There's a clear disparity between Blake Solly's statement:





And Ian Lenagan's view of the process:





If Solly's statement is thanking the clubs for their support after the appointment was made, and there was no advertisement and no interview process, then I think Lenagan has a point. The league needs fresh impetus and fresh ideas. If Solly is the best person for the job after a a full interview process where all options and candidates have been reviewed then fair enough. If Woods has just decided to move him into that position then it just confirms all our fears, that the RFL are well and truly trying to stuff this sport up.

The clubs do far, far more to "stuff this sport up" than the RFL.



As for the general direction of SL/RFL - the clubs get to vote on proposals such as tv deals, competition structure etc. So only a minority of clubs (ie those who voted against) can be against the way those issues have been resolved.

Whilst obviously it'd be better if all clubs agreed on the way forward, the huge disparity between clubs, their priorities, needs and situations means that is very rarely going to happen. So the only option is to go with the democratic voting process.

If those who disagree don't like it then they either need to persuade other clubs to their point of view or realise they're in a minority on that issue and accept the vote results.



I don't honestly see what the big problem with Solly's new role. In reality it would seem to be very similar to his previous role.

Wood and Solly are already proven failures as leaders of rugby league in the UK.



They are very good at patting themselves on the back for a successful World Cup, yet all the work for that was done by Sally Bolton, who has subsequently cleared out and fled to athletics.



Talking about rugby league in the UK is in itself a joke, because there is no "UK" professional club outside England, and next year there will be no "UK" Super League club outside the M62 corridor.



Last year they couldn't even find a sponsor for Super League.



Under Richard Lewis's full time attention things were progressing well. Lewis introduced Catalans to Super League. He was hopeful of adding the potential powerhouse Toulouse to the roster of Super League clubs. But Lewis was stymied by the objections and hurdles set up by his colleagues. Lewis obviously got sick of dealing with troglodytes and got himself out of the game as soon as he could.



Under Wood and Solly the game will contract even further: London relegated in 2015 means 11 M62 clubs and one French club in Super League. Wood and Solly couldn't care less about that contraction. They still get their salaries and most of the time get to speak only to other people with thick northern accents whom they think don't look down on them. It is a nice little cozy arrangement for them personally, but it is one which sees the NRL slowly taking away all of the Super League's stars. Yet Wood and Solly don't have a plan to enrich the game and stop the exodus, because that would entail making the game more national and international -- a task which they find difficult even to think about, let alone do anything towards achieving.



The fans will whinge when Hardaker and Watkins and other players follow the other real English talents down under. But the fans have to understand that the exodus is the consequence of having a competition which is financially under-resourced, and that in turn is a result of having visionless, parochial deadbeats running the game.



Solly's appointment consolidates the control of northern hemisphere rugby league by the visionless, parochial deadbeats. Ian Lenagan's outburst is just a small expression of justifiable concern about cronyism from a cosmopolitan man who possesses both intellect and vision.

Whilst he does have a point, Lenagan is going to have to re-evaluate his outbursts. Maybe not come across so bitter and angry at Wood and the RFL and perhaps take a few more days before giving his views instead of the quick blasts.



Whilst some like that he's speaking out, others are starting to view him almost comedy character-esque like Stevo. An angry man with a personal feud with Wood whose going to come out within 48 hours of anything the RFL does and slate it.



He might think he's trying to get the public on his side but for every person that agrees with him, it's cancelled out by a supporter who just thinks he's got his own agendas and vendettas against the RFL.

It's not often I agree with you but on this occasion I'll make an exception.

Was it actually an 'outburst' or merely portrayed that way to give journalists a better story.



Whether anyone agrees with him or not I honestly believe he has the best interest if the sport at heart. He (along with others) has identified an ineptitude in the governing body and is trying to do something about it.

Where as woods and Solly are actively trying to destroy rugby league?



Whether or not journalists have spun the article, quotes are quotes - if his intention wasn't to attack the rfl (again) then don't say what he did.



I find it interesting that everyone else is staying quiet on this from the other clubs

Speaking out is every chairmans right to do so, ultimately they are (in the majority) funding our great sport. I just wish that the dummy spit was reserved for big deals, where a majority disagree (on one decision) with the rfl, and it was done in a constructive manner, without the need for petty insults. As I say, does Doris the cleaner need to be cleared with lenaghan as well?



51% is a majority, we are NEVER going to have votes that are unanimous (in fact, I'd suggest most changes pushed through take too much compromise already.) - if poor leadership is on show, it's decision by committee, rather than not being inclusive to it's members.



If it's in the majorities self interest it is right for decisions to be called up, because what is good for the majority is (generally) what's best for the game. When your kicking up without a majority, there's no way to say if your complaints are good for the game. I doubt altruism comes into any decision made by any chairman.



I also feel quite sure the usual loudmouths would of backed up the comments lenaghan made, and given the contrary remarks on the matter between Solly and lenaghan, is it not possible that he did have opportunity to talk out against the appointment? Even if that's not the case, he still didn't have to resort to insults on the matter - there are ways to be constructive, even on matters like this,

Love to hear your list of things the individual clubs are doing to 'stuff this sport up' that's greater than:

- failing to operate a commercial programme that delivers central revenue anywhere near other major sports in the UK (including a period where the sports premier club competition was sponsorless)

- overseeing an expansion programme that's going in reverse

- has managed to have little influence over an international programme (which would generate significant interest from the general public) which has essentially only two other partners, when is the next major international fixture taking place at Wembley that will capitalise on the success of the WC semi final?

- has shown little interest or serious support in developing a club in the capital city where business and media are located

- has overseen a decline in officiating standards to the point where it's a taking point in nearly every game, with fans becoming disillusioned.



In a sport where margins are actually quite small compared to football, just a solid commercial programme would make a significant difference to the clubs in the UK, but the RFL can't even do that.



To be honest, I've actually never been anti-RFL, they've got a tough job. I just think they're going backwards at the moment, they're communication skills are the poorest I've seen of any organisation for a long time, and things like this really don't help them.

No, things like this really don't help them. So lenaghan is damaging the sport. What communication skills do you want? Every decision the rfl makes to be run past the fans, the clubs and the stakeholders? How much communication does the fa have? I'm a casual football watcher. I couldn't tell you who the chief exec is. Fans just seem to think it's their birthright to complain about everything done. We complained there was no marquee exemption, it was voted on and we complained they took a vote, let small teams run the comp etc end and that they should of just done it. Now, it's the other way around.

Why would RL's commercial revenues be similar to major sports? We don't have anywhere near the national profile of other major sports. Football is way ahead on it's own. Union is similar domestically but is way way ahead internationally and so that feeds into domestic commercial revenues. Same goes for cricket.



What expansion programme? All the RFL can do is give "new" clubs/areas the opportunity. The success or failure of them is down to the individual clubs. Hence London and Celtic's failures but Catalans success.



The RFL isnt in charge of international fixtures. Blame the RLIF.



I agree they should've done more to help London. But that would have drawn severe criticism and objections from plenty of other clubs, especially with relegation back. And would it have been a complete waste of money/time when the leadership at London seem so bent on self-destruction?



The point on referees has no evidence or merit to it whatsoever. In my opinion the refs are better than ever. Should they be better? Yes. But I've seen no discernible decline in refereeing, merely far, far more focus on specific decisions in specific games either by the Sky commentary team or paranoid fans. It's amazing how some fans of every club seem to think the RFL/referees is biased against them.





Now let's move on to clubs failings shall we:

- an inability to count

- an inability to act in a professional manner

- a shockingly poor attempt at marketing from the vast majority of clubs

- an inability to engage their local communities, especially local amateur clubs

- an introverted, selfish and backward attitude at too many clubs

- a blame anyone but themselves attitude



Solve these issues, get some professionals into clubs rather than some of the amateurs that are masquerading as club officials and board members right now, get clubs to actually go out and market themselves rather than sticking a poster up 100 yards away from the ground and thinking that'll do, and this game would be an awful lot better off.



We don't have a big national profile. Partly our own fault as a sport (we're still paying the price for clubs over-reaching in the 80's and 90's and some shocking club management since) partly a consequence of a sea change in UK media from regional to national (and London based and oriented). This means clubs can't adopt a Man Utd approach and just sit back and watch the punters roll in. We have to go out and get them and clubs, in general, are incredibly bad at this, especially in their own communities.



Whilst I don't agree with everything the RFL does, and there's plenty I'd do different, the problems of Salford (pre-Koukash), Celtic, London, Bradford etc are not the fault of the RFL. The blame for their predicaments lie firmly at the door of the people running those clubs at the time.

Unless we want the RFL actively running clubs, and until we get a larger national profile (which can only be done through internationals in my opinion) then the clubs will always be the main drivers behind RL's success or failure.



It'd be like Leeds United blaming the Premier League for Peter Ridsdale & co bankrupting the club.

Good leadership would have meant Leneghan and. Co have no need to walk out, there is a big difference between consensus and majority. You seem to think that anything with a majority should be implemented regardless . That type of thinking is why we have chairmen speaking out.



If all we had to do was implement the majority decision, and that is the total of Nigel Woods skills then he and his highly paid execs can be let go because we don't need a chairman, md, CoO, we don't need leadership or the skills of those positions bring all we need is a secretary able to count to 14.