A fresh lot of Q&A's have just been put up, some pretty interesting topics are raised...
Danny Kazandjian: Once again, thanks to everyone for their interesting questions.
Q: Des Foy: Will the RLEF ask the IRB to investigate the actions of the Moroccan rugby union which disrupted the GB pioneers visit to assist the development of RL in Morocco. And demand assurances from the IRB that such action will not be tolerated by them in future.
A: The RLIF has a sound professional relationship with the IRB, which has to date been cooperative when asked to clarify the clear distinction between rugby league and union to various governments. For example, it has written to South Africas SASCOC, which incorrectly claims that the IRB controls South African rugby league, to tell them that the RLIF controls RL; and the Russian sports ministry, whose official position is that the two sports are too similar to merit two federations (this is a legacy of tendentious ministry officials with a RU background).
We have requested similar letters for Moroccos Minister Ouzzine and Ghanas Minister Afrieh-Ankrah and we will request another letter for the Greek minister (after their governmental reshuffle is concluded, and when instructed to by our Greek affiliate). The Morocco situation is slightly different to South Africa because the MRU constitution erroneously states it controls RL which clearly it does not internationally, but locally, the Moroccan sports ministry will be loathe to interfere in one of its members constitutions without good reason.
We will never cease pursuing recognition as it is our right, but it is a case of changing perceptions and constant lobbying, both domestically and internationally. RL must become a part of the sporting landscape in all the countries in which its played, and that means, among other things, government recognition.
Q: Brad Furhmann: What is the RLEF doing to promote games being played against very new national teams like Poland?
A: We encourage sovereignty and independence as much as possible, as we believe this will strengthen local administrations confidence and capacity to operate. This year, for example, Holland organised two RLIF-sanctioned international games independently, dealing with the opposing German and Belgian NGBs exclusively, and using the new RLIF match sanctioning protocols.
Poland and other new Continental nations have the advantage of joining a sport that has a wider spread of countries than a few years ago, so they are able to travel shorter distances and choose opposition that is at an appropriate level. Hungary is a good example of a new operation that has used geography well. I should point out, though, that our principal focus is on local development, of clubs, of schools, and of local technical leaders and administrators, as those are the indices of success. If nations wish to organise internationals they are to be encouraged to follow RLIF protocols, but they will do so independently, working closely with their RLEF opponent.
Q: Matthew Stansfield: Does the RLEF have plans, or hopes, to operate a competition for all European Nations similar to UEFA's Euro Competition? Perhaps held 2 years after every RLWC in the 4 Year cycle. A similar concept to the Superpool of RLWC08 may be needed to separate the smaller/younger Euro Rugby League Nations from the likes of the Home Nations & France, but I feel like this could work one day, even as soon as the next World Cup cycle following RLWC2013. High hopes & much praise for European Rugby League & the RLEF at any rate!
A: Thanks for the complimentary message. At our AGM on 23 August we will reveal a new 2014-21 international calendar for consultation amongst our members. Structurally, it will not be too drastic a departure from the fairly new framework we have in place now, but it will be more attuned to Continental European traditions and sensibilities, as we attempt to engage with European governments more and more.
Even if we remove money from the argument, UEFA has the advantage of a saturated player pool. I think holding a UEFA style championship (in one country) would be so expensive and not the best use of limited resources. What you are absolutely correct about is the need for stability and aspiration, and those are concepts that underpin the RLEFs approach towards international competition. To embed a truly stable calendar, though, its important for the whole sport to introduce a calendar, because global competitions like the 4N include RLEF members whose participation in European or international competitions needs to be mapped out in advance as they affect the composition of competitions at the tiers below them.
The formation of the RLIF International Competitions Committee (I sit on that along with Scott Carter, the chair, Tas Baitieri of the APRLC, the RFLs Niel Wood, and RLEF director Graeme Thompson) in 2012 is clear progress, but I can assure you that the RLEF is fully committed to a stable, transparent, long-term calendar that encourages forward planning. In my opinion, these competitions could also be utilised as RLWC qualifiers, further adding to their gravitas while saving the RLIF expense.
Q: Souhail Ait Alla: Did the RLEF donate and support Morocccan RL next year to the Mena championship in Dubai and what can the RLEF can do to help MRL to solve their problems with RU?
A: No, the RLEF has not offered and will not offer to support the FMRL to go to the MENA Championship. The FMRL is an Observer and knows it must work on building up its local activity before it can expect to receive any material support. This message, and the pathway towards funding, has been explained to the FMRL board very clearly, and they accept this.
The RLEF has supported FMRL in 2012 in three ways: firstly, by steering the GB Student Pioneers to tour Morocco; secondly, by funding a coaching course in April, conducted by the FFRXIIIs Thierry Dumaine; thirdly, by providing them with footballs. Their responsibility is to create a domestic club championship.
In 2012 the RLEF offered grant aid, for the first time, to Shield participants, due to the increased demands an enlarged competition placed upon them. The MENA Championship is a pseudo-official competition, one that we hope over time can become the primary regional international competition. It has already provided a stimulus to RL activity in the Middle East, with the Saudis, for example, using the various age category competitions as punctuations in their domestic activity. The Lebanese supported the Moroccans by travelling on two successive years to play the MENA Championship in the kingdom.
We will continue to lobby the Moroccan government to recognise RL as an independent sport. We are dealing with a hostile Moroccan RU, which has, Im afraid to say, a willing partner among the French-Moroccan RL community, which makes our path slightly more difficult as the Moroccan government can see RU incorporating RL into its operations. Our first step is to see how Minister Ouzzine reacts to the letter from the IRB stating clearly that rugby league and union are separate sports, and we will respond accordingly. We are prepared to use the European Parliament if needs be, and that will, I think, be our next step.
Q: John Humphries: Can Rugby League Europe help teams in the Republic of Ireland and other European countries more like Germany/Italy?
A: We can always do more to help countries I believe, and we are constantly striving to provideas much support as we can. The membership will tell you if they think we are performing well or badly. We can help them in a number of ways: providing members with funding; supporting their technical development (one of our fundamental obligations IMO); creating pan-continental international competitions; advising on governance practice; and lobbying for their interests internationally.
Ireland has traditionally been well supported by the RFL but I think the RLEF does need to engage more closely with the Home Nations as we are the European governing body, not the RFL.
Q: Slobodan Manak: Is there any plans for giving full scholarhips for the gifted players U18 from the developing countries like Czech, Serbia, Ukraine, Germany, etc.? So those young players got a chance to study and play RL in England or France. It would be a good boost for the players and the game in those countries.
A: While this is an excellent idea, the practicalities of it language, cost of lodging, food, the moral and legal responsibility of looking after foreign minors etc - make it extremely difficult. There have been some green shoots, though: for example, the Dragons Catalan had signed MOUs with FIRL to bring two Italian U18 to France to join their scholarship programmes, but the arrangement was pulled by the club at the eleventh hour. Now, two young Italian players are in England, having impressed national team assistant coach Paul Broadbent, and are attending training camps with Leeds Rhinos.
If players are good enough and due to the relatively small number of Continental RL players compared to the stocks available in, say, England, they need to be very, very good then if they get spotted by a professional coach it will be up to that coach to do what he thinks he can for the player. Other players have taken this route by themselves: a Saudi player, Rackan Al-Moukhtar, upon leaving school in Jeddah, opted to study in NW England so he could continue developing as a RL player. Hes a gun second row (pictured, training with Warrington Wolves)!
Last year the LRLF and London RL paid for two Lebanese 15-year-old kids to spend two weeks in London. They attended various sessions with the best young players in London and stood out, even playing an age group above, but the difficulties and expense in keeping them over made any longer stay impracticable. One of them, Omar Marhaba, in particular is a really talented lad. Every UK coach thats seen him has noted his ability.
Q1: International RL Scores & Updates site: We are interested to know what the RLEF is doing to assist the domestic game in each of it's affiliated bodies? It is great to have successful international teams with assistance from 'heritage' players from other nations however to build a strong and healthy rugby league nation consideration must be given to the long term benefits of developing a strong domestic competition which will subsequently produce international players.
A: 2010-17 RLEF strategy, which is on our website in full, is based primarily around making the sport a habitual part of local participants lives i.e. embedding RL as a part of their culture.
We maintain this is possible only through the development of local 13-a-side championships and local clubs, and technical education to support those expanding local operations, so that locals are exposed to more RL for longer periods of the year, and are investing more of their time, their moral worth and even their money into RL. We are one year short of reaching the halfway point of our strategy, but there are some encouraging signs:
Club competitions:
- CZE 4 club / 5 match comp in 2010; 10 club / 37 match comp in 2013 [all clubs
- ITA 4 club / 6 match comp in 2010; 10 club / 15 match comp in 2013 [8 clubs
- JAM 8 club / 19 match comp in 2010; 13 club / 51 match comp in 2012
- NOR 3 club / 7 match comp in 2010; 5 club / 19 match comp in 2012
- SER 11 club / 51 match comp in 2010; 17 club / 62 match comp in 2012
- UKR no club comp in 2010; 9 club / 30 match comp in 2012
- MAL no club comp in 2010; 4 club / 6 match comp in 2012
- GRE will begin a five-team club comp this year; HUN played a four-club [registered] competition two weeks ago (9s though), and played in the CZE 9s (and as RL players they were vastly improved since 2012 thanks to specific RL coaching they have received in the interim); LAT will play a four-team comp this year Junior football increases:
- JAM 4 teams playing 9s in 2010; 27 teams / 18 matches + 9s in 2012
- SCO 15 teams / 17 matches in 2010; 39 teams / 49 matches in 2012
- SER 2 teams in 2010; 9 teams / 18 matches + 9s in 2012
- UKR no teams in 2010; 10 teams / 6 matches + 7 9s comps in 2012 [3 age group
- WAL 173 teams / 400 matches in 2010; 239 teams / 577 matches in 2012
Technical development:
- Three-year technical strategy nearing completion
- Self-sufficient tutors who have conducted own courses and are now producing
- These RLEF-trained tutors have qualified [on their own initiative, and using the 13-a-side leagues began in 2013]
- The RLEF needs to consider a part-time technical manager to work with NGB own coaches and MOs in NOR, ITA, SER, UKR, lebanese, CZE, JAM, NED cluster system] local coaches and MOs in BEL, DEN, SWE, UAE, RUS, HUN, BOS, GRE [as well as in their own countries] tutors to oversee / mentor them IMO.
So, in short, we agree with you: local development is the most important element of our work. We provide a stable international calendar as thats a part of a sporting organisations work, but producing clubs and having organisations develop locally is what will eventually produce independent, confident and active local NGBs which are able to show their governments the quantitative mass they need to obtain recognition and funding.
Finally, while we are moving away from giving NGBs grants we prefer to subsidise activities in line with our strategy, and provide equipment, for example, this year was the first year we have shipped footballs to various parts of our federation only members can receive cash grants, and to become a member you need to have a club competition. The Czechs and Ukrainians received record central funding this year thanks to their serious local work, while other countries will have funding reduced in 2014 due to their lack of domestic progress. As a policy, we will fund successful local operations as these have more activity and therefore deserve more support. Finally, all members know that achieving Full Membership of the RLIF results in $25k per annum administration grant, and to achieve this status they need significant local operations.
Q2: When/Will we see a structured European Championship both internationally (national teams) and domestically (club teams) with qualifying and so forth. In our opinion that would be a long term structured plan designed to meet the growing number of nations embracing the greatest game of all.
A: I refer you to my answer to Matthew Stansfields question, above. In short, and without revealing anything that will be unveiled on 23 August at the RLEF Conference following our AGM, I agree with you about the need to introduce a European Championship for sovereign national teams.
I dont agree about the utility of a European club championship at this stage. We need to take a generational view on strengthening local competitions before this idea will have real worth.
Some nations UKR, SER, RUS - have considered it independently but decided not to take it forward as they deemed the return on investment insufficient.
Q: Matt Steele: How long more are Al-Italia committed to sponsoring the RLEF?
A: Sadly, their relationship with RL ended last year. Frankly speaking, this was a collective failing on the sports part. In 2010 we had a tremendously successful European Cup and Alitalia doubled their investment as a result, from 25.000 to 50.000. Then we changed our calendar and served up an inferior European Cup involving one less team than 2010 and a B team in the England Knights.
RL needs a calendar that is inviolate to change and that every member believes in. I refer you to my answer re international calendar, above. Stability is key if we are to attract broadcast and commercial partners. If our plan is adopted by the RLEF Council then we will, in theory, be able to approach such partners and show them not only competitions, but also pathways between those competitions, until 2021. That is crucial and the least any serious international sports organisation can offer.
Q: Matt Steele: Given the USA's AMNRL has the CEO of USA Rugby Union on its executive board, would the RLEF allow such a thing to happen in one of its member countries?
A: I think you overestimate the power of the RLEF, Sir. It is not up to us to rule on the consistency of any members board. We will promote best practice in the field of governance and we insist on absolute independence in governance, but we cannot or would not want to involve ourselves in local NGB elections. If those elections result in friction or dissension then the RLEF can be involved as a mediator first and arbitrator second, but only after all local resolutions have been explored.
Q: Christopher Sanders: Who's running the whole International Game? Is the RFL or RLEF or the dysfuntional RLIF? And where are the RLWC profits (if any) going to go back to?
A: The RLIF is the governing body of RL and will determine how the profits from the RLWC are distributed, but constitutionally these will be reinvested into the membership.
