ARLC Commission Changes

[Perth Red]

Getting close or more media speculation?

Having locked in Jack Wighton and Joey Leilua to 2020, the Canberra Raiders are moving to extend their senior players beyond 2018, although the unknown salary cap is proving problematic.

While it's looking like the NRL salary cap for next year could be $9.5 million - a figure the clubs have been told to work towards - the governing body is trying to include a whole heap of provisions in that as well, effectively lowering the salary cap to below the $9 million mark.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...l-salary-cap-uncertainty-20170617-gwt3tz.html

 

[El Diablo]

a figure the clubs have been told to work towards

the figure is $9.14 million

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...osed-salary-cap-for-2018-20170422-gvqhws.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...d/news-story/394a0ad0e4d1de16993d141799c4979d

 

[Jatz Crackers]

and they told you this is why they bought shares?

bs seeing Gordon waited 6 years after Murdoch bought in

What the f**k are you on about now.

Noone suggested I have direct knowledge of these things or spoken to any of the parties involved and who gives a toss about the timing of when shares are bought. Rinhart bought in at a different time again and most likely for different reasons. Who cares.

All I was pointing out was that plenty of these wealthy folk buy into a company for strategic competitive reasons and sometimes it is to gain a seat on the board.

 

[El Diablo]

Noone suggested I have direct knowledge of these things

you did

 

[insert.pause]

isn't it funny that the meeting between the clubs & NRL last week was talked up by both fairfax & newscorp as "crucial" and was a potential flashpoint, yet there was no follow up report on how it went, just a small blurb in the smh Sunday gossip column that said it ended in club applause. Typical league media 'journalism', only report the negatives.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

you did

You are wrong.

 

[taipan]

isn't it funny that the meeting between the clubs & NRL last week was talked up by both fairfax & newscorp as "crucial" and was a potential flashpoint, yet there was no follow up report on how it went, just a small blurb in the smh Sunday gossip column that said it ended in club applause. Typical league media 'journalism', only report the negatives.

Not usually a fan of Kent( and even far less so Red Wine Face Sloth),but they both stated(NRL 360) Greenberg opened up the books completely to all the CEOs and Chairs,spelling out clearly where the money has gone and where it is to be future allocated.
No hiding money in slush funds as some players thought.The attendees apparently could not argue
against the info provided.Slothfield was doubtful about applause, but no argument against the information laid out.

Kent is now stating the NRL cannot afford to allocate 29% of the revenue to players, unless of course the grassroots has to lose funding.

The ARU according to Kent has shown exactly what happens when you ignore the grassroots.They have stuffed themselves.

Even Fumbleball with all their loot is expected to offer max 28% of income to players, and they have far bigger rosters and football depts, and bigger crowds.Plus plan to waste on GWS and Suns and bottomless pit money on grassroots.

I'm getting fair dinkum sick of Webster in the Snoring Herald and indeed on NRL 360,he bags the code mercilessly and has become a perpetual whinger.Wrote a nice article about Sydney club ru.Says it all really.
He's becoming a sober bitter version of Slothfield.

 

[insert.pause]

Not usually a fan of Kent( and even far less so Red Wine Face Sloth),but they both stated(NRL 360) Greenberg opened up the books completely to all the CEOs and Chairs,spelling out clearly where the money has gone and where it is to be future allocated.
No hiding money in slush funds as some players thought.The attendees apparently could not argue
against the info provided.Slothfield was doubtful about applause, but no argument against the information laid out.

Kent is now stating the NRL cannot afford to allocate 29% of the revenue to players, unless of course the grassroots has to lose funding.

The ARU according to Kent has shown exactly what happens when you ignore the grassroots.They have stuffed themselves.

Even Fumbleball with all their loot is expected to offer max 28% of income to players, and they have far bigger rosters and football depts, and bigger crowds.Plus plan to waste on GWS and Suns and bottomless pit money on grassroots.

I'm getting fair dinkum sick of Webster in the Snoring Herald and indeed on NRL 360,he bags the code mercilessly and has become a perpetual whinger.Wrote a nice article about Sydney club ru.Says it all really.
He's becoming a sober bitter version of Slothfield.

I saw that, they were referring to the blurb in the smh, my point is why wouldn't they follow up on the meeting they labelled crucial? I'm sure they all had their "Super League Mark II" articles ready for print only to be disappointed.

 

[taipan]

I saw that, they were referring to the blurb in the smh, my point is why wouldn't they follow up on the meeting they labelled crucial? I'm sure they all had their "Super League Mark II" articles ready for print only to be disappointed.

Agree.The media thrives on negativity, to such an extent when something positive is noted it's like the martians have landed.And it must sh*t them to be unable to throw a dramatic "code in crisis" article in the headlines.

Anycase my reading FWIW of NRL 360 was, the Chairs and CEOs will go back to their clubs at least armed with info, that in their right mind they should show to their players pushing for 29% is going to do more harm than good.

The ball's in the court of the RLPA now, if they screw grassroots money, the media should say so.

 

[Perth Red]

Biggest issue I could see is that the rlpa wants the % based on all club revenue, not NRL generated revenue. This would mean the slush gap between cap amount and NRL grant would disappear and clubs would be back to square one. Players must be very thick if they think Leagues club funding/private owners tipping in to cover losses should be counted as revenue generated!

Surely its clubs wanting 130% of cap amount that is likely to screw grassroots rather than the actual cap amount?

 

[siv]

Problem is that the RLPA is run by ex-players

So demands are simple and self centered

And no one really speaks on behalf of all players

If its a player manager then the deal will be focused on benefiting the player managers not the players

But who in the RLPA speaks on behalf of the 10000 non NRL elite comp rugby league players ??

 

[Perth Red]

Not usually a fan of Kent( and even far less so Red Wine Face Sloth),but they both stated(NRL 360) Greenberg opened up the books completely to all the CEOs and Chairs,spelling out clearly where the money has gone and where it is to be future allocated.
No hiding money in slush funds as some players thought.The attendees apparently could not argue
against the info provided..

That would make for interesting reading! The NRL have spent over $1.1billion in last 5 years, would we say we have seen a positive return for the game on their expenditure?

 

[taipan]

Biggest issue I could see is that the rlpa wants the % based on all club revenue, not NRL generated revenue. This would mean the slush gap between cap amount and NRL grant would disappear and clubs would be back to square one. Players must be very thick if they think Leagues club funding/private owners tipping in to cover losses should be counted as revenue generated!

Surely its clubs wanting 130% of cap amount that is likely to screw grassroots rather than the actual cap amount?

The 130% of course doesn't help,but that's already in place/decided the clubs and players know it.That leaves the remaining money of which x amount is digital/managerial/staff/grassroots /others.
I understand now the RLPA and the CEOs/Chairs know the disbursements planned.

On that basis if the players are that clueless not to understand by agreeing to their % wants, grassroots where a large % of monies is to be allocated will be deeply affected.The very area just about all started their careers from.The very area that is bleeding due to drops in numbers.Surrey these bozos can understand that.

We know that Grant offered the 130% to the clubs when things were "rosy" and a full audit of where monies needed to be expended hadn't been finalised.Then the backflips ,then the reinstatement.

If the fans were coming through the gates in their droves and Tv ratings were increasing, regardless of scheduling, players would have a decent argument.Entertainers make their money through gate takings .The smaller the less they receive.

 

[Perth Red]

The 130% of course doesn't help,but that's already in place/decided the clubs and players know it.That leaves the remaining money of which x amount is digital/managerial/staff/grassroots /others.
I understand now the RLPA and the CEOs/Chairs know the disbursements planned.

On that basis if the players are that clueless not to understand by agreeing to their % wants, grassroots where a large % of monies is to be allocated will be deeply affected.The very area just about all started their careers from.The very area that is bleeding due to drops in numbers.Surrey these bozos can understand that.

We know that Grant offered the 130% to the clubs when things were "rosy" and a full audit of where monies needed to be expended hadn't been finalised.Then the backflips ,then the reinstatement.

If the fans were coming through the gates in their droves and Tv ratings were increasing, regardless of scheduling, players would have a decent argument.Entertainers make their money through gate takings .The smaller the less they receive.

I guess their argument is the game is making more money than ever in its past, and significantly so, and they deserve a bigger slice of that extra revenue. Neither side is right or wrong, just needs to find a happy mid ground that satisfies most without harming either.

I don't think asking for a % of consolidated revenue is a sensible move, they'd be better going for a % of NRL revenue.

Maybe if the NRL was able to show why it needs squillions for digital and how this will benefit the players in the future that might help? Most people opinions is that the NRL has wasted money left, right and centre for the last 5 years so for them to continue to plead poor and that they need to spend in whole new areas is probably being treat a bits sus.

 

[taipan]

That would make for interesting reading! The NRL have spent over $1.1billion in last 5 years, would we say we have seen a positive return for the game on their expenditure?

Without sighting the full laid out in the open revenue and cost documentation.
From a point of infrastructure Govt lobbying,player welfare,player income, revenue,merchandise sales there would be some positivity.
From the point of crowds and tackle participation a negative.Which is plainly obvious.

Also played games in Perth which drew less crowds than expected.At last resort that is additional transport and accommodation, just saying.

Reasons probably too many come to mind, I'd suggest for crowds scheduling,ANZ stadium,crap March weather, poor performances of Bulldogs,Souths,Dragons up and down, and the whole sad Tiger's story.

If the Chairs and CEO sighted the documentation and appeared to be satisfied with the transparency, maybe you can enlighten them further, with your full understanding .

You can only go by the reactions of people who have sighted and listened to the revenue cost analysis..

 

[taipan]

I guess their argument is the game is making more money than ever in its past, and significantly so, and they deserve a bigger slice of that extra revenue. Neither side is right or wrong, just needs to find a happy mid ground that satisfies most without harming either.

I don't think asking for a % of consolidated revenue is a sensible move, they'd be better going for a % of NRL revenue.

Maybe if the NRL was able to show why it needs squillions for digital and how this will benefit the players in the future that might help? Most people opinions is that the NRL has wasted money left, right and centre for the last 5 years so for them to continue to plead poor and that they need to spend in whole new areas is probably being treat a bits sus.

Huh.The very reason the chairs and CEO were there ,was to get the reasoning behind the expenditure such as the digital monies.

The game is making more money than the past, and scoop :the game is paying out more money such as players' SOO and Test monies, Admin .DOs,insurance,electiricity,water State leagues, etc


Nothing stays still in an inflationary environment ,small though it be now.

All negotiations are supposed to end at mid ground,by giving up some aspects.

IMO the players would be better off working on a gradual annual % increase on Rep/NRL/lower grad monies.

Because no one knows the lie of the land in 2 or 3 years ,so many economic changes on the horizon.No one knowing the implications of the 2023 Tv deal, when FTA stations are just hanging in.

Rest assured NRL players will not take a pay cut, should revenue either by TV contracts and or other sources drop substantially.

Any code in their right mind, would or should insulate themselves from future revenue declines, either by recession,GFC,cost of living or lack of consumer confidence(which seems to be happening now).

 

[Captain Apollo]

Taipan, based on what has been reported by the media, I think the main sticking point between the NRL and the RLPA is the RLPA want the game revenue calculation to include those monies which are tipped in by leagues clubs as grants to help many NRL clubs balance their books. On that point, I actually am more inclined to side with the NRL as it would be the equivalent of including in revenue generated money you borrow from a bank - a very daft idea.

Beside that point, I think the players do deserve a 29% revenue share. As I've said elsewhere, if the NRL can't run the rest of the game with 71% of the games generated revenue, then where the hell is the money going?

 

[Perth Red]

Not even sure how you would work it out given the fluidity of revenue amounts of clubs each year and differences between the haves and have nots in revenue. It would be different every year. Better to go with the NRL's pretty stable annual revenue and work a % off that.

Thats the big question! Massive revenue increases in last 6 years yet NRL still pleading poverty and needing more money for things. But apparently the club chairmen are happy now they have seen the books so all is well!

 

[Captain Apollo]

Just for comparison, the AFL have finalised their latest CBGA with their players. Guess what? The AFL players under the agreement will get 25% of forecast defined football revenue (Source: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...ive-bargaining-agreement-20170620-gwuvem.html)

 

[taipan]

Taipan, based on what has been reported by the media, I think the main sticking point between the NRL and the RLPA is the RLPA want the game revenue calculation to include those monies which are tipped in by leagues clubs as grants to help many NRL clubs balance their books. On that point, I actually am more inclined to side with the NRL as it would be the equivalent of including in revenue generated money you borrow from a bank - a very daft idea.

Beside that point, I think the players do deserve a 29% revenue share. As I've said elsewhere, if the NRL can't run the rest of the game with 71% of the games generated revenue, then where the hell is the money going?

That's correct Captain, which makes the claim even more ridiculous.
I understand in negotiations there are ambit claims and plain over the top ambit claims.Everyone wants to max it.

I am more on side with the NRL than I was before ,yet still do sympathise with the players.
The AFL players are on 28%,the NRL figures produced (and no I haven't sighted them (but the cynical media now acknowledges the fact) 29% the game cannot afford ,unless the grassroots takes the hit.
The figures laid out show where the money goes,and it appears none of it is under the carpet stuff, but all
necessary.

Yes the players get people through the gate, but ATM not the numbers we'd like, and some stuff up ,as a result we lose high paying sponsors and potential ones.

Begs the question, ignore or pay token amounts to grassroots and do a union in this country, or attend to the attrition and participation losses at grassroots.
If 28% or 27% of NRL revenue (excluding clubs)fits the bill, by all means go for it.Alternatively by removing the auckland 9s,City V country,WCC and All Stars,that takes a load off the players, that may be some form of compensation time wise and rest wise.