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 ' ?

I disagree with your premise. I think the Championships are a vibrant competition and they are worth winning in their own right.

How did it go, that 5 year plan? Did they deliver? If so, was it a good plan?

You attend games ?

So ' Vibrant ' the clubs have voted to move their finals to Halifax and Leigh as opposed to higher profile neutral venues ?

Are they any more ' Vibrant and worth winning ' than they were in 2008 ? , when Mr Wood suggested they needed to become so ? , and if they are how ?

So you dont already know? Which would mean that you were simply complaining for the sake of complaining.

What is your objective criteria for vibrancy and how are you measuring the worth of winning?

Have clubs increased attendances and income streams via increased attendances and sponsorship ?

Im not sure that i would agree. But on the point about attendances and sponsorship, im not sure about the sponsorship, from memory it is higher than 2008.

As for attendances, no they arent as high as they were back then, but the vast majority of that drop is down to the fact SL has expanded and the two (by a fair old way) best supported sides have moved up, and 4 less well supported teams have been promoted, which of course would bring down the average.

Which sponsorship do you refer to ? , the Co oP to the makers of ' frosty jack mega strong Cider ' ?

SKY obviously dont agree with you as they dumped the TV coverage during that time , Yes we lost Salford , but i was reffering to the last five years since , and yes Widnes despite their on pitch failure were the best supported club , however they still didn't make up the differences presently being seen

And as I said , Mr wood said he wanted the Championships to BECOME ' Vibrant and worth winning ' , and again I ask , what has he and the RFL actually done to achieve that ?

And again , do you attend Championship matches ?

Would you like to supply some objective criteria that brings you to this conclusion ?

And why you think it has become more so in the last 5 seasons ?

I've already explained why I'm complaining - see comments on their published "strategic aims". If you really want a full deconstruction of the 5 year plan ( a strategic management technique that went out with Stalin by the way) I will do when I have time, but since you never answer a question, perhaps you could take two minutes to outline why their 'strategic aims' are something other than embarrassing, amateurish, lets-preted-we're-real-businessmen waffle.

Good luck getting an answer out of him!

You have been caught out. Give it up, its not going to fool anyone.