My only gripe and i guess it's not just his role alone is the Crusaders fiasco then failing to give Wakey the same support in terms of "not ring-fencing their squad when the Giants picked it off".
I also don't think as an organisation they have the nadgers to hit cheats hard ala Gallop in the NRL and it happened on his watch i.e the SC breaches.
the Stobart deal was/is confusing and i still disagree with the "tragic weekend" ,CC moving to August and the hiring of one of the worst and most inconsistant officials to over-see that side of the game.
I would also mlike a complete over-haul of the disciplinary system where the punishments fit the crime but i don't think the last 2 points are solely down to Lewis.

Didn't realise he'd been at Wigan so long.

It's correct to say that Lewis is now the Chairman of the RFL but my recollection is that he was originally appointed as CEO.
When he was appointed the Chair of Sport England (part-time) 3 years ago I think he then became Chairman & Nigel Wood was appointed CEO.
I wonder if Sir Clive Woodward fancies the job?



I'm not well enough connected to know if there are any strong candiates within the RL world but with all the parochialism & self-interest I think another external appointment might well be the best for our game.

Just out of interest, did he appoint McNamara? That's a black mark against him.

Nobody will believe me because I still hardly believe it...

BUT...

About couple of years ago I spotted him kitted out in requisite gear jogging around the lake at Roundhay Park!

I agree with G1 - be very very careful wishing for a change. Lewis has overseen a very difficult period for RL in England. There have been mistakes, but financially things are miles better than when he took over. Ian Laybourn's column on sporting-life is a pretty good summary of his record.

I'd like to know how much of the RFL's financial improvement during Lewis's tenure is down to insisting on playing sundry international fixtures almost exclusively on home territory? It's not as if the national side have toured down under that often. In fact they are reluctant to do so without financial guarantees, hence why they turned down the opportunity to face the Kiwis in a test series in NZ at the end of this season and then p[ii[/issed and moaned (Nigel Wood did anyway) because the Aussies and Kiwis wouldn't come to the UK in 2012. Of course it doesn't help that the national side aren't a huge draw card down under due to their lack of competitiveness on the international stage, hence the financial implications of touring.

A big thank you to Australia and NZ is perhaps in order for their willingness to bail out the RFL by touring here so frequently over the past decade and throughout the SL era?

So Lewis has been eminently sensible, given those constraints?

In terms of short-term profitability, yes... in terms of international profile and longer-term credibility, no. The policy relies upon the ongoing goodwill of others (Aus & NZ) constantly making tours to the UK but that can change and has done so in 2012. We are now left with a bare international cupboard this year unless you count a 2-match series against Exilia? There will be no home series in 2014 either.

It is to be hoped the World Cup in 2013 is a success because if it isn't and loses money, the RFL may well struggle to balance their own books again. My gut feeling is that Lewis has gone at exactly the right time, and before the next failing SL franchise club announces it's going bust.

Lewis has been good for RL - he gave it some credibility to the outside world. My concern would now - without Lewis the RFL looks like its top positions are filled with failures - CEO Nigel Wood saw Halifax into near collapse and Ralf Rimmer hardly pulled up any trees at Huddersfield. Cummins has overseen a deterioration in standards etc.

Hopefully a new chairman can improve the quality at the top - somehow I think we will continue with a job for the boys with Kath Hetherington being the next boy in.

Can anyone see Gary Hetherington fancying this job? He has a great grounding in the game, can boast of running a successful business and franchise and has been a driving force behind things such as the salary cap.

WOuld he want it?

Would he get it?

How do you think he'd get on?

Could Kath replace him at Leeds? Ok now I'm being silly!

I was thinking the same actually!

Australia and NZ have been happy to go to the UK precisely because its the only place you can regularly make money from internationals. They've hardly 'bailed out' England. Internationals in England have a track record of making money since the World Cup debacle - Aus/NZ won't need any financial guarantees to visit for the Tri Nations. In contrast NZ asking England to tour is largely 'on spec' - pay all your costs and hope that there may be some money made from the visit that you get.

If anyone has devalued internationals its Australia with their insistence on the primacy of Origin (with its nonsensical and ridiculously flexible eligibility 'rules' - the only really rigid criteria being eligibility to play for Australia) and other things like insistence on Australian NRL refs in as many games as possible.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2427790/RFL-look-ahead-after-clearing-2m-debt.htmlThe RFL's near £2 million debt accumulated as a result of the disastrous 2000 World Cup was wiped out due to subsequent Aus and NZ tours to the UK[/url. The Aussies toured in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005... the Kiwis toured in 2002, 2004, 2005. Not only did those tours bail out the RFL, they laid down the foundations for future profitability.


It's rather difficult to market England tours down under due to the uncompetitive nature of the results and performances of our lads there during the SL-era. Still, you can always blame some thing or someone else for our unwillingness to undergo an international tour this year if that makes you feel more comfortable. Just file it in the "too hard basket" instead just like the RFL do on a regular basis.


Therefore the RFL's response is to devalue internationals even further with their Exiles concept and laughingly call it an international event. That way they can guarantee yet another home series. They may even subsequently select a few Exiles for England in the process using the very same flexible eligibility rules! Thanks for pointing all that out BTW rather than leaving it up to me to do so in the interests of a balanced debate




Which goes hand in hand with England's insistence on SL refs in as many games as possible, yes? But don't let your agenda get in the way of facts whatever you do.

Well its never stopped you before Keith.

FAIL.

But I'll still add you to my lengthy list of obsessive admirers along with the sundry incarnations of Loiner James.

Course, since 2008 there have been four major international competitions in rugby league.

Two of those have taken place in the northern hemisphere, two have taken place in the southern hemisphere.

Not exactly indicative of an unwillingness on the RFL's part to take international games overseas.

See - I can take a short period of time and make it suit a particular point too.

I can't find a link but I recall the IRLB or whatever it's called sharing the concerns Re: the financial situation of the RFL and international RL in general after the 2000 World Cup. There was definitely a commitment on the part of the ARL members to undergo several tours to the UK in order to help out.

What cannot be disputed is that several tours took place between 2001 and 2005 which were exclusively played in the UK to the benefit of the RFL and those tours financially bailed them out. Our contribution to playing international RL overseas was a one-off test match in Sydney in 2002. That's one appearance in 6 years!

I personally think it's a shame the RFL aren't prepared to send the national side out to tour NZ (the last tour there was in 1996 FFS) and a test against Fiji or PNG at the end of this season without the financial guarantees of making a short-term profit out of it. And then they had the audacity to blame Australia for the lack of an international program in the UK in 2012. Sometimes you have to take an initial loss on the chin for the greater and long-term good of the international game. Or perhaps it's far better to waste money on a failing SL franchise system instead?

How committed in the long term are the RFL/ARL/NZRL to the Tri/Four Nations concept?

Assuming a World Cup every four/five years and at least one tournament per hemisphere between World Cups, how much scope does that leave for flying half way around the world in order to play just three or four games - given that the traditional "tour" has died a death?

That remains to be seen. A 4N tournament is planned for 2013 and 2014 but neither have been officially rubber-stamped yet.


Was there no scope for a tour in 2012 then? And what's the number of games got to do with it? The RFL wanted a meaningful international series this year in preparation for the World Cup but clearly they only want it on their terms... to be played in the UK.

It's been that long between drinks that it's 20 years since we last beat the Kiwis in NZ! Nine former Leeds players played in that test match. No prizes for naming all nine.