Quote ="William Eve"Can't wait to note how prosperous SL clubs feel about this deal in 5 years time when it still has several more years to run.'" Probably better than when it was signed in 99 or 2004 (or even probably 2009) The difference there are certain chairmen who seem determined to cause as much disruption and bad feeling as possible unless they get their own way.... Actually on second thought that's not changed, just the way the message gets out! I'm still yet to be convinced any of this is anything but politics. Maybe they should reread some old stories like www.theguardian.com/media/2004/f ... oadcasting and get some perspective on what a bad deal actually is.

Quote ="William Eve"Can't wait to note how prosperous SL clubs feel about this deal in 5 years time when it still has several more years to run.'" Probably better than when it was signed in 99 or 2004 (or even probably 2009) The difference there are certain chairmen who seem determined to cause as much disruption and bad feeling as possible unless they get their own way.... Actually on second thought that's not changed, just the way the message gets out! I'm still yet to be convinced any of this is anything but politics. Maybe they should reread some old stories like www.theguardian.com/media/2004/f ... oadcasting and get some perspective on what a bad deal actually is.

As I said I pay BT nowt. My phone is Virgin cable and my virgin hasn't gone up.

As you'll know, the proportion of Leeds fans who will think McNamara is an adequate international coach is approximately the same as the proportion at all other Rugby League clubs.

Nicely imagined Loiner-baiting though.

did the nice people at Virgin come around and install ANOTHER telephone line to your property? If not, then indirectly you are paying BT.
Because Virgin could afford to take the hit on their profits from you and cover the BT charge is neither here nor there.....some of the money you pay Virgin Media IS going into the BT coffers.

Saying "I don't pay them" is kind of like having a Sea shepherd/Greenpeace/save the whale meeting in a sushi bar

Bless loiner81's little cotton socks.

Agree with you here and oh I'm a Rhinos fan...

I think of the way Michael MaGuire waltzed into Wigan and quite frankly made Noble look amateur. I cant see past that.

I have not read all that is on hear, but what I can not understand is why did he and Wigan's owner not speak up sooner is it because they like to be in the limelight or what, if they are right we will never know because BT or any body else is not going to say I would have offered more are they, for god sake you can not do any thing about it now so please shut up

MK did speak up, he was the only one to vote against the new deal. They only had 24 hours to vote from the moment they were told there was even an offer on the table, what do you want them to do in that time?

Bloody hell, where've all these Salford fans come from.
There's more of you on here these days than i've ever seen at matches

Don't say you're a Rhinos fan, you'll be accused of being bitter because BN didn't pick all the Leeds team during his massively successful, all conquering reign as GB coach.

Bless.

Did they have 24 hours to vote or was it that they were given just 24 hours notice of a meeting?

It takes more than 24hrs to read a contract, digest its offer, analyse its implications, decide if it is a good thing then cast a vote? No wonder it takes forever for clubs to get their act together on improvements!

If they wanted more time they should have voted no and taken the risk of missing the deal altogether.

At least he did and fair play to him but with the vast majority agreeing g he should be gracious in defeat and not start slagging off the company pumping millions in and the rfl who did nothing more than present the offer.

Did they get to see the contract before the meeting? That hasn't been said anywhere. From what I've read so far it seems they didn't have access to all the details before the meeting:

Neil Hudgell ‏@NeilHudgell Jan 30

Cautious optimism over tv deal. 8 years is a long time. Could have done with more than 2 hours to consider the detail #indecenthaste?


Regardless, my point was that MK did speak out against the deal, he voted against it. I sincerely doubt he was speaking for the deal beforehand and had a sudden change of heart when it was time to cast his vote!

I'm not quite sure what kind of increase in the TV deal would have kept Koukash happy, but he at least has some credibility since he voted against it. Ian Lenagan's position is laughable. 24 hours is easily enough to look over a deal like that. To vote for it (he could have abstained) and then trash it in the media is just schizophrenic.

As for Koukash's other remarks, I hope they're just for gaining media attention. For example if he really believes the people at the RFL are paid too much then he's living on another planet. The problem is that they're paid too little so we don't get a high calibre of applicants for the job.
His remarks on Steve McNamara are daft as well. Especially from someone who knows little about the sport on the pitch. He needs to stay out of that area and keep nudging the RFL about off-field issues.
Who is England head coach will make little difference to whether England/GB win a series/competition or not. The quality of the players we have available along with the amount of those players, how tired they are, how high a standard they've been playing to all season and the amount of quality young players coming through all have a monumentally bigger effect on the England/GB side rather than whether the head coach is an average coach or a slightly better/worse average coach.

I dont think Koukash's issue is with the increase in the TV deal, but with the period of time the RFL have committed to. He obviously believes the sport will be valued much more than it currently is in three, four, five, six, seven or even eight years time.

For once, in this barmy mans reign of terror, I agree with him.

As Noble not only guided Bradford to Grand Final victories but also 3 World Club Championship wins,I cannot immediately think of any individual better qualified to be the national coach during the time he held that position.
As for beating Australia;well Phil Clarke walked away amid suggestions that the RFL were not being very helpful in that cause.
Into the next decade and what has changed..?

There is now a groundswell of opinion beginning to realize that someone who has spent a lot of time in the real world,can come into rugby league and almost immediatey realise the problem.

As for Brian Noble;I believe he has come back refreshed and improved on what he achieved as a fairly young coach.

You got any ideas on how to improve things or do you just enjoy slagging people off who bring finance,intelligence and sporting knowledge to the game?

Oh,and unlike some knighted Scot in the round-ball game fomer players coached by Noble,who go into coaching,seem to have a modicum of success.He must do something right!
Even players who have played for him before want to repeat the experience.

It is valued more in 3 years time, more than double if the numbers in the press are to be believed.
But it's a risky strategy isn't it? To wait and see? This provides stability along with a big increase in money. Hardly the worst deal of the century.
But like I said, he at least has some credibility in his views as he voted against the deal so fair play to him.

I have no active bt line into my house. If I wanted anyone else I would have to have the line. I pay virgin; what they do with it is their business......I do pay for sky sports though.

Either way I think BT have taken a big gamble which may backfire.

They had 24 hours notice of a meeting but weren't told the details of the meeting. Once there they were given 2 hours to decide what to do, apart from Hetherington who seemingly new all about it.

Taking out the fact that IL has since changed his mind and regrets voting for it, not that 2 people voting against would have made any difference. Does it not seem like the time frame has effectively press ganged all the clubs to vote in favour of the RFL's ideal solution? Whether that solution is the right one isn't the issue. It's the amateurishness nature that our sport seems to be run. I don't for one minute believe SKY TV would contact the RFL with an offer and say "We want an answer within 24 hours otherwise the deal is off" so either the RFL were told about it way in advance or they just made up a deadline.

I never said otherwise did I but we're not talking about then are we?



Rugby League isn't the real world? Fact is, he knew the rules before jumping in and if he didn't then he's an idiot.
Seems like he's just spitting his dummy out to anyone who'll listen because he can't just go out, splash his cash and buy trophies.



That remains to be seen.



What other than new sponsors, record TV deals, record breaking World Cup and new formats?

But I never claimed to, just gets a bit boring as every time he opens his mouth he's moaning that those big nasty clueless men at the RL won't let him spend his money. I made one comment about him stupidly suggesting BN for national coach, get over it and stop being so precious.

Mr RFL right there. Rugby League would be lost without the sleeve.

No. If Lenagan, or anyone else for that matter, didn't think he knew enough about the deal he could vote no or abstain. He didn't. He voted for it. No-one forced him to do that. As seen by Koukash's vote.
To vote yes then whinge about it is just daft.

Plus why would the RFL "press gang" clubs into voting for one tv deal over another? It makes little difference to the RFL since the vast majority of the money will bypass them and go straight to the clubs.

Personally, it just seems like the TV deal was quite a good one and that doesn't fit in with the "RFL incompetence harming the sport" image that some club leaders want to portray.
A good tv deal strengthens Nigel Wood's position and a poor one weakens it. So Lenagan wants the money but doesn't want to strengthen Wood's position.

Plus since the only real objection to a tv deal from clubs is the amount of money or the duration, does that take even 2 hours to think about?

I'd have much more sympathy for Lenagan's view if he hadn't voted for the deal.

I was thinking this earlier on today.

If you feel the deal is too rushed then you vote no, not yes.

Yes makes a commitment, no can mean no or no not now.

If the majority thought it was too rushed they could vote no and then if there was a time limit on the deal, the chairmen could say they thought they could do better and if there was no time limit they could check any issues they had with it.

Also why would the RFL want a lesser deal???

That's just crazy, if there is a bigger deal then there is a bigger admin fee for them.

It just makes no sense to vote YES for something you don't know enough about.

It's this dicotomy of power that really annoys me. The chairmen hold all the cards, but snip from the sidelines at the governing body whose recommendations they can take or reject.

Talk about not being responsible for your actions. Fair play to Koukash though, he thought it was too quick and stood his ground, but his gripe should be with his fellow chairmen, they are the ones who voted for it.