My understanding of the Leeds 'loans', is that the players involved had actually transferred to Fev and Hunslet, and officially were nothing to do with Leeds. If they were just on loan, then actually I reverse my position and think £2k is a tad harsh - though iirc it is technically against the rules, I reckon a lot of similar things go on.

I agree that the RFL isn't strong, but I don't think it is in the sense of lacking character. They just don't have very much power. They don't seem to realise it though and are forever overreaching. People expect too much of them, but they raise those expectations with bold plans and endless tinkering.

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"My understanding of the Leeds 'loans', is that the players involved had actually transferred to Fev and Hunslet, and officially were nothing to do with Leeds. If they were just on loan, then actually I reverse my position and think £2k is a tad harsh - though iirc it is technically against the rules, I reckon a lot of similar things go on. I agree that the RFL isn't strong, but I don't think it is in the sense of lacking character. They just don't have very much power. They don't seem to realise it though and are forever overreaching. People expect too much of them, but they raise those expectations with bold plans and endless tinkering.'" www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... ned-by-rfl No you are correct. The players were transferred to Fev and Hunslet on one year deals and yet still regularly trained with and had medical assistance from the Leeds club despite, allegedly, having no 'official' affiliation with the club at that time. Was fairly obvious what was going on so I think a £2000 fine was perfectly fine, even lenient.

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"My understanding of the Leeds 'loans', is that the players involved had actually transferred to Fev and Hunslet, and officially were nothing to do with Leeds. If they were just on loan, then actually I reverse my position and think £2k is a tad harsh - though iirc it is technically against the rules, I reckon a lot of similar things go on. I agree that the RFL isn't strong, but I don't think it is in the sense of lacking character. They just don't have very much power. They don't seem to realise it though and are forever overreaching. People expect too much of them, but they raise those expectations with bold plans and endless tinkering.'" www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... ned-by-rfl No you are correct. The players were transferred to Fev and Hunslet on one year deals and yet still regularly trained with and had medical assistance from the Leeds club despite, allegedly, having no 'official' affiliation with the club at that time. Was fairly obvious what was going on so I think a £2000 fine was perfectly fine, even lenient.

So what was the "big story"? Or have I missed it buried within these 9 pages?

Regards

King James

they werent on loan, they did transfer with an agreement that if leeds wanted them back they could have them. None of that is illegal (and there isnt much benefit to doing it that way) The only issue was with them training at leeds facilities. Which is a pretty pointless thing to have a problem with. Its all a nonsense

I disagree completely. The one thing Nigel Wood has achieved well in his time, is somehow convincing people he isnt responsible for whats going on. The RFL do have power and they are the games leaders. They have to be able to lead. They are unfortunately, far too easily led.

There is very little strength from the RFL because they dont really have a vision. They dont know what RL is, what it can be, or even what they want it to be.

Its become somewhat de rigueur to portray the RFL as some powerless bunch of mandarins charged with some sisyphean task but that just isnt true. Nigel Woods job is no different to any other CEO in the world. He has to come up with a vision, execute it, and convince everyone else to come along with him. Something he is failing to do hugely. We can pay pay someone 30k a year and have them be an administrator telling the referees where to go and putting the fixtures together. We dont need a CEO if they cannot lead. We definitely dont need one who can't even ensure the rules are joined up, make sense and can actually be enforced.

it isn't a burning at the stake offence from Leeds, but if that is the punishment (half suspended, I've just seen), why even have the rule? Leeds would be happy to pay that every year to expand their farm system, I'm sure. And that's my point about over-regulation and under enforcement. They put rules in place and when they're broken do next to nothing. So nobody takes it very seriously and we get cynical.

One of my pet theories is that some clubs carousel registrations of fed-trained players to minimise their live cap liability. I don't know whether they really do, but one objection was that de-registered players wouldn't be able to train with the rest of the squad, because of this same rule. My response was basically that it is only a RFL rule and everybody knows they're often not enforced - and tbh, that's quite sad, that I honestly see many of the RFL rules as barely relevant to discussion of real world RL practice.

And the danger is that you get cheat inflation - if they get away with that, why shouldn't we do this? The line should be clearly defined.

On the RFL, you want leadership and they seem keen to deliver it. But IMO they're only empowered to administer and mediate. They're the piper, but (in different ways) it is the club chairmen and Sky who pay to call the tune. Not all CEO roles are created equal.

Let clubs spend half their income on wages. The more they make the more they can spend

If a rich owner wants to pump his own money into a club then he can only use half of the total income. No money from any source that can be traced back to the owner can be used or 'donations' from friends or family

Raise the cap to £2.5m and keep the marquee player allowance. If an owner wants to speculate and invest new money in his/her team then it should be a donation in the name of the individual(s) and not in the form of a loan liability to the club. Put an end to these widespread directors loans that just end up the long grass and discourage new investors wanting to buy a club and taking on the historical debts. Penalise all clubs with directors loans by reducing their cap allowance by £X for every £100K of loans. If an owner(s) then wants to spend more against the cap they will have to write-off some or all of their loans to the club. We have to find a better solution for protecting the future financial risks to clubs and to encourage more new benefactors into the sport.

Seriously who in the right mind would want to takeover a rugby league club with historical debts, little or no assets, and are non-profitable? This is before you’ve even thought about investing more finances improving the team with no guarantee of increasing income.

That’s an interesting stat. I hadn’t realised that. I guess there are similarities but with Leeds they have built success mainly on developing their own players and never spent as much as Wigan were. Leeds didn’t plunder other clubs of their players as much as Wigan did.

At least under the cap clubs can’t just go out and pay big wages to attract the best – they are forced to develop their own.

I suspect though that the well off clubs will be most successful regardless of whether there’s a cap or not.

Leeds appear to be a very well run club that have always had a good fanbase and the appeal of attracting top quality kids. Very similar to Saints and Wigan, all three have been consistently streets ahead of the rest over the decades.

Are you saying Koukash isnt in his right mind?



Director loans, when handled properly, can be a powerful tool, and can create benefits for both the clubs and the owners. The problem is recognising when a directors loan is a good one, or one just to lumber the club long term (something most Saints fans know). Without directors loans Langtree Park would never have been built.

I'm not against a salary cap rise, in real terms the cap has shrunk 500k in 10 years, but I think there would be more effective methods right now, as all such a big jump will do is mean the same players can demand more.

All three are very active in the schools and junior clubs as well. Something other teams need to take on board.

Yeah that was Marwans version of events via Twitter, not that hes ever got anything wrong before...

For what its worth, MK isnt numb and runs several successful businesses. Therefore when he fell out with TP and it was heading for a tribunal ask yourself how did he ever think the RFL and the RL world would never find out about his additional consultancy work? Just a thought maybe he new it would get found, then ask yourself why would he want people to find out because surely there would be some punishment for little old Salford?

Then finally just maybe other organisations do a similar consultancy arrangements with certain players and MK knows this and will expose it if the RFL fine his club. Alternatively of course the lot gets swept under the carpet and MK gets what he always wanted... no more salary cap, which as discussed previously i think would be great for the game!!

All the above totally made up and a complete guess.....