I seem to remember the presentation from the RFL convinced clubs that the Stobart deal was the better option, in fact Nigel Wood went to press explaining although it was a different sponsorship deal the league would benefit from it to the tune of £2,000,000 +.
When in actual fact it was a gimmick, worthless and never run its course.

Maybe the clubs no longer trust the RFL in what they do, what they say. One of the gripes of the clubs last week was of the RFL performance on sponsors, which might suggest there might be no sponsor for Superleague 2014.

I would also support that Dee, I have advocated two tens for many years so am comfortable with this variant

People can try to blame the rfl for the stobart deal all they want but it was the sl clubs that voted it through, and, lenaghan is on record somewhere,saying, the stobart deal had increased attendances at sl matches.I found the link to the interview but unfortunately it said it doesn't exist anymore

Quite, those SL chairmen had a choice. They didn't have to take any notice of the views of the departed and discredited Richard Lewis.

[uThe following clubs voted for the zero-income Stobart deal[/u
Wigan
St Helens
Warrington
Huddersfield
Catalan
London
Widnes
Bradford
Wakefield

[uThe following clubs voted for the £750,000 Betfair deal[/u
Leeds
Hull
Hull KR
Salford
Castleford

It makes you wonder what goes on in these meetings, do the clubs vote on things with very little detail are all facts laid on the table.

Press release RFL to Daily Telegraph.
[size=150Stobart's Super League deal was 'too good to turn down', says Rugby Football League chief executive Nigel Wood[/size
The Rugby Football League is today celebrating a three-year sponsorship deal with the Stobart Group it believes could be worth up to £2.5million a year.


So 9 clubs voted for a potential £7.5 million against the meagre offering of £0.75 million...................then we find out all we got was an advert for Sky Sport involving superleague.

I dont understand how sl clubs cant know whats going on,for years everything the rfl has done has been geared to helping the clubs better themselves.So many times iv'e read statements from the rfl saying they will devise policies and then put them to the sl clubs to be given the go ahead or turned down.

Ive never been a lover of the rfl but it seem to me for quite a while now,the rfl have been prepared to take the flack for the failings of sle ltd.Hopefully lenaghan and his revolting followers will be put back in there box after the WC

That's an awful lot of work you've gone to in order to swerve the issue of the chairman of your club (McManus) voting for a zero-income sponsorship deal which has now rendered the Super League product as worthless, whilst laying the blame at the door of the RFL for his original folly.

Does your chairman ever take any responsibility for his crucial mistakes?

I'm not so sure about the 10 team league, it feels too small. If it means that the games are better attended / viewed then it works, otherwise that's two months of games and revenue that have disappeared and a top five playoff becomes devalued in my opinion.

10 teams and an additional cup could work, but then I think that MM should be something better than an extra league game. Sevens tournament or simple mini-league with point difference being the winer would be better than the third game.

I don,t know, I,m getting very suspicious what comes out of Red Hall to the clubs. We had the fiasco of the Rhino ball this season, then we find out it was purely commercial, the clubs and players never tested the ball pre season and where lumbered with it because the RFL were contracted to it.
Like I said earlier maybe the majority of the clubs don,t trust the RFL anymore, personally I think the game needs a complete shake up of "Uncle Mo" proportions.

I cant argue with the rfl going with rhino ball,i cant see there being that much financial difference to what steeden were offering.The same goes for club call,another embarassment on the sport.

I dont think its distrust,its just a case of - its our ball and even though your the governing body we're not going to pass it to you coz you might pop it

If Lenagan has reservations then fine, but he's had plenty of time and opportunity to air those reservations and to ask about the other options.
To suggest its being rushed upon them by the RFL is ridiculous.

The games needs uncle mo.

The initial talk in relation to the three-way 8 thing was a split in the final third of the season. I think some reservations were expressed about the ability to sell season tickets when at some clubs the latter third would be against lower-flight opposition. There was then a watering down, with talk of a three-way 8 thing at the very back end. In a nutshell, no one knew the hell what was going on in this shambles of an attempt to breathe life back into the game following the franchise experiment (as well intended as it was).

So I find it hard to be critical of a club chairman who has applied the brakes to something dreamed up by people who spend their lives in committees and never having to actually running a business.

As much as I despise Wigan's arrogance generally (chill!), it is hard to argue with a club who has done so much for youth development, with so many homegrown Wigan lads. Wigan are the club every other club should aspire to be, as much as I hate saying it.

Sinfield argued that the three-way 8 thing will work when it is explained properly to fans, but isn't the point that it shouldn't have to be "explained" if you ever hope to recruit new followers to the fame? Keep it simple.

So I'm okay with IL on this one, and take power away from lifetime committee men and give it to people who understand marketing,

this, in a nutshell, is it!

I really do worry when people say the 3x8 split is not simple.

It's not even addition, it's counting. My 6 year old can count, so I fear for the nation if so many other people can't.

What people fear is change and change proposed by the RFL as it does not have a great history of change. ie Licencing, stobart deal (which SL clubs do carry some blame for as they voted for it, although the RFL also suggested it was the best deal).

To be fair I get that SL clubs want more money, who would not?????
But to me a reduction to the previous system of 1 up 1 down, with no increased funding, spells a period of stagnation. It will not spread the game and we will then have a period following it off outpost clubs being dropped into SL to try and expand the game with no long term planning.

The 3x8 does allow a bridging of the gap between SL and Tier2. It allows for more FT players and it allows money men to look at the likes of Wrexham and develop it over a few years. Building up to SL. Rather than doing a bit of part time then a sudden shock rush to SL only to find that the jump is too big.

Those proposing SL go it alone, to me sound deluded. It would kill RL in the UK. Short term there would be a little more money for SL clubs. But long term it would kill outside interest in the game as the SL clubs would become isolated and less and less of a relevance to those outside of SL, never mind RL.

Also I would fear a drip drip reduction in fans as they get bored of playing the same teams again and again year after year.

3x8 is not the solution, but the money that goes with it, provides a route that allows clubs to step up to SL rather than yo-yo.

Exactly right.

This is what concerns me most when the RFL try to advise the clubs whats good for the game in the business side of sport when later it all becomes shams and gimmicks. The RFL over the last 5 years remind me of the "financial guy" offering endowment mortgages with PPI insurances.

Lets look at the facts we have:

Reduced real money sponsors.
Reduced media presence
Reduced sport england funding.
Reduced player participtation.
Reduced Sky deal
Reduced marketing of the game.
Reduced officiation standard of match games.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume clubs are responsible for producing the product and the RFL to promote it and market the product as a business sport.
Obviously the clubs do some marketing locally, but when the clubs become victims of scams and gimmicks from the RFL its natural to be suspicious of any future offerings.
We have some very good chairmen in the business sense who have made millions and willing to invest in our sport, surely they are in a better position to judge what has real value and what is a pipe dream.
Nigel Wood historically has very little business prowness having seen Halifax go into debts of almost a £1 million, processed the CVA for the club and jump ship.
Similarly Richard Lewis was more for presentation than a business guru, who after reducing our sponsor value and funding looked for brighter shores and jumped ship.

We are now in the ridiculous situation now where the RFL are saying they are micro managing the clubs and the clubs now want to manage the RFL.
I,m not really confident that the RFL has the dynamics to rescue our sport, so whats the choice more influence from the clubs business people or the shambolic apathy of the RFL.

Yeah, let's ignore the highly successful businessman who owns one of the biggest clubs in the game and has transformed it since he took over. Let's all listen to the advice of the Doncaster CEO, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Is the media presence reduced from 5 years ago? Not sure how quantifiable that is but I don't remember bags of media publicity in 2008.
The Sport England funding was reduced recently by £10m. More due to a large increase in the target for increase participation than anything. Plus the participation figures only include over 16's. In 2008 it was increased by £11m.
The Sky deal has increased. It was £12.6m a year from 2004-2008. £16.7m a year from 2009-2011. And £18m a year from 2012-2016.
Has the marketing reduced? Like the media presence, I don't remember loads of marketing 5 years ago.

Judder any evidence for your claims re media, playing numbers, real money sponsors and marketing? Haven't the rfl financially increased revenue and profitably over last few years? www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... r-row.html www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18895913

Judder any evidence for your claims re media, playing numbers, real money sponsors and marketing? Haven't the rfl financially increased revenue and profitably over last few years? www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... r-row.html www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18895913

Quote ="JB Down Under"Judder any evidence for your claims re media, playing numbers, real money sponsors and marketing? Haven't the rfl financially increased revenue and profitably over last few years? www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... r-row.html www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18895913'" From the daily mail article Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief executive, said: 'This was even more gratifying given that we did not host an international tournament in 2010, as this normally provides a considerable element of the organisation's activities.' To develop the game as a whole we MUST have a regular international schedule.

Quote ="JB Down Under"Judder any evidence for your claims re media, playing numbers, real money sponsors and marketing? Haven't the rfl financially increased revenue and profitably over last few years? www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... r-row.html www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18895913'" From the daily mail article Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief executive, said: 'This was even more gratifying given that we did not host an international tournament in 2010, as this normally provides a considerable element of the organisation's activities.' To develop the game as a whole we MUST have a regular international schedule.

We had an international tournament in 2010, it just wasn't hosted in England!

It says we did not HOST one which implies hosting one is far more profitable than playing in one hosted elsewhere.

You can't host one if it is being run in another country! That's not the rfl's fault it is called sharing around the int comp. Your comment was we need a regular int schedule, we've got one!