Mild Rover wrote:
'No plan' is really just shorthand for envisioning their role differently - as a bureaucracy providing a basic framework in which clubs operate, rather than as leaders with a very specific destination in mind.
That is a plan.
I'm sure we'd both agree that it'd be desirable for the sport to be wealthier, the international game more competitive and higher profile and so on.
If they said, 'we've got a vision as to how we can do that and, crucially, we're going to stick with it and deliver, that'd be fine. But they always lack either the political capital or will to properly enforce the salary cap or implement franchising or force through mergers or whatever is panacea du jour. Which isn't necessarily their fault - if the clubs and fans won't follow, what can they do?
Take on a more limited and realistic remit would be a obvious approach, aiming for natural, organic growth (or, if not growth, adaptation).
its more a plan than me saying I'm going to have a threesome with Selma Hayek and Megan Fox, then just sitting here talking to you and expecting it to happen. Whilst I have a goal, if I don't think about how I get there it isn't a plan and even if your want to call it a plan, it doesn't mean it is at all likely to happen.
It's a simple scenario, which is more likely to result in a positive outcome, the game wanting to fulfil its potential and then sitting down and deciding the best route to get there, and then doing it.
Or
The game wanting to fulfil its potential then just hoping it happens by chance?
