Mild Rover wrote:
I think, fundamentally, it comes down to whether the SL chairman want an administrator or a leader. If the latter, then they need to cede the authority to match that responsibility. Something they clearly find difficult, probably finding the idea of employing somebody to tell them what to do counterintuitive and/or unpalatable.
It is a good interview with Pearson, and I agree with a lot of what he says (which I’m sure he’ll find reassuring). However, stuff about hybrid structures does sound like another round of failing to make a choice. Like ‘it is important that SL can contribute to decision making, but we know we need the RFL or a new CEO to be our paid scapegoat when it goes wrong.’ Possibly the basis of a Viz honest job advert there.
Spot on that you've got that just about right for me! Pearsons a bit of an honest broker in all this but some of the egos and agendas on the Super League board make it almost impossible to get anything done. To some it appears that the Wigan Chairman who moved Elstones position being formed in the first place is on one side of the argument and the Leeds Chairman who was against it from day one, and in the days of RFL control seemed to many to be running the game himself, is on the other. The rest seem to fall in behind the side the at the time best suits their own agendas.
I guess although as you say its just perhaps another compromise situation the hybrid idea is a half way house solution to what is otherwise a devil and a deep blue sea scenario for the senior Clubs. On one hand the current structure with a separate super League administration gives autonomy to the 'bread winners' but is too costly and as you say the way that its constituted doesn't suit 12 guys with differing priorities and agenda who can't relinquish control to a figure head Administrator they themselves appointed.
Whilst on the other hand the RFL has over the years constantly failed to make good decisions, perpetuated cronyism, dropped the game in it and most importantly failed to recognise Super league for what it is, the flagship part of the game and the only part that TV companies (who are lets face it the only real source of income at present) are interested in. Going in with them hardly inspires any confidence for the future either does it?
I get regularly criticised for having a downer on lower division clubs and nothing is farther from the truth most of us hold them in high regard love going to their grounds and respect their heritage and history and they have to have the ability to dream of one day making Super League. That said, I think, as I've said before, without a strong and more importantly stable Super League attracting top players, having the security of tenure to ensure we produce great home grown talent and capturing the publics attention by playing good entertaining rugby we are shot! Whether we the converted like it or not we have to have closer exciting games of a high standard that satisfies the needs of Sky. Otherwise they will lose interest and viewers, continue to offer us less for the broadcast contract and in the end drop the sport and the game will fade away. Whats more those so important clubs lower down the ladder will be stuffed too.
As a game I guess we have to move from the whole sport depending on Sky tv to Sky Tv needing our quality product to boost their viewing figures. But man are we a long way off that at present!
