures I quoted are for community projects and will vary based on the number and validity of the projects each year

The RFL total income increased to £22.8m in 2010, a 4.1 per cent increase on 2009. This is not an organisation that is going broke or full of debt

Quote ="headhunter"No, I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie but what the OP said was in no way incorrect. www.barb.co.uk/'" Which part of my post is a lie? I merely stated BARBs published figures contradict what the OP said. Here is is/her original post Quote We always get better viewing figures than the Union club game and I hope the RFL are using that to there advantage.'" I have highlighted the important word. Below is an example that proves my point; what the OP said was incorrect. In addition to that the viewing figures are impacted heavily by the timeslot and the channel, typically SL games are on SS1 with no major sport events on during that timeslot. Quote Sky Sports 2 w/e 19 Sep 2010 000's 1 MANCHESTER UTD V RANGERS-LIVE (TUE 1900) 1,263 2 LIVE FORD FOOTBALL SPECIAL (SAT 1230) 698 3 MSK ZILINA V CHELSEA-LIVE (WED 1919) 270 4 CHAMPIONS LEAGUE GOALS (TUE 2203) 253 5 HULL V NOTTINGHAM FOREST-LIVE (SAT 1715) 229 6 SOCCER AM (SAT 1000) 216 7 LIVE PREMIERSHIP RUGBY UNION (SAT 1500) 164 8 CHAMPIONS LEAGUE GOALS (WED 2201) 156 9 LIVE SUPER LEAGUE PLAY-OFF (FRI 1930) 155 10 RINGSIDE (SAT 1200) 103 '" So are you still going to uphold your knee jerk reaction of an opinion that I told a lie now you see the evidence unless of course you believe BARBs figures are a lie.

Quote ="headhunter"No, I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie but what the OP said was in no way incorrect. www.barb.co.uk/'" Which part of my post is a lie? I merely stated BARBs published figures contradict what the OP said. Here is is/her original post Quote We always get better viewing figures than the Union club game and I hope the RFL are using that to there advantage.'" I have highlighted the important word. Below is an example that proves my point; what the OP said was incorrect. In addition to that the viewing figures are impacted heavily by the timeslot and the channel, typically SL games are on SS1 with no major sport events on during that timeslot. Quote Sky Sports 2 w/e 19 Sep 2010 000's 1 MANCHESTER UTD V RANGERS-LIVE (TUE 1900) 1,263 2 LIVE FORD FOOTBALL SPECIAL (SAT 1230) 698 3 MSK ZILINA V CHELSEA-LIVE (WED 1919) 270 4 CHAMPIONS LEAGUE GOALS (TUE 2203) 253 5 HULL V NOTTINGHAM FOREST-LIVE (SAT 1715) 229 6 SOCCER AM (SAT 1000) 216 7 LIVE PREMIERSHIP RUGBY UNION (SAT 1500) 164 8 CHAMPIONS LEAGUE GOALS (WED 2201) 156 9 LIVE SUPER LEAGUE PLAY-OFF (FRI 1930) 155 10 RINGSIDE (SAT 1200) 103 '" So are you still going to uphold your knee jerk reaction of an opinion that I told a lie now you see the evidence unless of course you believe BARBs figures are a lie.

Your argument does seem a pretty idiotic way of saying we only regularly beat RU in terms of Sky audiences rather than we always beat RU in terms of Sky Audiences. An almost wilfully disingenuous way for phrasing that argument if we are honest.

Community projects are the foundations of this game or any other game yes?
If there is a worthwhile investment in the game that will produce dividends down the track you support and invest in that feature.

What were the figures you posted saying?

Each year you put less into these projects cause they were....
A) a mistake
B) we cant afford it.

Rugby League in England (sadly) is on its last legs, in a decade or two it will be gone, thanks to the RFL and the insular Club mentality.

Do you know what a ‘community project’ is?

This is quite clearly not true as all the evidence shows that the game is thriving and expanding at the grass roots in the UK

But perhaps more importantly for me – as a Rugby league fan, why do appear to take such pleasure out of this where it to be true?

I am always the first to want to see England beat Australia in test rugby or the WCC but as a Rugby League fan, I am proud of the fact it is such a successful and vibrant sport in your country

I know when a project gets less money each year its not a good result for any sport

Me?
Fed up with England/GB being also rans and killing the game at International level.
Clubs that buy old Aussies or fringe Aussies to cover their lack of Junior development.
England does not build foundations and a handful of prospects that may well be smashed at Test level is a sad Inditement of the game at SL level.

Good job the English Academy team won the last series against the Australian Schoolboys with two comfortable wins then isn’t it. Although I’m not sure how they managed to do it with no junior development in the country – I’ll have to check

Maybe you should check what each team represents and what age each team is also.
Australia has many levels of Juniors from
Schoolboys
AIS
State Juniors
Often Australians play English teams that are 1 or2 years older than themselves.
Apples and Apples is always good.

Show a team of the same level and age and the result and I will agree with you.