So of the 7 clubs not potentially involved in a breakaway, London, Bradford, Castleford and Wakefield are financially insecure. Catalans probably have significant investment from french sponsors. Salford might jump onto the gravy train when the Doctor judges when the timing is right. That leaves Leeds up against some heavyweight, interesting developments to come to be sure.

Genuinely shocked by that.

That is entirely the point. How on earth can the RFL claim micro-managing clubs has prevented them from addressing the commercial issues the game faces while at the same time this mirco-management has clearly failed several clubs?

The bottom line is they failed to administer licensing properly and that has nothing to do with their failure on the commercial front.

Trying to link the two is pathetic IMO. It's just an excuse to deflect the criticism they can see coming.

Isn't Nigel Wood working for/at Salford in some capacity as well as at the RFL?

I was wondering why the outspoken critic of the RFL, the good Doctor, wasn't part of those in this group but that could explain it.

Wasn't it the clubs themselves who voted against the cold, hard cash from Betfair in favour of the trucks of Stobart?

(Clubs who perhaps were talking about morals or really just wanted to protect their own deals with bookies.)

If some clubs break away from the RFL at least we'll be without the joke disciplinary and the eveb worse refereeing....
The RFL have shown time & time again they are not fit for purpose, the sport could/should be so much more and the old farts in charge really haven't got a clue..
The sport is infested with maggots eating at rotten flesh

not all clubs voted! Pearson at hull fc was dead against the stobart deal! it was pushed through by O'Connor at widnes,(who ironically were sponsored by stobart too!) at the time persuading the rfl that it would be the better deal, when in fact it was the worst sponsorship deal the game has ever known!

not really, it was an oppertunity for a lot of cross promotional work with an internationally reconised brand which was brought about because the RFL had failed to organise anything themselves,

unfortunately the clubs failed to act on this and many wanted a small cash injection upfront rather than going for potentially greater long term gains.

much the same way as licencing, the clubs who embraced the system have generally done ok, its clubs who basically produced a licence document then pretty much ignored it after they was accepted who have shown no signs of growth in the last 6 years

A month or so ago I was at a Founder members meeting at Saints, in which senior members of the club were present.

I cant remember the specifics but there was agreement about the new league system, Saints apparently see it as a way of increasing revenue streams.

They were however not so happy about the games ability to generate revenue.
They used the example of the Rhino Rugby ball contract. They felt this summed things up.
The RFL went into this agreement to generate revenue. However the amount of sponsorship is apparently pitiful, less than £20k, and in terms of what it meant to each club, I think they only benefited by a few hundred quid over the Steeden contract.
They then pointed out that because the Steeden ball is being used in the world cup, the English players will be at a disadvantage in kicking and passing the ball, which means it will be harder for England to compete. That could then cost the game millions in lost gate and commercial income.

Personally think that the clubs are to blame to some extent. Each has their own agenda and are trying to push things in directions that naturally benefits them. The big clubs west of the Pennines I see as wanting the grow the game. Wire, Saints, Wigan and Salford are all backed by big money men with ambitions. They have money and they would like to spend it.
The Yorkshire clubs I feel are quite happy to be small time professional yorkshiremen.
Leeds seem to prefer the status quo as it protects them as the games biggest club. The last thing they want is for the likes of Hull or Wakefield to be run in a dynamic forward thinking way, by money men. Best to let clubs be run by individuals with little money and therefore power, who wont be able to challenge their Yorkshire hegemony.

I think it is indicative of how poor the RFL is that it proposed to vote on a league restructure just two weeks before a world cup took place. How utterly clueless. Apparently it would appear the EGM has now been postponed but unless it is going to be postponed until after the world cup the bickering and willy waving will threaten to undermine what has the potential to be an extremely successful world cup competition.

However, what I would hate to see is an oligarchy of rich and self-interested chairman in charge. Didn't the sport have a similar group in charge before Richard the Tennis Player was appointed (and duly calmed the seething waters)? Does the sport really want to return to that kind of chaos?

There is a glorious opportunity to both market the game and attract commercial revenue just along the pathway and all the egos come out to spoil the party. Pathetic.

The time for talking was last year. However, in the absence of sensible forward planning, all the arguments should wait until the world cup is over.

there wasn't any greater long term gains though were they? if not the sport has come out worse! an opportunity that was ill conceived and badly thought out, when clubs wanted or needed the money from a proper sponsorship it was too late as they seemed badly advised by some, hence the contract with stobart being cancelled! its ok taking the moral high ground when offered sponsorship by betfair but atleast it was a cash offer! now the sport struggles to attract a main sponsor as they want it for peanuts, the blame in my eyes lays at the door of the those who pushed the stobart deal through!

And what did "Richard the Tennis Player" achieve commercially? Naff all as far as I can see.

As to a load of "self-interested chairman in charge" who is the alternative between them and the RFL because if you think a bunch of self-interested chairman isn't the answer, neither is leaving things as they are with the RFL running it.

I am not saying either is the right idea by the way, I am asking the question.



Do you actually think an organisation who makes the excuse they were too busy with licensing to address the commercial issues the game faces is going to be able to exploit the glorious opportunity you mention?

They have zero credibility in that dept.



Well if the RFL want to lay down any new rules now at this point in time they obviously can't.

Meeting looks to have been postponed. Seriously, this is a massive decision that should have been decided months ago! Two weeks before the WC bad enough, but now it's going to be delayed even longer. When will they tell everyone whats happening? At the beginning of next season. The whole thing is a shambles.

The RFL don't have a clue, but why have the SL clubs decided now to challenge the RFL. Surely when we started hearing the barmy idea of a split they SL clubs should have challenged them.

This will be doing wonders to attract new sponsors!

It's the similarly named Niel Wood who is at Salford, on a secondment from the RFL.

If the clubs felt so strongly about this, why have they not acted sooner? They leave it a few days before the EGM to publicise their vote of no confidence?

I understand the need for this, but the timing is farcical especially with a World Cup just around the corner