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.

This is just a ridiculous circular argument. You are asking me to prove to you something has happened without defining what that something is.

It would be utterly pointless. If you are asking me if I think the RFL has done a ‘good’ job in regards to the championship then no, I don’t. I don’t think they have done a bad job, just not great.

Indeed, I’m sure they are most upset by their absence. I’m sure they’d give up their national (worldwide) exposure, sound international planning and expansive sponsorship partnerships just so they can be nominated for a throwaway, irrelevant award such as sports governing body of the year. 

The lack of a main sponsor is a basic the RFL needed to achieve, if they struggled to find a company who would pay what they wanted then should have looked for a charity to become title sponsor and gained all he plaudits that would’ve come their way from that.

Wow, you should enter debating contests, you're brilliant.

Why not go for the full slam-dunk victory and tell everyone what was wrong with my comments on their 'strategic aims'? Your fans will love you for it.

Do you work at the RFL by the way? You seem to have great regard for Nigel.

Egg-bleedin-zactly.

As the game declines under the 'leadership' of these absolute chancers, I'm not sure I'd take much comfort from looking at Nigel's awards. Perhaps he can sew them on to his swimming trunks.

Tesco PLC’s strategic aims are:

To Grow UK Core
To Be an outstanding international retailer on-line and in stores
To be as strong in everything we sell as we are in food
To grow retail services in all our markets
To put our responsibilities to the communities we serve at the heart of what we do
To be a creator of Highly Valued brands
To build our team so we create more value.

Your comments on the strategic aims were ignored because I didn’t want embarrass you by pointing out just quite how fundamental your misunderstanding of what a strategic aim is, was. I think you have taken the SMART objectives part of your A-level general studies course a little too seriously.

Maybe you should give Sir Richard Broadbent a call, tell him his multi-billion pound business, the third largest retailer in the entire world, the 15 largest company in the entire country, a company with a market cap of £24.4billion, with reveneus of £64billion and an operating profit of just under £4billion last year is being run by embarrassed first year Business Studies students that he is paying hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds to.

Some of those are the usual marketing stuff that all major brands feel compelled to say, e.g. "To put our responsibilities to the communities we serve at the heart of what we do". Fine, but its still waffle, no matter how rich the company. The last point "To build our team so we create more value", I can't defend, it's hogwash, but they all spout it.

On the substantive content, you might notice that several points are quite different in nature to those on the RFL's site, and which, despite the BS points in there, actually make the list better-than-useless.

It requires a modicum of intelligence to spot the difference, which is why wannabe businessmen write things which *sound* the same, but miss the subtle difference, and why people like you are easily fooled by words that sound just like the things that companies like Tesco would write.

Let me give you an example from your Tesco list: "To Grow UK Core". Do you see it?...look closer....first thing: GROW. Now, granted, this doesn't say by how much, and I've no argument with anyone who says even that would be too much detail for a simple list of strategic aims. BUT - it DOES say GROW (and, secondly, it says WHAT should grow). So, whilst we can only give a binary judgement on whether or not they succeeded, we can at least hold to them to the word GROW. i.e. shrinkage would be a demonstrable failure. It's genuinely useful content - you can test the usefulness of content by asking if the opposite would be *obviously* false. If the opposite would be obviously false, then the statement is basically hot air. In this case for example, the opposite is not obviously false. Not all companies want to grow at all times in all regions. It may be better sometimes to increase profitability by reducing turnover, or to reduce footprint in a specific geography to put resources elsewhere. For example, Stelios is currently arguing with the Easyjet board on growth - they want growth, whereas he wants dividends. So the fact that Tesco say they want to grow the UK core is a statement that carries useful information about their strategy. "Be the best" in contrast, wouldn't.

Find me something measurable (i.e. something at which one could demonstrably fail) on the RFL's list.

I honestly don’t think it could be any more proven that you really have no idea what strategic aims are and your knowledge of strategy and planning extends no further than someone teaching you SMART objectives when you were a child.

The day the RFL start putting out their strategic aims using SMART is the day they should all be fired.

Feel free to argue the toss about terminology. It doesn't change the basic fact that regardless of your views on business planning, a view on plain English ought to dictate that a statement should carry meaning. As I say, if the opposite of a statement is obviously false, to any idiot whatsoever, then the statement isn't worth making. Whether the statement is a strategic aim, a goal (SMART or otherwise), this remains a fundamental truth.

NOT A SINGLE ONE of the RFL's 'strategic aims' carries useful meaning.

None of their points tell me what their strategic aims actually are, such that people could a) disagree with them, or b) agree with them, and then take a view down the line as to whether they delivered.

Whereas, in contrast, thanks to your diligent research, I now know (amongst other things) that Tesco aim to grow their UK core. As a shareholder, I could disagree ( maybe preferring dividends, or more overseas focus ), or, if I liked the idea of growth in the UK, I could take a view in two years say as to whether they delivered.

If ANY of the RFL's points had meaning, I'd be more than happy to argue as to whether they count as "aims", or "goals", or whatever. But since they just have ZERO content, so it doesn't matter what the heck you want to call them.

Clearly the concept of English words carrying any meaning is beyond you. If you're not already employed by them, do apply to the RFL, you'll fit right in.

keep digging,

What next, are you going to start blaming Nigel Wood for the RFL's mission statement been kind of obvious?

Give up. You've been asked a ton of questions by lots of people, yet have no answers. Once again, point to a 'strategic aim' of the RFL that means something in plain English. Nope? Can't manage it? Go away then, clown.

That would be because you havent a clue what they have done , because quite simply

THEY HAVENT DONE ANYTHING

You dont know if things have improved in the Championships because you dont watch them , you dont attend games , you never have done

The strategic aims of the RFL have been put on this very thread numerous times. You yourself have put them on here. They are quite clearly aims, they are quite clearly in English. They are in the same format as is used throughout the business world, and are fairly similar to those used by companies throughout the country. To prove this to you, here are some examples
Sainsbury's:
Growing Space and property value
Developing new business
Great Food
Compelling general merchandise and clothing
complementary channels and services

Vodafone
Reduce Costs and stimulate revenues in Europe
Deliver strong growth in emerging markets
Innovate and deliver on customers' total communications needs
Actively manage the portfolio to maximise returns
Align capital structure and shareholder returns policy to strategy

As you can see, pretty similar to the RFL's, this shows that either the business world is missing a trick by not applying something kids learn about and you can make an absolute fortune as a management consultant to the worlds biggest industries or you are wrong to criticize the RFL for producing strategic aims in the same way as everyone else.

Its pretty clear what you are asking for arent the strategic aims as would be recognized by anyone who wasnt strangely hung up on their college PDP. It is clear you are asking for something else but calling it the strategic aims because A) you dont actually know the name of what it is you want, B) you dont want to admit that you were simply whining for the sake of it C) you dont want to admit that you dont actually know anything about strategic planning other than the SMART objectives they teach children and D) you dont want to admit you were criticizing the RFL about something you didnt know anything about.

Now, im a patient guy and happy to try and help you overcome your ignorance, so take the opportunity to go out, find out the name of what it is you actually want and what you mistook for strategic aims, find out if this is something companies and organisations commonly release and then decide whether it is a realistic expectation. Then come back and tell us what it actually is you are looking for and the discussion can move on. A handy tip, if you dont even know the name of the thing you want, you shouldnt really blame other people for you not finding it.