Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:21 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

I'm not saying that he is an organisational genius but it is hardly his fault that there is a major recession on. Doubtless somebody else might have done better but nobody would have done well. Companies aren't sponsoring events like they used to.

Now anyone laid off isn't going to enjoy it, however, if nobody is ever laid off then the whole organisation becomes unviable.

The problem with league fans is that they have an obsession with "thinking big", which generally translates into "throwing money at white elephants". Now Woods has his faults but he ain't one of those.

edit: though he might be likened to an elephant

No one is saying present circumstances, it is easy, but the commercial mismanagement of the game has been there for many years and the majority of the leading administrators of the game have also been there for many years without making a dent on the problem. It is easy to blame the recession, but it seems harder for any of these individuals to put their hands up for what went before.

It is also rather simplistic to say without redundancies an organisation becomes unviable. My firm have not made any redundancies in the recession but have had to trim in other ways through for instance pay freezes. Redundancies are too often an easy way out to disguise failings elsewhere.

As to thinking big, the problem I have with this is thinking sensible is out of the window. If anyone can explain to me how the decision to close the RFL's marketing media and development office in London is going to aid the game in the future I would be interested to hear it. To me too many of the present failings in approach comes from thinking small and short term.

There is a big difference between consolidation in hard times and the headlong retreat that now appears to be taking place.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:43 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

Aside from the lack of sponsorship, I'd say Woods would be applauded for his decisions if he worked in industry. He has made some unpopular decisions at a time when the sport is going through a difficult period. I'm sure he would like to subsidise Scotland and have 14 academy sides but the cash just isn't there.

WHY? is the "cash just not there" because under his control, there has been a complete failure to attract major financial sponsors, while Rugby Union seem to have no problems! in industry for that alone the CEO would be out of the door quickly! or if that CEO was a man he would tender his resignation.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:02 am  

jaybs wrote:

WHY? is the "cash just not there" because under his control, there has been a complete failure to attract major financial sponsors, while Rugby Union seem to have no problems! in industry for that alone the CEO would be out of the door quickly! or if that CEO was a man he would tender his resignation.

The RU have had problems, the Celtic League didn't have a sponsor for about 3-4 years.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:07 am  

Sarf Essex Taff wrote:

No one is saying present circumstances, it is easy, but the commercial mismanagement of the game has been there for many years and the majority of the leading administrators of the game have also been there for many years without making a dent on the problem. It is easy to blame the recession, but it seems harder for any of these individuals to put their hands up for what went before.

It is also rather simplistic to say without redundancies an organisation becomes unviable. My firm have not made any redundancies in the recession but have had to trim in other ways through for instance pay freezes. Redundancies are too often an easy way out to disguise failings elsewhere.

As to thinking big, the problem I have with this is thinking sensible is out of the window. If anyone can explain to me how the decision to close the RFL's marketing media and development office in London is going to aid the game in the future I would be interested to hear it. To me too many of the present failings in approach comes from thinking small and short term.

There is a big difference between consolidation in hard times and the headlong retreat that now appears to be taking place.

There is but when one is avoided for years then the other becomes unavoidable.

Fans of the game certainly wanted the RFL to bail out Crusaders (cost 700k) and to buy Bradford's ground, at the time, they probably didn't have the money for either. Now we are paying the price. Yet the fans say that the RFL should also be running Broncos, something that cost David Hughes a few million a year.

It is said that RL must be a great game to survive the people who run it but if the fans ran the game, it wouldn't have made it into the 20th century let alone this one.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:55 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

The RU have had problems, the Celtic League didn't have a sponsor for about 3-4 years.

Is the emphasis on The RU HAVE HAD Problems? while The RFL has had them seriously for the past Two Season's! Compare the sponsorship paid by Aviva for sponsorship of the RU Premiership compared to NIL for the past two season's in Super League! add to that TV fee's BT paying £152 million for three seasons with RU!

Celtic League? are you making reference to what become the Pro 12 League? if so 'Rabobank became sponsors in 2011 for 4 seasons, on what was reported as an increase on the previous £500,000 per season by Magners. But lets just see how The RFL goes next season in attractive a major financial sponsor, as it will be 3 years without a major financial sponsor of Super League!

I will always give credit when it is due, and Sally Bolton has done an amazing job in running The 2013 Rugby League World Cup, but she rarely gets credit, except from those clubs etc involved with her, someone at The RFL wants to take all the credit.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:45 pm  

jaybs wrote:

Is the emphasis on The RU HAVE HAD Problems? while The RFL has had them seriously for the past Two Season's! Compare the sponsorship paid by Aviva for sponsorship of the RU Premiership compared to NIL for the past two season's in Super League! add to that TV fee's BT paying £152 million for three seasons with RU!

Celtic League? are you making reference to what become the Pro 12 League? if so 'Rabobank became sponsors in 2011 for 4 seasons, on what was reported as an increase on the previous £500,000 per season by Magners. But lets just see how The RFL goes next season in attractive a major financial sponsor, as it will be 3 years without a major financial sponsor of Super League!

I will always give credit when it is due, and Sally Bolton has done an amazing job in running The 2013 Rugby League World Cup, but she rarely gets credit, except from those clubs etc involved with her, someone at The RFL wants to take all the credit.

The Celtic League was set up in 2001 but only got a sponsor in 2006. That's five seasons with no sponsor before the world wide recession.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:46 pm  

Hedgehog King wrote:

There is but when one is avoided for years then the other becomes unavoidable.

Fans of the game certainly wanted the RFL to bail out Crusaders (cost 700k) and to buy Bradford's ground, at the time, they probably didn't have the money for either. Now we are paying the price. Yet the fans say that the RFL should also be running Broncos, something that cost David Hughes a few million a year.

It is said that RL must be a great game to survive the people who run it but if the fans ran the game, it wouldn't have made it into the 20th century let alone this one.

You are not talking about the same thing nor are you correct to say the fans want certain things. It is some fans. There were many posts from fans wanting both Crusaders and Bradford thrown out, just as a quick view of the VT thread shows there are plenty who want to see the back of London.

Equally some fans just want the club supported taking into account the difficulties of being outside the heartlands without necessarily wanting good money pumped in after bad.

When the Lenegan share issue was resolved David Hughes made a speech on the pitch saying the RFL had agreed that it shouldn't be left to one man to advance the game in London. The RFL would assist on development and marketing. Earlier this year the RFL shut its media, marketing and development office in London and it would appear again expecting a struggling club to pick up the tab. Now there are rumours circulating that they are not going to assist with the academy either. No wonder he has had a gutful.

I cannot see how this is sensible long term planning for the good of the game in the UK let alone something to applaud.

Btw if the retreat is unavoidable because consolidation has been avoided for years, isn't that the fault of those in management who should be planning for the future. We have been in recession for five years now. Surely someone at the RFL must have noticed before this year.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:33 pm  

Sarf Essex Taff wrote:

Btw if the retreat is unavoidable because consolidation has been avoided for years, isn't that the fault of those in management who should be planning for the future. We have been in recession for five years now. Surely someone at the RFL must have noticed before this year.

Well yeah but the Crusaders and Bradford things were more than just a "We're in a recession now". Hence why I say we are now paying the price.

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm  

Hedgehog King wrote:

Well yeah but the Crusaders and Bradford things were more than just a "We're in a recession now". Hence why I say we are now paying the price.

Sorry but are you trying to say that the RFL's present problems are due to supporting Crusaders and Bradford. Weren't those debts iae guaranteed by charges against the respective stadiums (and already repaid in the case of Crusaders)

Re: Re: : Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:45 pm  

Sarf Essex Taff wrote:

Sorry but are you trying to say that the RFL's present problems are due to supporting Crusaders and Bradford. Weren't those debts iae guaranteed by charges against the respective stadiums (and already repaid in the case of Crusaders)

No.

Crusaders have not paid their debts and the debt is never likely to be paid. The 700k might be secured against the stadium but that means nothing.

Bradford pay rent. The RFL won't have had anything like their initial outlay repaid.