Leigh Leopards owner Derek Beaumont has written a strongly-worded letter to clubs following an RFL decision to consult legal advice on plans to remove Simon Johnson: and says the governing body have been ‘disingenuous’ and are trying to ‘alarm’ member clubs.

Beaumont and his Batley Bulldogs counterpart Kevin Nicholas have tabled a proposal which will be heard next month which calls for the immediate removal of Simon Johnson and for the return of Nigel Wood as the interim chair of the governing body.

However, the RFL have engaged with leading international law firm Pinsents, and in documentation sent to clubs this week, suggested those proposals are ‘unlawful’ and could cost the sport significant financial outlay.

They say any such move to reappoint Wood or anyone without proper independence would lead to a breach of Sport England’s Code of Sports Governance and could even lead to ramifications in regards to the sport’s long-term financial loan from DCMS secured during the Covid-19 pandemic.

But Beaumont, in a letter sent to all member clubs which has been seen by Love Rugby League, has responded in stern fashion and has objected to those suggestions.

He insists the governing body is ‘trying to alarm members’ by pointing towards what the RFL described as ‘catastrophic’ financial outcomes if the proposals are pushed through. Beaumont also insists the proposals have been raised in order to safeguard the long-term health of the sport, rather than negatively impact it.

Here is that letter in full:

“This is a response to that Paper on behalf of Leigh Leopards and Batley Bulldogs but is supported by the Super League clubs that I was mandated to start this process on behalf of. The aim of these Resolutions is simple, remove the Directors with whom members have lost confidence and put in place transitionary measures to improve the sport.

“These Resolutions were submitted with a heavy heart and after talks with RFL Board broke down due to its intransigence and inability to do what is right for the long and short term interests of the Sport. It is a shame the RFL Board do not see that.

“It is noted that the RFL Board wishes to set out its legal and regulatory requirements on this occasion but has been happy to work on matters in breach of its own Articles, in breach of the Governance Code and in breach of the Agreements that are within the Paper for some time. These include:

    3    Not filing up to date Articles of Association at Companies House after amendment

    4    Only having 1 Executive Director when the Articles required 2 until December 2024.

“It is also convenient that references to the Loan Agreement in the Papers sets out selected paragraphs that further the RFL cause in an attempt to frighten people as to change. This project fear is similar to one used by the Government during referendum campaigns.

“The Loan Agreement is between the RFL and RFL Investments 2020 Ltd. It would therefore be for that company and NOT Sport England to call in the monies owed. It is also contented that even if these Resolutions (which is denied) place the RFL in breach of the Loan Agreement then this would not be a material breach of contract that would allow the Lender to recall on demand. The Paper only says a breach it does not say material breach which would be needed to succeed on any recall.

“In any event, a simple search of Companies House shows that the 2 Directors listed for the Lender are the RFL Chair and Chief Executive and so any decisions they would look to make would be significantly hampered by conflict of interest and challengeable in Court.

“Turning now to more relevant points, the Resolutions put forward are simple and clear. Resolutions 1 and 2 are in effect confidence motions against the 2 most senior Non-Executive Directors.

“Both have been on the RFL Board during a time that has seen the GDP of the sport reduce by over 50%. That shrinking does not show signs of being reversed and as such the member clubs have lost confidence in the leadership and are seeking to change that trajectory.

“The RFL Articles set out clearly the right for members if they so choose to remove Directors. Resolutions 1 and 2 are therefore not in breach of legal or regulatory requirements. They also meet the requirements under the Companies Act.

“The RFL have been disingenuous by trying to then conflate the final 2 resolutions as a reason to state members should oppose these 2 correctly positioned Resolutions. This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

“Resolution 3 and indeed 4 state that a strategic review will be undertaken. This will be member led and will report to Council. Their aim is to reset the sport and ensure it sets course on a new trajectory. They are interim measures to enable the sport to grasp its issues and find solutions. They do not need input from the failed leadership that currently exists within the sport as has been seen over various crises and U-turns in the last 12 months.

“The RFL also try to alarm members by reference to the Sport England Governance Code. It then tries to use compliance with this as a risk to several million pounds to the Sport.

“Firstly, the Governance Code is not a straight jacket on sports to prevent changes of leadership and secondly it would be the intention of the review group to meet with Sport England and set out what its aims and milestones would be. It will be made clear to them that these resolutions create a transitionary model to ensure the sport continues to function and meet its obligations.

“These will only be in place for a limited time at which point recruitment to key posts will comply with the Code and that the sport will continue to work with Sport England and DCMS to ensure compliance.

“Indeed, one of the first things that will be said to them is that this course of action is to safeguard the long term viability of Rugby League and to ensure that all such Loans are repaid.

“It should be noted that most Loans require owners of members to continue to fund the rugby clubs whilst they repay the Loans so a bigger risk to DCMS on not getting their money back is owners leaving the sport.

“Finally and to be clear as the RFL did not make it so in its Paper, the Code does not require the Chair to be Independent, several sports do not have independent Chairs it simply says Sport England reserves the right to require one.

“As we have indicated, the review will report to Council, members will be involved and together a better position for the sport will be found.

“Regards, Derek”

Read more at: