ARLC Commission Changes

[axl rose]

What? The game was growing in leaps and bounds under Arko and Quayle and whilst I would agree they were not perfect, .

Arko and Quayles biggest mistake was making the game to popular. Got the attention of Uncle Rupes, and he wanted his slice.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

It's at the stage that, despite the agendas being played in wanting him gone, the game needs him to go so it can move on and get past this petty political bullshit.

He should have had the decency to resign when the club funding deal was originally pulled after the NRL discovered they couldn't afford it, he originally made that funding deal to satisfy clubs, and then restored it to save himself. He's a coward.

Yeh, when this was happening over Xmas, assumed he would fall on his sword. It would basically have declaring that "it doesnt matter if you sack me and the next guy and the guy after, this is the deal you are getting"...

Instead he caved to get a few more months in the seat. F*cking pathetic.....

he was a dud and as useless as Grant

Yeh, it was terrible having a guy ready to take on the vested interests in Clubland and at NewsLtd...

Much better to just lube up and bend over.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Arko and Quayles biggest mistake was making to game to popular. Got the attention of Uncle Rupes, and he wanted his slice.

No, there biggest mistake was allowing the key stakeholders to act as free-lancers...

THey had the clubs signing new licences every year (the idea probably being cut a few underperforming sydney teams) and they had players signing with clubs (not the league).

This meant that, when a wealthy bloke came sniffing around and realised how much money there was to be made out of the sport, the ARLC had no way of keeping clubs attached to the ARL.

They were so focused on expanding the game, they never thought to check if their own territory was secure. Basically, they were a bunch of visionaries without a single strategic thought among them.

(there is a quote that i really love about the period "its not surprising that Super League happened, its only surprising that it didnt happen sooner")

 

[colly]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...rties-must-come-together-20170522-gwai0k.html

Decent article... Grant quoted as well. Not the normal news ltd, a friend of a friends uncle told me crap. But hey let's get rid of Grant and let the clubs bully the next person.

Gaffe prone Chairman of the NRL, introuding the Kangaroo squads on 28th April 2014 named Paul Gallen from Cronulla Hawkes, and Daily Cherry- Cherry-Evans from Manly seagulls.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...68fda63ec?sv=f742be7ec079da4e09bd44f151391f60

The problem with Grant is that he has a habit of miss-speaking and blaming others. He preformed good up to NRL TV deal. It was a masterstroke to allow Smith to forward the negations by 2 years. Imagine now negotiating a deal with Channel Ten almost bankrupt and Nine well and truly over the Stock exchange listing. In all sense Nine now are struggling profit wise (Seven also) So Grant has done some good things but his time has come, and the best person should get the job If he comes from QLD or NSW it should not matter. Your attitude to exclude people based on parochialism instead of competency just reinforces the mendacity that NRL is famous for.

 

[Captain Apollo]

According to the following article in the Sydney Morning Herald, looks like Greenberg is now in the firing line -

NRL chief Todd Greenberg in firing line after John Grant email over club funding
by Michael Chammas

NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg is set to come under fire with the ARL Commission launching an internal inquiry into last week's botched funding negotiations with the clubs.

ARLC chairman John Grant sent an email to all 16 club chairmen at 2.45am on Tuesday ahead of their meeting in Sydney, informing them of the commission's decision to ask Greenberg and NRL chief financial officer Tony Crawford for a "please explain".

In further evidence of the divide between the commissioners and the NRL executives, Grant has appointed finance guru Tony McGrath, who holds one of six seats on the ARLC, to oversee the NRL's revised offer to the clubs.

Grant and the commissioners maintain they were not informed of the proposal that was put forward to the clubs last week, in which Crawford outlined plans to delay funding over six years rather than the agreed five-year term.

There is a perception in club land that Grant and Greenberg are at loggerheads over the proposal, with the latest movements only highlighting the lack of trust among the game's hierarchy.

McGrath will work with Greenberg and Grant and is expected to report back to the commission ahead of the next meeting with the clubs on June 15.

The clubs will also demand the NRL provide greater transparency into recent investments, which includes details surrounding a proposed $150 million digital strategy and $100m grassroots investment.

The club chairmen gathered in Sydney on Tuesday in what was expected to be a push to remove Grant from his post as ARLC chairman.

However, given Grant's email in the early hours of Tuesday morning, in which he claimed to have no knowledge of the proposal that has angered the clubs, frustrations over Grant's position have eased.

Attention has now turned to the NRL executive team, with an internal inquiry having the potential to claim a senior casualty.

The clubs have also reopened talks to bring change to the constitution, hoping to appoint four new commissioners on a restructured nine-person commission. The clubs want to appoint two state-authorised commissioners to represent the Queensland Rugby League and NSWRL as well as two club-linked commissioners.

 

[insert.pause]

Grant is a control freak, he wants to be in the room running the show, suffocating his CEO & management in the process. Everything he has touched in the last 24 months has gone to shit, we are now onto our fourth pathways review since the commission came in, the last three have been screwed up each time that they have had to go back and do it again. The TV deal was renegotiated in a mad rush because, like the pathways review, it was botched the first time. The club funding agreement has been a mess for the best part of two years, with Grant botching it, then having to renegotiate it. Remember the club license deal was intended to be for perpetuity? That's gone now to, and will instead be a 5 year license so we can go through it all again in five years time. The CBA has been a mess because Grant rushed through a funding deal with clubs before we had a salary cap, and just to top it off he tied the club funding to the unknown cap! The game has no assets to show for the last $1 billion dollar broadcast deal because they cashed in the sustainability fund totalling $55 million. Now Grant has said the game will have $80 million in the bank by the end of this $2 billion dollar broadcast deal, the same target that they failed to meet under the current rights cycle.

The game desperately needs direction, clubs aren't innocent, far from it, but they have some genuine grievances with the way the game is being run. I have always thought Greenberg is a salesman without a lot of substance, however I think he deserves to live or die by his own hand, not be a patsy for an overbearing chairman.

 

[insert.pause]

According to the following article in the Sydney Morning Herald, looks like Greenberg is now in the firing line -

More like Tony Crawford, certain clubs have been gunning for him for years, which Grant of course knows. What better way to deflect from his position than to rebuke the guy the clubs hate even more than you.

 

[TheVelourFog]

nvm

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Gaffe prone Chairman of the NRL, introuding the Kangaroo squads on 28th April 2014 named Paul Gallen from Cronulla Hawkes, and Daily Cherry- Cherry-Evans from Manly seagulls.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...68fda63ec?sv=f742be7ec079da4e09bd44f151391f60

The problem with Grant is that he has a habit of miss-speaking and blaming others. He preformed good up to NRL TV deal. It was a masterstroke to allow Smith to forward the negations by 2 years. Imagine now negotiating a deal with Channel Ten almost bankrupt and Nine well and truly over the Stock exchange listing. In all sense Nine now are struggling profit wise (Seven also) So Grant has done some good things but his time has come, and the best person should get the job If he comes from QLD or NSW it should not matter. Your attitude to exclude people based on parochialism instead of competency just reinforces the mendacity that NRL is famous for.

Seriously... youre saying Grant should go because he accidentally said seagulls instead of sea eagles? He had a slip of the tongue. And Grant apparently blaming others.... what crap. He has been as upfront as you could be. He has a at times admitted that things could of been handled better. But hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? I don't completely agree that the Nrl executives are void of any fault but a slip of the tongue is hardly a reason for the sack.

Now I agree that it should be the best person for the job but the media (clubs) have been continually portraying Grant as someone that they don't get along with due to his qld influence and the fact he and the Arlc don't trust the clubs. The clubs could choose any commissioner to punt but grant always seems in the clubs crosshairs. The media are the ones that portray Grant as a qld bias commissioner..... so the alternative would clearly be someone that the clubs do want. A nsw bias commissioner? Is that what would fix the current independance issues?

 

[Stormwarrior82]

According to the following article in the Sydney Morning Herald, looks like Greenberg is now in the firing line -

Obviously Grants fault!

 

[Perth Red]

Lol at both those articles and Grant throwing everyone around him under the train. So out of record revenues we are ONLY facing a $11million loss, great outcome Grant!

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Yeh, when this was happening over Xmas, assumed he would fall on his sword. It would basically have declaring that "it doesnt matter if you sack me and the next guy and the guy after, this is the deal you are getting"...

Instead he caved to get a few more months in the seat. F*cking pathetic.....



Yeh, it was terrible having a guy ready to take on the vested interests in Clubland and at NewsLtd...

Much better to just lube up and bend over.

Yes if Grant fell on his sword, the clubs would of felt they won. And that's fair enough. But to think the clubs would of bowed down to the Arlc position is nieve. Do you think that the clubs removing the commissioners one by one is a good look and solves the issue? The Arlc would of brought someone in to smoke the peace pipe and make the clubs happy. Why would the Arlc bring someone in that doesn't fix the issue and put there seats at the table on the chopping block. A similar/same deal would of been made either way. The clubs were annoyed at the negotiations and the only card they could play to get there way was to threaten commissioner removal. The attack of Grant from disgruntled clubs goes back to when Smith was CEO. Nsw clubs were losing there power and didn't like it. Grant and the Arlc were happy with smiths stance. But clubs undermined the Nrl and played a hand in smiths removal and the way negotiations on the tv deal went and club grants went also. Now the same clubs want a say in players salary cap.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Lol at both those articles and Grant throwing everyone around him under the train. So out of record revenues we are ONLY facing a $11million loss, great outcome Grant!

I don't think he is throwing anyone under the bus. He is clearing up bullish!t articles that the clubs are reporting. He is clearing up the fake news that a lot on here are lapping up. I guess the Arlc could not spend the $150 mil on grassroots and media and then they would have a $139mil profit. Happy days!!!

 

[Perth Red]

Or they could have not promised what they cant deliver, set budget expenditure at a level across the areas that doesn't see them running at a significant loss and explained what the ROI is of these massive expenditure areas like digital.

I mean what do you need $100mill for in the digital space? The broke arse RFL just sold a digitally available pay tv option of the England game, didnt cost them $100mill to set it up!

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Or they could have not promised what they cant deliver, set budget expenditure at a level across the areas that doesn't see them running at a significant loss and explained what the ROI is of these massive expenditure areas like digital.

I mean what do you need $100mill for in the digital space? The broke arse RFL just sold a digitally available pay tv option of the England game, didnt cost them $100mill to set it up!

If the article is correct, It's seems like it's a $11 mil deficit. Hardly something to cry over. Greenberg told clubs that the Nrl will struggle to get the funds. The clubs have then gone to the media to bash the Arlc. The Arlc had no idea what Greenberg told the clubs and now they are after answers quite rightly. But apparently Grant needs to go because he wasn't there and he breathed again. It seems the message was lost between the CEO and Arlc. It's looks better for clubs if the paper reports "the Nrl needs to borrow money" over a "nrl 11 mil deficit". In a big business money can be massaged from year to year. $11mil is no big deal.

And what gives the Clubs the right to dictate to the Nrl to show any of there media or grassroots spending. The clubs don't even do the same to the Nrl. Because they don't show the clubs everything, you have Gould and others carrying on. Does everyone's boss tell them what there up to and what they should do?

 

[El Diablo]

piss off John and take your beard with you

 

[Stormwarrior82]

piss off John and take your beard with you

Look, another worthwhile post.

 

[Perth Red]

If the article is correct, It's seems like it's a $11 mil deficit. Hardly something to cry over. Greenberg told clubs that the Nrl will struggle to get the funds. The clubs have then gone to the media to bash the Arlc. The Arlc had no idea what Greenberg told the clubs and now they are after answers quite rightly. But apparently Grant needs to go because he wasn't there and he breathed again. It seems the message was lost between the CEO and Arlc. It's looks better for clubs if the paper reports "the Nrl needs to borrow money" over a "nrl 11 mil deficit". In a big business money can be massaged from year to year. $11mil is no big deal.

And what gives the Clubs the right to dictate to the Nrl to show any of there media or grassroots spending. The clubs don't even do the same to the Nrl. Because they don't show the clubs everything, you have Gould and others carrying on. Does everyone's boss tell them what there up to and what they should do?

Grant is chairman, thentarget comes with the job. I do t k ow how much power he holds in regards to the commision s decisions and communications but suggestions are it is significant. The clubs will go after the head of the commission, they aren't going to call for the head of someone no one knows, wheres the media in that. And make no mistake this is the clubs using the Media to apply pressure to get the best deal they can.

Anyway you look at it the track record of the commission since its inception is pretty poor. They got rid of Smith, the games first modern independent CEO, the last two tv deals have been significantly less than what their competitors negotiated, they have failed in most of their significant strategic kpi's, they are running at a loss despite massive revenue increases and at the moment none of the stakeholders of the game are happy; clubs, players or fans. Given all of that do you really believe Grant should maintain his position?

 

[BuffaloRules]

Grant is chairman, thentarget comes with the job. I do t k ow how much power he holds in regards to the commision s decisions and communications but suggestions are it is significant. The clubs will go after the head of the commission, they aren't going to call for the head of someone no one knows, wheres the media in that. And make no mistake this is the clubs using the Media to apply pressure to get the best deal they can.

Anyway you look at it the track record of the commission since its inception is pretty poor. They got rid of Smith, the games first modern independent CEO, the last two tv deals have been significantly less than what their competitors negotiated, they have failed in most of their significant strategic kpi's, they are running at a loss despite massive revenue increases and at the moment none of the stakeholders of the game are happy; clubs, players or fans. Given all of that do you really believe Grant should maintain his position?

He has supported him every step of the way since he joined up here and has little interest in any other NRL topic other than defending Grant, so doubt he will say he needs to go now...

All the points you have raised about his performance and shortcomings over the past 18 months will no doubt be deflectied once again back onto the clubs and the media, and "why should he have to explain where all the money goes to anyone"..,

 

[taipan]

Frankly,I don't know what or who to believe in the media.One minute it's Grant's fault.The next Greenberg's.Then Tony Crawford.Then the greedy clubs.Then the select powerful club Charirman.

Can't someone bang all the flipping heads together and work together to get the game back on track.If they can arrange peace in WW1 and WW2,Vietnam,Malaysian campaign, etc ,surely it's not too much to ask a group of people many with business expertise, to sort the sh*t out.Simples.