I thought I just answered it?

Then again, you ignore a lot of answers you are given that dont match your own special world view dont you

No you didn't , Mr Wood made the statement , or are you saying he hasn't done anything at all ?

Surely it's over to the person arguing against it to put up a valid argument why they shouldn't be short listed?
Since they haven't, I'm justified in my opinion that they've taken a cynical and pessimistic view on something they don't understand. I've taken an optimistic view that to be nominated 3 years in a row is a good and just achievement.

It's a case of being positive about positive news vs being negative about positive news.

If you want me to go into the fine details of why they're justified in being nominated for a third year in a row, I'd like to see a good argument against first, since that's what the original post is about (making it their responsibility to argue first) otherwise why do I need to waste my time?

And the "pessimists" can shout "right back at you" for this reason: We think the game can be run better and deserves to be run better. We think you are the true pessimists, because you think Nigel Wood is about as good as it gets and that there's no prospect of expansion, etc. You so-called "optimists" defend this view by saying things like "we've tried to expand in the past and look where that got us" and "if we sacked Nigel Wood, what makes you think we'd get anyone better". THIS type of thinking accurately defines pessimism. Pessimism reflects belief about the future, not your assesment of the present. FWIW I believe that the game will one day improve a great deal, but it won't happen until Wood, etc. are gone. I hope that's sooner rather than later, and, painful as it may be, if a catastrophic drop in attendances in the short term is needed to shift them, even that is worth it. It was a forlorn hope that perhaps failing to find a sponsor would have shamed them into moving on, but sadly it looks like the game has to suffer more before we can get rid. We actually NEED a shock, because at the moment we're like the proverbial (urban myth actually) frog in a slowly heating pan of water. It gets worse so slowly we don't notice until its too late. Don't confuse being pessimistic about the ability of Nigel Wood with general pessimism.

All four of those areas are just BS management speak for people to define however best suits them. I'm not particularly worried about any award that gives us any sort of PR, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. What frightens me is the thought that the RFL might believe they are actually delivering to these worthless phrases. They publish this sort of trash on the website. If they can't publish precise meaningful goals, they'd be better off saying nothing instead of trying to imitate a BTEC business studies student trying to blag their way through an exam they forgot to revise for.

Past winners of the Sports Governing Body of the Year Award (other nominees)

2010 - British Triathlon
(England & Wales Cricket - Premier League - Premier Rugby - RFU - UK Athletics)

2011 - UK Athletics
(British Amateur Boxing - The Football League - RFL)

2012 - British Triathlon
(British Cycling - England and Wales Cricket - England Netball - RFL - UK Athletics)

2013 -
(British Cycling - British Horseracing Authority - England Hockey - RFL - UK Athletics - British Olympic Association)

The awards are more than likely going to be dominated by all things Olympics, but not bad going to be in that company in that catergory.

*note how the RFU and The Premier League have not been nominated for the last 3 years.........perhaps, just perhaps, the RFL aren't as bad as people like to make out?

That doesn't mean everything and anything about the game at the moment is bad. This is what makes the difference between being positively critical and cynically pessimistic.


Who thinks this? Because I certainly don't. I think that Richard Lewis was the best administrator we've ever had, and did an amazing job. Yet he was vilified by many. There aren't many that would have done a better job than him, he did a great job.
I think Wood has a lot to be desired in his role. That doesn't mean everything he does is awful, and likewise it doesn't mean everything he does is amazing. The fact that you've chosen my position for me (as well as grouped me with other people) shows how pessimistic you really are. You're assuming the worst from me, the actual definition of pessimism.


I have never said that. That would be pessimistic. But at the same time, that doesn't mean "expand at all costs" is the right course either.


It's a fair question. It's a "the grass is always greener" kind of question, based on a pessimistic view of Wood's abilities.


Pessimism is about the outcome of events, whether that be in the past, the present or the future.


That there is the biggest load of pessimistic twaddle going. You've got limited information on what's going on behind the scenes and are choosing to take some things at face value and other things as "cover ups". It's a pessimistic view that assumes he can't do anything right, yet the RFL have been short listed again by people in the know for doing a good job. Perhaps they're just not as bad as you think?!

To try and flip this around and call me pessimistic is frankly hilarious!

The fact that someone is having a go at the RFL earlier in this thread for helping out Bradford shows exactly what kind of pessimists the game has to do with! Had they not helped them, they'd slag off the RFL for not doing enough!
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

"We think the game can be run better and deserves to be run better."

Then tell us how.

Start with a CEO who knows the definition of strategy and the importance of defined *measurable* goals. Then let him or her tell you how, they'll be better qualified than me or Nigel.

Do you know for sure Nigel Wood hasn't done that? Maybe, just maybe commercially sensitive information like that is kept in the board rooms and not plastered over rugby forums

Your standpoint lacks any kind of legitimacy when your main criticism can be solved by simply typing in to google the name of what you think is missing.

It makes you look like you havent bothered with any kind of research when your criticism of Nigel Wood is that he doesnt know the definition of the word strategy considering the first thing Nigel Wood ever did for the RFL was a strategic review in 2001, and all the RFL's published strategic objectives are available on line. Which one was it you were looking for? The 5 year plan started in 2008? The community games strategic plan? The community facilities strategic plan? The Strategic Review he instructed Maurice Watkins to do on SL which was published no more than a few months ago?

What ever happened to the "Multi National Sponser" they had last year??