Agreed.

Unfortunately, a lot of RL fans look at London's attendances and think that Londoners aren't interested. This isn't true. Hughes has run the London club into the ground through bad decision making and a complete lack of marketing skills. Playing at the Beehive in Barnet, a small stadium quite far out of London, should not be a long term option. It's no wonder really that they aren't pulling in the crowds.

On the other hand, the amateur and schools rugby league down there is doing well and growing year on year. Nearly 70k attended the WC semi finals at Wembley - these are the things the RFL need to build on.

I think there is a plan (of sorts) which is to admit small clubs at the bottom end and hope they develop and grow either naturally or through a rich owner getting involved. Hence the likes of Oxford, Gloucester etc being admitted to Championship One.
I'd agree there's no definitive strategy though, which is disappointing and a big failure in my opinion. However I'd lay the blame at both the RFL and the clubs. The clubs, in general, still can't see beyond their own noses and are only interested in things which immediately and directly benefit themselves, hence a continual short-term policy.

The impact of the loss of a lot of Sport England funding shouldn't be underestimated either though.

The RFL seem to have completely given up on doing anything so that they can't be held responsible if it goes wrong, they are supposed to be the leaders of the game but have devolved any and all responsibility (but not power) away from themselves.

This and their admittance that franchising wasnt dumped because it didnt work, but rather that they werent competent to administer it should have seen a root and branch restructure and the removal of the board.

It will all be fine, its happened before:

Next season SL will just have either the Bradford Broncos or the Catalan Bulls.

I agree, but whilst the clubs hold the power there won't ever be long term plans and structures put in place because they'll never be funded properly with the clubs wanting more and more.

Unfortunately, the worst thing to happen to RL in the last 20 years was Richard Lewis leaving. He seemed able to, at least, hold off the clubs. Nigel Wood, whilst I don't believe him to be as bad as some people would like to make out (and lay every problem or issue at his door), has failed to keep the clubs at bay.

Some blame lands with the clubs, in fact some on here will have you believe I am a fan of Nigel Wood simply because I don’t blame him for everything. I do think he is failing, and those around him don’t seem to be up to the job either. He seems completely out of his depth and lacks any sort of vision for the game, its structure, its ethos, or its future. He has basically stepped back, denied all responsibility and is hiding from any kind of leadership. He doesn’t even take responsibility for this new structure he has pushed through, he wants all of the power, none of the responsibility.

If you listen to him the reason why we haven’t changed the SC is because of the clubs,
the reason why we needed to re-introduce P+R is because of KPMG,
the reason why we got this structure is because of the clubs,
If a club gets relegated and struggles it is because they need to stand and fall on their own performance
If a club goes bust it is their fault.

The thing is, if Nigel Wood doesn’t do these things and isn’t responsible for the success of these things then we don’t need him. We could have a secretary to do the admin and use the money we pay him to get a few more youth coaches.

Nigel Woods one and only responsibility to the professional game is to create an environment where clubs and the game can fulfil their potential, regardless of his attempts to pass the buck, if he creates an environment where clubs are damaged by the league structure, where the game continues to struggle to get visibility and sponsorship and if we see crowds fall in the professional game. He is responsible for that.

It is my belief that the entire governance of the game needs to be restructured. Nigel Wood wears too many hats and we have consolidated too much power in the RFL which is why we see these huge shifts in ethos every few years where we see someone with balls put a plan in place, the game expands a bit we see a bit of consolidation in the heartlands, new man takes over, loses his bottle, we see a huge contraction, and so on.

The RFL should merge with Barla and be responsible for disciplinary, the international game, Youth and touch RL and amateur RL. Super League should have its own board of directors and marketing and commercial teams similar to the NRL independant commission, the championships should have their own Board of directors and marketing and commercial teams. Where these responsibilities cross there should be an overall RL Board consisting of 4 independent members, 3 SL members, 1 championship member, 3 RFL members.

Correct

The RFL is the game's governing body that's all.
The RFL board and executive is appointed by the members clubs.
If the member clubs want to make a change they will do.
But the board and executive is doing pretty well at present.
Fantastic World Cup. Fantastic new structure on the way in 2015.
Great new SKY deal. New Super League sponsor.
Club owners willing to invest in the game. Etc
If people have time, money and ideas they should offer their services to the Club they support and do all they can to help that Club acheive success.

many clubs would disagree with you on all of that. (except the WC, which was administered separately from the RFL)

Certainly in terms of the new TV deal being as good as advertised, the sponsorship whilst better than £0 is apparently worth about £40k to clubs which is only slightly better than £0.

The new strucutre doesnt have the support of a fair few clubs and its effects have yet to be seen

Not many, a few would disagree. Support for the new structures/ deals is in the majority. Your saying we should ignore a majority of clubs for the sake of a few?

is 7 of 12 a big enough majority to force a new structure on the other 5?

Does a majority as small as one can be have the mandate to dictate such a major change to a minority as big as one can be?

Yes. For one, there are more then 12 clubs whom will be affected by this particular vote, and as has been discussed at length I'm sure they're more than happy the changes are brought in. For another, I would hope the clubs put thought and consideration into any vote undertaken for our sport, big or small, ergo any majority is a majority big enough. The flip side is arguing that 5/12 is a big enough minority, which is a pointless endeavor after all who decides if it's big enough? If 40% disagree? 25%? A majority should rule whether by 1 person or 100.

You'd of thought we'd had a big enough majority in 1895 to continue missed work pay by your argument.

I can't agree that a majority should always rule. For a major structural change such as this you need consensus and we dont have it. We have a very small majority imposing its view on a very large minority. That is never going to be a recipe for success.

The fact is that when your vote is won by such a small margin, you dont have a mandate for major change. Should just one vote change then you dont have a majority at all.

You could even argue that 7 of 14 isnt a majority at all. it is literally only supported by half of those who had a vote.

When 50% of people didnt vote for a major change, you can't argue that A) the majority did, or B) that there is a mandate for fundemental change when half of the votes were not cast for such a change.