Does anybody think the RFL does a good job? In any aspect of the game, such as:-

- PR and publicity
- Disciplinary
- The International game
- Super League playoff format
- Marketing (ticket sales)
- Marketing (image of the game)
- TV rights and coverage
- Financing and salary cap
- Anything else, anything at all...?

I think we are run by narrow minded buffoons!!

They rarely promote the big games and leave it to individual clubs and the whole format of the playoffs appears to be all about making money.

The disciplinary panel is so inconsistent it's frightening!

I have little faith in anything they do.

- PR and publicity
Shocking. If the RFL have a marketing department, or employ an outside body to hand this, they should be fired immediately, because what they do is clearly not working. I don't buy all this 'because we're Northern' stuff. Journos are generally lazy, and will only print stuff that is sent to them. The RFL need to take the lead on this, just like any business has to take responsibilty for their own public awareness.

- Disciplinary
The introduction of 'punishment bands' linked to the perceived severity of offences has not stopped the RFL dishing out punishments that are inconsistent to say the least. Rather than introducing legislation, it has to be firstly found out why the inconsistencies are taking place, before remedies are proposed. I don't normally criticise Stuart Cummings, because I think his job is difficult in terms of it being hard to please everyone, but he does need to open his eyes and ears on this one.

- The International game
As good as it can be right now, in my opinion, but there is a lot of room for improvement. To build the international game, the game has to be, firstly, played in other countries, but also incentives need to be given in order to be able to cherry pick players from RL development countries to train with professional teams over here and in Australia. As for France and Wales, more teams need to be in the English competitions for the next ten years, nurtured and effectively marketed, particularly to kids, so that they grow up with the game. Once they take off, we can then look to return these teams to their own country to spearhead a new domestic league, upon which a new 10 year development cycle begins. The RFL seem to be looking for too many quick fixes right now, which won't work.

Again, though, the marketing for this year's four nations is non-existent. The RFL keeps marketing to fans of the game, which is wasted money. In 1990, they put posters all over the London Underground, and the game it advertised - GB v Australia - got a massive crowd including a lot of locals. Why is this not being done? It's can't be because of money - didn't the RFL make several million last year?

- Super League playoff format
Top six worked fine. I can't agree with the idea of a team that finishes in the bottom half of the table has a technical chance of winning the grand final.

- Marketing (ticket sales)
Nothing that's not been said before. The game needs to be affordable, and tickets need to be given out to kids, companies (to take employees - like Wigan did at the Crusaders game) and celebrities. Yes celebs. If celebs are pictured at RL games, and are quoted talking about the game, this will create column inches in the press.

- Marketing (image of the game)
Drop the name Rugby League, and use the term RFL instead. This distances us from RU, who have now monopolised the word 'Rugby'. personally, I'd say let them have it, and we can develop on our own as a separate distinct sport. Too many people dismiss 'rugby' as being boring, and its the same people who probably couldn't tell the two codes apart. The image we have of flat capped northerners doesn't exist any more - I do think people do recognise RL as being an fast, tough game played by some of the world's best athletes. This needs to be pushed more, however, and comparisons with RU need to be kept to a minimum.

- TV rights and coverage
Personally, I'd sooner see less money coming in from the TV if it means that we get onto terrestrial, even if it's channels four or five. In any case, terrestrial TV exposure should translate into bigger audiences, which should attract more sponsors.

- Financing and salary cap
Salary cap needs to be raised. It's simply not right that players who have a very short, 15 (at most) year career, putting their bodies on the line week in, week out, earn so little. That said, you can only spend what you have access to - we don't have multi-millionaire Arabs or Oil Tycoons, which is why we need to get marketing and sponsorship right FIRST, before we can even look at the salary cap.

- Anything else, anything at all...?
Yes. Sponsorship. Why do we chase money all the time? WHy not simply chase exposure. "Mr Cadbury, rather than giving us £X to sponsor the Challenge Cup, why don't you put the event on all your chocolate bars?" Why stick with a single sponsor? Why can't we call the event "RFL Challenge Cup" and have an official car, official restaurant, official bank etc, all of who get a massive amount of exposure from the event, in part created by the massive exposure their OWN marketing can create for us?

I think the only way this is going to change is for we the fans to voice our discontent with the way the game is run in this country.

The points that the OP has raised are all ones which we know could be done a million times better given the right people (with the possible exception of Sky, who imo promote us as much as they are allowed to).

Pretty much spot on that.

My only problem with Sky is that the deal with the RFL is self-serving, and they only promote what is relevant to them. They're not interested in RL, they're interested in getting people to subscribe to Sky Sports, and the only way people will subscribe to Sky Sports is if they limit exposure of the game through other channels.

We've already seen all the other competitions scrapped, except the Challenge Cup (there'd be uproar if they did that) but even that is dying a slow and painful death due to Sky at best deriding it, and at worst ignoring it. I think low attendances are a symptom of Sky's emphasis on Super League, as opposed to public apathy.

This is a great point, things like UFC do this a lot, and they are huge brands.

They have things like "such and such a body, the official sports drink partner of UFC" in between replays and stuff.

The amount of people you could have through this sponsoship is huge.

Still have a main sponsor of the league, then have "Vodafone- The official mobile partner of Super League" for say the pre match stats (Phil Clarke's bit), "Powerade - The official sports drink partner" for replays and "Adidas - the official sports wear partner" for full and half time analysis

You could even offer discount rates to such big companies, just to get their name asssociated with the game

This thread would have been good for VT

Mostly agree, though I don't agree that we can wait for sponsorship before we look at the cap. I've done it to death already, but we have a shortcut to attracting sponsors - nicking Union stars (even has-beens), meaning we cash in on their profile, which RU fans have spent 10 years paying for This probably needs the cap to be extended for clubs which can afford it....but here's my point: this type of move (e.g. getting Johnny Wilkinson ) could be funded directly, in whole or part, by a sponsor, but it can't happen without reviewing the cap. Even though it poses no financial risk to the club.

In general though, yes, they're hopeless muppets. Wood's statement on the RFL site is a disgrace to anyone who claims to be a senior executive. Awful, embarrassing, lazy tripe. If I were wondering about major sponsorship and trying to see if my money was going to be used well by the RFL, I'd run a mile if I read that. The only 'vision' is to be recognised as a leading sporting body. That's nice for them. Maybe they'll get a 'leading sporting body' sticker if they 'succeed'. Of course they'll 'succeed' - if you don't set any measurable target, then you can't actually 'fail'. The whole exercise is about keeping the incompetent in jobs.

Do you have a link to this? I've seen you mention thsi a couple of times recently.

Quote: MattyB "Do you have a link to this? I've seen you mention thsi a couple of times recently.'" Think he's referring to this www.therfl.co.uk/about_the_rfl/ceo_statement Summary at the bottom of the page,

Quote: MattyB "Do you have a link to this? I've seen you mention thsi a couple of times recently.'" Think he's referring to this www.therfl.co.uk/about_the_rfl/ceo_statement Summary at the bottom of the page,

Im feeling really wierd saying this Neil but your absolutely spot on.

For a prime example of the idiots running our game look no further than the England Knights V France game this weekend at Leigh.
ITS VIRTUALLY A SECRET

Now lets think about it...
Someone has set the game up and had to decide how to promote it.
Did anyone see any promotion for it?
Either this was not put in place - or whoever was given the job is not up to it.
Whichever, someone needs a taxi.

All that said why price a game like this at £3 ???
Is there anyone who is going who wouldn't go if it were a fiver???
IMO a cheap deal on a game is a tenner and say £3 for kids, but regardless there is money being thrown away even from the numbers that have managed to find out about the fixture.

A couple of weeks ago I spoke to someone at the RFL about the full England international taking place in france... THEY didn't know the game was taking place!!!