At £ 200 K + per year plus expenses , I'd have a go

Anyway , maybe you can tell me what Mr Wood and the RFL have done to make the Championships more ' Vibrant and worth winning in their own right ' ?

Nobody else seems to want to

They've done nothing and i think it quite telling that the usual blinkered ones are keeping well away from this one.

Which is roughly half the salary of his opposite number at the RFU, alongside an Executive Board on similar wages.

Maybe we should be paying more and getting better candidates alongside better support?

Whether we should be paying more is open to debate but, surely you are not saying that the RL position carries the same weight and responsibility as the head poncho in the RFU ?

Its a reasonably well paid job , that isn't the issue , but when he makes an announcement , he should at least be able to back it up to a small degree

Without reinstating P&R, what can the RFL do to make the Championship more vibrant and worth winning in their own right? Because let's face it, that's all it boils down to when these questions get thrown about.

They've increased the size of the season by adding more teams (which was wanted). Isn't there a big pot for the winners still? Realistically, what else can they do?

So your opinion is that without P and R the Championships are essentially never going to be any more worthwhile ?

The season has increased by 1 game

A ' big pot ' ?

Dual Registration allowing younger players to improve by playing against higher quality opposition. Thus, improving the conveyor belt of talent, thus improving the British game.

Tetleys and Heinz both brought in as sponsors...two international brands.

Disciplinary is subjective, and many facets taken into account - not everyone is going to be pleased with outcomes of judiciary. While not perfect, is not a cause for concerns.

Licences where awarded to under funded clubs - this is a mistake the RFL need to look into for future reference, making sure their criteria are met, and a proper business plan is put into place before awarding a license.

RFL had nothing to do with the Bulls Financial difficulty.

RFL have nothing to do with Sport England grants.

Only really in one area have the RFL made a real mistake, from what you mentioned.

They're not perfect, and will make mistakes.

"RFL have nothing to do with Sport England Grants".

Technically they do. Aren't Sport England grants determined on the number of people stating they play the sport regularly? It's the RFL's job to help develop all aspects of the game from grassroots upwards.

However, positive aspects are:

- The RFL's stringent drug-testing policy
- The RFL's determination to ensure there's a strong-level of equality within the sport with a female official and also being involved in Stonewall.
- The RFL's innovative attitude and willingness to look at ways of utilising technology within the game
- State of Mind campaign

That's my contribution to the Pros list.

£200k might not be enough for the perfect candidate, but it sure is enough to get better than Nigel Wood.

At the same time, creating a shed load of office space at Red hall to have some think tanks installed to move this damned game forward, Not backwards.

These are all good things, and would be great if they were layered on top of specific strategic goals. Until we have evidence of an actual strategy these things are just nice-to-have badge-collecting. Once there's evidence of strategy I'll gladly praise tactics that look smart.

For the second time

Smokey , just because they like and use the word ' Strategic ' in everything they tell you they do , doesn't mean they have a ' Strategy ' to help the growth of individual and all parts of RL

Evidence , is what has been requested , not just important sounding words

Just out of interest , when the word ' strategic ' is used before everything , what exactly does it mean ? , and I want a real simple easy to understand explanation , not more ' office ' speak

The only thing they can do is make the pot really big. Big enough to change the set up of a club so that victory in a Grand Final in the Championship can do a hell of a lot for a clubs application to Super League.

Yes, I read it. That's how I know he has no clue about what strategy is. Had they published NOTHING, I'd at least be able to kid myself that they just had communication issues.

It might be worth realising, that just because they've been nominated it doesn't automatically mean everything they're doing is spot on and correct, but they've seen less in other sports governing bodies to give them nominations ahead of us. When you consider that one of the criteria is ethics it's perhaps quite easy to see why we are in ahead of football.

How about the one where Mr Wood aims to make the Championship " Vibrant and worth winning in their own right "

That published ' strategy ' ?

Strategic means pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of strategy:

Strategy means a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.

So a strategic document would generally be an outline of the RFL's goals and the means, method, plan, manouvers or strategems they will use to get there

A strategic review is a review of the means, method, plan, manouvers or strategems and how they performed in reaching the RFL's goals.

It is literally impossible for anyone to provide evidence which could possibly prove the existence of the RFL's strategy more than the fact that their strategic documents and strategic reviews are available on line.

From their website:

"And finally, the four strategic aims of the RFL are:

a) To create the best elite level Rugby League competition(s) in the world

b) To create the best, viable and competitive semi-professional competition possible

c) To maximise the numbers engaged in our sport and the enjoyment derived from participation in Rugby League

d) To be successful internationally on a sustainable basis at all levels"

Not a single one of these has a definition that can be pinned down to anything meaningful. How would we know when these strategic aims have been met?

Ridiculous stuff that would embarrass a first year Business Studies student.

Let's analyse:

(a). The least bad I suppose in terms of having some sort of 'meaning', because at least I guess we'd kind of 'know-it-when-we-see-it' if we actually were the best competition in the world. However, this one falls over on REALISM. Is it really a strategic aim to be better than the NRL? The get-out here of course is that they can change the meaning of 'best' to be whatever they like. Which of course makes the whole exercise worthless.

(b). 'best'. Meaningless again. Everyone wants the 'best possible' - that's not a strategic aim, it's just a platitude. No matter what you do, you can just turn round at the end and claim "it was the best [ipossible[/i". Total c**p. 'viable'. Huh? Who would try to create something that wasn't? Meaningless.

(c). Maximize the numbers. Right. So every able-bodied person in the UK playing, right? What? You didn't mean it like that? So... WHAT DID YOU MEAN? Define 'maximise', otherwise its just another meaningless word that sounds nice when you read it out.

(d). 'Successful'. Define it please. 'Sustainable'. No idea what you're talking about, but its a nice word.

Total mindless, thoughtless, waffle. The best case scenario is that they know its total garbage but put this out to 'look good'. Well it doesn't. It looks like what it is. Mindless, thoughtless, waffle.

Sadly, I suspect they actually think those really are 'strategic aims'.

So which document do you have a problem with? The one he wrote in 2001 which began year on year on year growth in pretty much all aspects of the game, taking a governing body which was very nearly bust after the 2000 WC to one which produces regular surpluses despite handing out more funding than ever before to all constituent parts of the game? The one he ordered top lawyer and member of the RFL board and board of the largest sports club in the entire world Maurice Watkins to write? What are your specific issues with the 2008-2013 5 year strategic plan? Whats your beef with the Community Facilities strategy?

Those are the buggers , do they actually state what they intend to do and how they will achieve it ?

in what way aren’t they vibrant competitions worth winning in their own right?

Ask google.

Perhaps when attendances are dipping below 1,000 and clubs are selling their souls to avoid relegation to an amatuer league of death ?

It was Mr Wood that suggested they weren't back in 2008 , and that it was his intention to make them so , so please tell me what he and the RFL have done to achieve this ' Nirvana ' ?