annual report 2014

[insert.pause]

Exactly so trumpeting the increased salary cap and club grant as an achievement for Smith is silly, it was always going to happen and with money that was earned due to the results of the previous admin.

I didn't say it was due to him, but it was due to the ARLC, who put together the strategic plan, which is being implemented by Smith.

BuffaloRules wasn't trumpeting Smith, you said nothing had changed since tv deal, when in fact clubs now have a grant that exceeds the cap by 1m.

 

[TiggaPlease]

the arlc commisioners and subsequently dave smith's position is controlled by the clubs.....they get 16 votes (albeit 12 right now) of the 18 total, so if the clubs don't like being told to do what they're told, they have the power to tell dave smith to f**k off.

The ARLC is bigger than the clubs, champ.

From the same article you took your pretty picture from:

The primary objects of the Company are to:

(a) be the single controlling body and administrator of the Game;
(b) foster, develop, extend and provide adequate funding for the Game from the junior to elite levels and generally to act in the best interests of the Game;
(c) liaise with and delegate appropriate functions to governing bodies of the Game in the States and Territories of Australia, including the NSWRL and QRL;
(d) organise and conduct all State of Origin and Australian Representative Games;
(e) organise, conduct and foster the NRL Competition;
(g) liaise with the Rugby League International Federation Limited and organisations controlling the game in other countries in the fostering and control of the game of Rugby League throughout the world;
(h) promote and encourage either directly or indirectly the physical, cultural and intellectual welfare of young people in the community and, in particular, the Rugby League community;
(i) promote and encourage either directly or indirectly sport and recreation, particularly Rugby League football, in the interests of the social welfare of young persons.

All the clubs give a shit about is more money for them, they don't give a shit about growing the game or developing it. Which is specifically why the ARLC is needed.

 

[betcats]

I didn't say it was due to him, but it was due to the ARLC, who put together the strategic plan, which is being implemented by Smith.

He wasn't trumpeting Smith, you said nothing had changed since tv deal, when in fact clubs now have a grant that exceeds the cap by 1m.

The rights were worth a billion whether the ARLC ever existed or not.

I said not much is improving since the cash injection The increased salary cap is the cash injection so if that's all they have done its not a whole lot.


In terms of growing the game id say the most important things are grassroots participation, revenue, game attendance and tv audiences imo anyway. We have discussed revenue, how has the game grown at the grassroots level? and tv ratings? fan attendance? membership has increased but the clubs should get just about all the credit for that..

 

[insert.pause]

The rights were worth a billion whether the ARLC ever existed or not. 3

I said not much is improving since the cash injection.

In terms of growing the game id say the most important things are grassroots participation, revenue, game attendance and tv audiences imo anyway. We have discussed revenue, how has the game grown at the grassroots level? and tv ratings? fan attendance? membership has increased but the clubs should get just about all the credit for that..

So attendance is the NRL's problem, but membership growth is credit to the clubs?

Why should I do all the heavy lifting when you ignore what I say anyway, you can ignorantly believe the game is no better than it was 3 years ago, doesn't faze me, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[Craig Johnston]

The ARLC is bigger than the clubs, champ.

From the same article you took your pretty picture from:

The primary objects of the Company are to:

(a) be the single controlling body and administrator of the Game;
(b) foster, develop, extend and provide adequate funding for the Game from the junior to elite levels and generally to act in the best interests of the Game;
(c) liaise with and delegate appropriate functions to governing bodies of the Game in the States and Territories of Australia, including the NSWRL and QRL;
(d) organise and conduct all State of Origin and Australian Representative Games;
(e) organise, conduct and foster the NRL Competition;
(g) liaise with the Rugby League International Federation Limited and organisations controlling the game in other countries in the fostering and control of the game of Rugby League throughout the world;
(h) promote and encourage either directly or indirectly the physical, cultural and intellectual welfare of young people in the community and, in particular, the Rugby League community;
(i) promote and encourage either directly or indirectly sport and recreation, particularly Rugby League football, in the interests of the social welfare of young persons.

All the clubs give a shit about is more money for them, they don't give a shit about growing the game or developing it. Which is specifically why the ARLC is needed.

what's all that got to to do with the price of tea in india?

ultimately the clubs vote on who represents them, and even if it isn't immediate, if they wanted to, smith would be removed by their rights to vote the panel of the arlc -> those who enjoy those responsibilities above

 

[insert.pause]

what's all that got to to do with the price of tea in india?

ultimately the clubs vote on who represents them, and even if it isn't immediate, if they wanted to, smith would be removed by their rights to vote the panel of the arlc -> those who enjoy those responsibilities above

the commissioners also get a vote, 26 members all up, 16 clubs, QRL, NSWRL & 8 commissioners.

 

[betcats]

So attendance is the NRL's problem, but membership growth is credit to the clubs?

Why should I do all the heavy lifting when you ignore what I say anyway, you can ignorantly believe the game is no better than it was 3 years ago, doesn't faze me, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

Of course membership growth is a credit to the clubs, tell me how it isn't? They are selling memebership to their clubs.

Crowds are a problem for both the NRL and the clubs, but since the NRL is holding onto most of the money they should be getting most of the growing done.


Ive looked up participation rates, tv ratings and crowd numbers buddy its not heavy lifting its a quck check and I could care less if you try and convince me, if you don't want me to address you don't reply to my comments.

 

[Craig Johnston]

the commissioners also get a vote, 26 members all up, 16 clubs, QRL, NSWRL & 8 commissioners.

i thought that might have been the case but it doesn't say that on their org structure.

if it does, it means it's in the interests of the clubs to get the 4 nrl controlled clubs to sort out their shit.....or start voting in commissioners of their choosing to outbalance any divisions

 

[insert.pause]

Of course membership growth is a credit to the clubs, tell me how it isn't? They are selling memebership to their clubs.

Crowds are a problem for both the NRL and the clubs, but since the NRL is holding onto most of the money they should be getting most of the growing done.


Ive looked up participation rates, tv ratings and crowd numbers buddy its not heavy lifting its a quck check and I could care less if you try and convince me, if you don't want me to address you don't reply to my comments.

The NRL has set up million dollar pilot CRM membership programs to help clubs grow membership. Membership should be treated no different than game tickets, they are selling the same thing, themselves. The responsibility to sell tickets is on clubs, their revenues depend on it & their failure to do so is theirs just as much as it is the NRL.

If you already knew why did you ask me?

 

[insert.pause]

i thought that might have been the case but it doesn't say that on their org structure.

if it does, it means it's in the interests of the clubs to get the 4 nrl controlled clubs to sort out their shit.....or start voting in commissioners of their choosing to outbalance any divisions

It makes it next to impossible for commissioners to be removed, which is why some clubs are agitating for constitutional change to allow them a voice in appointment, but constitutional change also requires the same 75% of 26 members. It was designed that way to ensure the independent commission remained independent, which is essentially what some clubs are predictably fighting against.

 

[betcats]

The NRL has set up million dollar pilot CRM membership programs to help clubs grow membership. Membership should be treated no different than game tickets, they are selling the same thing, themselves. The responsibility to sell tickets is on clubs, their revenues depend on it & their failure to do so is theirs just as much as it is the NRL.

If you already knew why did you ask me?

I will admit I was ignorant of the membership program, I still think the clubs deserve the majority of the credit for the membership increase though. Good point about crowds and membership being similar, but again the majority of the money is being held by the NRL. IMO the clubs should be getting a much larger slice of the pie but that is another discussion.

I asked you because you are yet to admit growth has been poor in these crucial areas. Its only heavy lifting to you because you need to find some info that allows you to put a positive spin on it.

And forget the figures and reports for a sec, I just don't like how the game is being run. They pump up a new draw and it turns out its worse or just as bad as previously. Their "intergrity commission" is a big joke and the way they have handled recent player and club indiscreations has been inconsistent at best and down right pathetic at worst. They seem to think rule changes can happen anytime. Smiths "discretionary powers" to pay someone outside the cap are ridiculous, unfair and will be the end of him if he ever tries to use them.

They have achieved some good things such as the touch footy coming under the NRL banner but I am far from convinced.

 

[insert.pause]

I will admit I was ignorant of the membership program, I still think the clubs deserve the majority of the credit for the membership increase though. Good point about crowds and membership being similar, but again the majority of the money is being held by the NRL. IMO the clubs should be getting a much larger slice of the pie but that is another discussion.

I asked you because you are yet to admit growth has been poor in these crucial areas. Its only heavy lifting to you because you need to find some info that allows you to put a positive spin on it.

And forget the figures and reports for a sec, I just don't like how the game is being run. They pump up a new draw and it turns out its worse or just as bad as previously. Their "intergrity commission" is a big joke and the way they have handled recent player and club indiscreations has been inconsistent at best and down right pathetic at worst. They seem to think rule changes can happen anytime. Smiths "discretionary powers" to pay someone outside the cap are ridiculous, unfair and will be the end of him if he ever tries to use them.

They have achieved some good things such as the touch footy coming under the NRL banner but I am far from convinced.

My point was why does the burden fall on me to prove your assumption wrong instead of you proving mine wrong.

A lot of the stuff that has been implemented by the NRL over the last few years isnt things that are readily recognisable, but are nevertheless needed for a modern professional sporting organisation. Areas such as club governance has been made a big focus by the NRL but you wont necessarily feel its immediate impact, so to Government lobbying, making the game more inclusive with introduction of touch & greater emphasis on womens rugby league, have all been introduced over a short amount of time because it had been previously neglected. If you look at where the NRL was a lot of structural things were missing and implementing them have been a priority. Place an additional 200m revenue into the old NRL administration and I don't think they would have known what to do with it.

A lot of the issues you have described are, in the schemes of things, fairly superficial, most of them have been issues in the game for decades. The NRL are in no way perfect and they will always make mistakes, but there is a lot behind the scenes that they are trying to build that doesn't get the headlines. I give them a pass mark so far and believe this year is probably the litmus test, with scheduling, interchange, transfer rules, tv rights, pathways and expansion all on the agenda it is a year where they should be making decisions now they have the structure in place to implement them.

 

[Captain Apollo]

the commissioners also get a vote, 26 members all up, 16 clubs, QRL, NSWRL & 8 commissioners.

You sure about that? No where I've seen indicates that for constitutional change the Commissioners plus the members get a vote. Everything I've seen has said it needs 75% out of the 16 Clubs and the NSWRL and QRL.

 

[insert.pause]

You sure about that? No where I've seen indicates that for constitutional change the Commissioners plus the members get a vote. Everything I've seen has said it needs 75% out of the 16 Clubs and the NSWRL and QRL.

Yeah, you're right, this is the best I could find, bizarrely the NRL don't have the constitution on their website.

As a safeguard for the game's grassroots, any constitutional change will require the support of 14 of the 16 clubs and either the NSWRL or QRL, or both ? giving the NSWRL and QRL a blocking vote by siding together.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...n-up-for-leagues-new-body-20100902-14rqx.html

 

[Craig Johnston]

So the clubs can arse dave smith tomorrow then if they all wanted to

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I'm sure each club would get more if they were developing their own players instead of poaching others but they're not interested in doing so. Typical shortsitedness by some clubs.
10 clubs attended, the 4 owned/stakeholder owned by NRL didn't attend, who were the other two clubs?

Cowboys and Warriors would have been unlikely given the distance and pointlessness of the exercise.....

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

the arlc commisioners and subsequently dave smith's position is controlled by the clubs.....they get 16 votes (albeit 12 right now) of the 18 total, so if the clubs don't like being told to do what they're told, they have the power to tell dave smith to f**k off.

Pfft, not likely to happen though....

First off, they need 3/4 of about 24 voters and since when have all of the clubs, state bodies, etc ever agreed on anything.

Second, If these winds were blowing DSmith and the Commission would only need find the few "weak link" clubs and make them offers in exchange for support.

Basically, the commission is untouchable for the clubs (and rightly so)....

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

- suspect reporting to improve figures
- very little ratings or crowd growth
-Continually changing stadium strategy
- The integrity commission is a joke
-MRC is a joke
- Scheduling and draw is a joke
- Pissy rule changes at stupid times
- Massively expanded spending and operations for very little growth


But hey its all the clubs!

Lets not forget the cash Smithy is spending he had f**k all to do with getting but hey lets all get a payrise anyway!

From what I can see as a fan the game is two or three years into a massive cash injection and not much is improving.

Participation and fan connectivity is up massively. Just because the few visible indicators (crowds) havent moved doesnt mean the entire game is stagnant.

DSmith is responsible for more than just the NRL and those 16 teams...

 

[insert.pause]

So the clubs can arse dave smith tomorrow then if they all wanted to

Not really, as it stands they can remove commissioners but they can't appoint them and only the commission can sack Smith. Even if 14 clubs could manage to agree to punt one commissioner they are just replaced by another appointed by the rest of the commission. The brawling over appointing the original commission is evidence of how chaotic any change to the constitution that allows them to have a voice in appointments would be.

 

[BunniesMan]

Pfft, not likely to happen though....

First off, they need 3/4 of about 24 voters and since when have all of the clubs, state bodies, etc ever agreed on anything.

Second, If these winds were blowing DSmith and the Commission would only need find the few "weak link" clubs and make them offers in exchange for support.

Basically, the commission is untouchable for the clubs (and rightly so)....

The clubs want more support for the clubs. Those "weak link" clubs would be in an even better position if a new regime was installed. The commission is not untouchable. The commission serves at the pleasure of the clubs, NSWRL and QRL.

If you look at the most respected leagues in the world, the biggest with the most money. The likes of the NFL and EPL, clubs get a much bigger share than they do in the NRL. The status quo needs to be changed.