RLWC 2000 profits scuppered by ARL/NRL

[imported_kier]

Well - this was the claim by ex RFL boss Niel Tunnicliffe in a letter to Rugby League World (UK edition I don't know avout the SH version).

It seemed that prior to the WC the RLIF signed a deal with Prima TV for the entire world rights. The deal was ratified by the RLIF (which includes the ARL) and Prima were happy to guarentee a profit.

It then transpires that the ARL and NRL went behind the back of the company running the RLWC and negotiated their own deals for TV coverage in Australia.

The matter was handed back to the RLIF - who under the influnence of the ARL......BACKED the Australian actions - despite it was in direct contravention of a previous contract.

Prima TV (understandably) tore up the previous agreement and when bad weather, transport disaster and some poororganisation hit the tournament - the now imfamous losses were accrued.

None of these would have affected a £2m profit if the aussies had played fair (according to Tunnicliffe).

If it's true - then I'm furious........whenever we hear of organisations in Morrocco, Russia, USA, Canada.....etc facing real hardships because of the loss of RLWC revenue, all of it could have been avoided if the Aussies had simply acted in a proper manner.

 

[ex-manager]

Aussies acting in a proper manner? Now that's a unique thought.

If these allegations are true, what could the RFL do? Afterall, it is they who have beenuniversally blamed for the losses incurred and the subsequent hardships in several lesser RL nations.

 

[imported_kier]

Reading between the lines of Tunnicliffe's letter - I get the impression that this was one of the issues that lead to him resigning.

As you say Gav - if true it would be totally unfair to lay the blame of the financial disaster at the door of the RFL.

I would be interested to know what cash the ARL did get for a the RLWC in Australia. Does anyone here know?

 

[Willow]

The only thing missing from this article is the NRL side of the story.
I'm not saying its true or untrue but imo, a little more research is required before we can draw conclusions.

 

[imported_kier]

True - it would be good to have the ARL version of events - but if the story is correct I doubt they would ever be likely to comment.

This is no idle speculation though - Tunnicliffe (a pretty serious minded individual) has seen fit to write a letter with the accusation to an internationally available magazine.

No "misquoted" interview, or half heard comment repeated by a hack - it was a clearly thought out statement. I'm sure Tunnicliffe would not have taken such a step (which would leave him open to libel charges if false) if he was not 100% sure of the series of events.

 

[Willow]

Assuming the ARL and NRL did go sneaking around just to gazump the TV rights for their sponsors in Australia, then why did the RLIF back them?

We have very little to go on here but its possible that the negotiations were already taking place. It may be that the RLIF were playing off both sides against each other. Just a guess but as valid any other accusation.

Could this be a case of sour grapes on Prima's and Niel Tunnicliffe's behalf? They obviously thought they had the deal wrapped up and looked upon it as a tidy little earner.

Moreover, is Tunnicliffe just trying to play politics and deflect blame? The article mentions "bad weather, transport disaster and some poororganisation hit the tournament - the now imfamous losses were accrued." Poor organisation? Sorry, I once again say that we have little to go on butthis suggests that we arent getting the full picture here.

I don't accept that the ARL/NRLs silence on this equals guilt. In business, and this is business, its often easier to move on. Despite what we are led to believe, companies don't sue each other at the drop of a hat. More often than not, things are just left to slide.

The bottom line is that it wasnt the ARL or the NRL who were really doing this in any case. The powers behind the negotiations would havebeen Channel Nine and FOX...Packer and Murdoch.

This doesnt make it right but I think its important to remember that there is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[MistyBee9-11]

The NRL has nothing to do with internationals. It is simply concerned with one comp.

As far as the ARL are concerned, if they went behind the Poms back, then good on 'em. Super League would never have started in the first place has the ERL not gone behind Australia's back in the TV negotiations of 1995. I think the poms got what was coming to them, and for that I am rapt.

 

[imported_justme]

It then transpires that the ARL and NRL went behind the back of the company running the RLWC and negotiated their own deals for TV coverage in Australia.
I find that very confusing as firstly the NRL are not part of the international forum, that is purely the domain of the ARL. Secondly, I doubt either of those organisations could negotiate any deals for Australian coverage anyway as they had alreadyassigned their interestsas part of the overall FOX/Nine deal. I don't know enough about it to make any conclusions but it is somewhat confusing.

 

[Willow]

Well I was willing to overlook the ARL /NRL confusion... that beingthe reason I kept mentioning them in the same breath. I thinks it a fair to say that the ARL and the NRL work closely together.

Having said that, it's the ARL that officially negotiates any Australian international broadcast deals in conjunction with the RLIF andthe other countries' governing body.

In this case, I still feel that boths sides were plugging away and its possible that the ARL simply won out in the end.

...andyeah, its a little confusing and at best inconclusive.

 

[imported_kier]

Some confusion here........

The origional post by me contains no quotes - it's just me explaining the gist of Tunnicliffe's letter. I'm sure the main criticism is aimed at the ARL rather than the NRL - but Tunnicliffe mentions the NRL because the ARL hid behind the domestic aussie TV arrangement that involves both organisations.

The RLIF (in a meeting attended by the ARL)agreed to give sole TV rights for the ENTIRE RLWC to RLWC 2000 Ltd (a compnay set up to organise the comp). This is fact - the agreement is minuted.

After the agreement the ARL re-negotiated with their own domestic broadcasters - something they had no legal right to do after having agreed and signed to the prior arrangement.

When this matter was put to the RLIF however, the ARL twisted the arms of the NZRL.......and all the RLIF members with ARL/NRL/NZRL affiliations (a majority) votedin favour of the ARL being able to walk away from the deal!!!!

Here is a quote from the letter though;

"It was left with RLWC 2000 Ltd to carry the can with Prima, and to suffer the knock-on effects in terms of its' financial forecasts.

The right in all this lies with RLWC 2000 Ltd. They acted in good faith on a formal resolution of the RLIF, but they were gazumped by the situation of an overseas league selling rights to matches which they did not own, staged in a territory which was not theirs. That the RLIF allowed this situation to stand is the real outrage.

Your headline (from an earlier ed. of RLW) is therefore not "Monumental Incompetence at the RFL", but "Australians Scupper World Cup Profits".

 

[Willow]

"When this matter was put to the RLIF however, the ARL twisted the arms of the NZRL.......and all the RLIF members with ARL/NRL/NZRL affiliations (a majority) votedin favour of the ARL being able to walk away from the deal!!!!"

Is this part of the article or a personal interpretation?
Did the NZRL really get pressured into going along with this?

I'm not attempting to divert the argument away from the crux of the issue, I just wanted to sort that out before looking at the rest.