What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ARLC Commission Changes

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
The News facts .I'll leave it at that.I've seen enough of their BS with the Shark's drug stories.

I've spelt it out in my post,I suggest you can't read.I also stated here you obviously can't read ,if Smith and the Commission stuffed up the negotiations, thus they must share the blame.

One more time ,Smith was the only participant at the press conference.Hardly comforting without Grant there in support.
He was the CEO who made the Strategic Plan announcement with all these you beaut promises.SFA achieved, so maybe he fell on his sword ,not achieving results which TBH were good in theory ,but dreamy in practice.

One thing there was NRL antagonism by News.I saw it at the Fumbler Tv News conference.
How much did the NRL lose with the final outcome?

Yeah I understand what you mean. Sharks were as innocent as the storm were. Bloody newspapers ;)

Haha You and others would of bagged Grant if he was there anyway. Can’t win either way. Yes smiths promises let him down. I agree completely with you on that but to say that the initial 9 deal was a bad decision is wrong. We weren’t privy to the deal. Why would they try and take a lesser deal?? Maybe the deal we ended up with was the best deal we could of got? Who knows but at least use facts to prove your point where you can.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Yeah I understand what you mean. Sharks were as innocent as the storm were. Bloody newspapers ;)

Haha You and others would of bagged Grant if he was there anyway. Can’t win either way. Yes smiths promises let him down. I agree completely with you on that but to say that the initial 9 deal was a bad decision is wrong. We weren’t privy to the deal. Why would they try and take a lesser deal?? Maybe the deal we ended up with was the best deal we could of got? Who knows but at least use facts to prove your point where you can.

Hardly innocent.But some of the crap News printed was just that.

You have NFI whether I bagged Grant or not.In fact I sent an emailst to Bec Wilson at one time, when she stated no one on the ARL has rl experience.I suggested then what is the former Kangaroo John Grant doing there Bec? Naturally got no response.
In fact my early posts were pro Grant and Smith when they first came on board,IMO their performance left a lot to be of questions.

I'm saying the 9 deal was done hastily and IMO jeopardised what could have been a better overall deal.The argument for me ,News has no part ownership of the NRL,thus the NRL negotiators were in a strong position to negotiate with both sides unfettered.
Sometimes you have to take the deal that is final.That may be better or worse than expected.Give and take on both sides.If you go solo, there is less give and take.

I'm using facts that I know, plus observations.I don't rely on News which you appear to do.

In my time on this planet,I've learnt there are second hand car salesmen,real estate agents,politicians and journalists.They all have something in common.I'll say no more.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,762
There is a comment that the comission has ultimate say

Sorry

But the "veto option" that the NSWRL and QRL hold mean they have ultimate say over the ARLC
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
There is a comment that the comission has ultimate say

Sorry

But the "veto option" that the NSWRL and QRL hold mean they have ultimate say over the ARLC

Meaning no Independence by the Commission.Back to square one.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
For a start we had the lass from Wagga Suzzane Young who was paid apparently 600,000 pa ,since resigned after a short stay.
And the former Sharks ,Souths CEO Shane Richardson (resigned Feb 2016)who was paid a similar amount to prepare for a Platinum or 2nd tier league,agiain the figure thrown up was in the vicinity $700,000.
And there were a couple of others since left.
Wherever the NRL positioned the payments in the accounts, these people existed and are publcly acknowledged when they took on the jobs.
Not necessarily ,especially since the introduction of the Bunker,the new Digital dept involving journos and of course an increase in the funding of the Integrity Unit.And of course money outlaid to prop up Titans and Knights.
Greenberg in fact is being paid half of Smith's salary.Numbers were cut end of last year in the admin to further reduce costs,in which clubs could do the job anyway.

Who used Gould's comments?This the guy who has a 5 year plan for Penrith,now in year 7.

All of those other things you mention, bunker, integrity unit etc don’t sit in the admin line. Nor did the payments to knights and titans. So by your theory they ditched at least two consultants who had been paid over a million, we got a ceo being paid half the previous one and Greenburg still spent $1million more than Smith In His last year on administration! Sounds likely.

Those figures and ceo salary have been media speculation not any firm and hard fact and as I said the nrl financials would suggest they are untrue.

Sounds like Greenburg finally reigned it in during 2017 out of necessity as all the money had been spent and then some.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
All of those other things you mention, bunker, integrity unit etc don’t sit in the admin line. Nor did the payments to knights and titans. So by your theory they ditched at least two consultants who had been paid over a million, we got a ceo being paid half the previous one and Greenburg still spent $1million more than Smith In His last year on administration! Sounds likely.

Those figures and ceo salary have been media speculation not any firm and hard fact and as I said the nrl financials would suggest they are untrue.

Sounds like Greenburg finally reigned it in during 2017 out of necessity as all the money had been spent and then some.

Look mate i'm not here to spoon feed you on NRL expenditure and it's not my theory sh*t happened.
Nor to defend any of the clowns running the show.
What I do know we had expensive consultants, and in fact it was around 4-5 not just two.
We did have an increase in Integrity /Bunker/Digital expenditure ,nor did we spend ATT large amounts on junior development.I do know we propped up Tits/Knights and had money owing by Tigers/Dragons.And I do know we had membership specialists operating at Head office.
Yet the very same media speculation and comments made by News publications on many issues, you are quite happy to cite to back your argument.Sheesh talk about being flexible when it suits.

Smith made the statement about the SP,and the figures,not me.He was way out.

Scoop LOL .Your last line is stating the flipping obvious.That's what businesses do.Eg The ARU.
You rein in expenses or your spend like there's no tomorrow.The NRL is not the Macquarie Bank.
 
Last edited:

Vee

First Grade
Messages
5,625
Interesting that the vote for the second person was 10-6. Just so happens to be 10 Sydney teams and 6 outside. Coincidence? Seems like the Sydney powerbrokers may have 3 new commissioners. Another reason expansion needs to happen sooner rather than later.
From https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...-morris-to-sell-the-club-20180211-h0vwc1.html

Nevertheless, two blocs do exist, with only one Sydney club, Wests Tigers, supporting a group which includes the Titans, Storm, Warriors and possibly the Raiders and Cowboys, who voted for the unsuccessful candidate, Gary Pert, in the recent election.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,461

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Please champ,I have a fair idea how boards work, in my job.The point is Smith was involved in the ch9 negotiations.Him alone.Unlike prior Tv negotiations.CEOS can sell deals or prospective deals to Boards,doesn't mean they're on a winner. I Repeat why wasn't Grant there at the 9 TV deal announcement?

Smith stuffed up, jumped the gun, did it his way.He was the one who organised all the high end expensive consultants,who achieved little at best.

Facts ey? Were you at the negotiations? Because to say that smith alone was at the negotiation table is a big “I don’t know what the f$&k I’m talking about”. Or you believed the News Ltd papers. I then showed you a link from a News Ltd paper (courier mail) that said Grant and Samuels were both there at the start. Which you denied? We will never really know but discounting my link is interesting to say the least

Hardly innocent.But some of the crap News printed was just that.

You have NFI whether I bagged Grant or not.In fact I sent an emailst to Bec Wilson at one time, when she stated no one on the ARL has rl experience.I suggested then what is the former Kangaroo John Grant doing there Bec? Naturally got no response.
In fact my early posts were pro Grant and Smith when they first came on board,IMO their performance left a lot to be of questions.

I'm saying the 9 deal was done hastily and IMO jeopardised what could have been a better overall deal.The argument for me ,News has no part ownership of the NRL,thus the NRL negotiators were in a strong position to negotiate with both sides unfettered.
Sometimes you have to take the deal that is final.That may be better or worse than expected.Give and take on both sides.If you go solo, there is less give and take.

I'm using facts that I know, plus observations.I don't rely on News which you appear to do.

In my time on this planet,I've learnt there are second hand car salesmen,real estate agents,politicians and journalists.They all have something in common.I'll say no more.

I’m ok with you believing that the 9 deal was done fast. But fast doesn’t necessary mean wrong. Do you think the afl deal (week later) was done fast as well? Or they happen to be 95% done when we announced our deal? If that was the case fox were clearly delaying us to get the afl deal done first. And I’m sure fox would then say sorry Nrl we don’t have any money left for you, Take it or leave it (we get f@&ked either way.

The outrage over the 9 deal was unjustified. It would be like my realestate agent complaining about me buying a car. 9 was a fta deal and Fox was a paytv/simulcast deal. I guess the Nrl next time should just ask fox what they want to pay and accept it.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
From https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...-morris-to-sell-the-club-20180211-h0vwc1.html

Nevertheless, two blocs do exist, with only one Sydney club, Wests Tigers, supporting a group which includes the Titans, Storm, Warriors and possibly the Raiders and Cowboys, who voted for the unsuccessful candidate, Gary Pert, in the recent election.

Very surprising but given his history not so much.

The Sydney lawyer that the Sydney bloc voted for just happened to be one of the guys that did such a great job with the sl/arl merger. Clearly a Sydney-centric anti-expansion visionary. I really hope the 2 clubs veto the commission changes.
 

Vee

First Grade
Messages
5,625
The outrage over the 9 deal was unjustified.
My problem with the Nein deal was that Nein could re-work it to their benefit regardless of the NRL'S wishes. And did.

Nein signed for 4 nights/week. If they didn't want the Saturday game, the rights should have reverted to the NRL. I thought Smith did a good job except for this.

Haven't got a link but I remember seeing a report after Nein sold Saturday footy that the Nein bloke had played the others off the break and I agreed with that ATT.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,461
My problem with the Nein deal was that Nein could re-work it to their benefit regardless of the NRL'S wishes. And did.

Nein signed for 4 nights/week. If they didn't want the Saturday game, the rights should have reverted to the NRL. I thought Smith did a good job except for this.

Haven't got a link but I remember seeing a report after Nein sold Saturday footy that the Nein bloke had played the others off the break and I agreed with that ATT.
They couldn't and didn't, the NRL give Nine permission. The whole deal was basically done again, but Nine benefited because they already had a contract with a maximum outlay and any reworking of the deal was always going to leave them paying less, with fox picking up the shortfall in the original FTA deal.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
My problem with the Nein deal was that Nein could re-work it to their benefit regardless of the NRL'S wishes. And did.

Nein signed for 4 nights/week. If they didn't want the Saturday game, the rights should have reverted to the NRL. I thought Smith did a good job except for this.

Haven't got a link but I remember seeing a report after Nein sold Saturday footy that the Nein bloke had played the others off the break and I agreed with that ATT.

Yep that was the only thing wrong with it imo, and the fact they didn't try and sell them a ninth game so Fox could keep the exclusive Saturday but Nine got an extra fta game for the extra $'s.' However I accept the NRL was in strife club wise and didn't want to contemplate expansion with such a weak base to work from.

Its ridiculous to think Smith was "on his own", that's not how billion $ deals are made! He would have an exec working group made up of 2-3 commissioners plus the very expensive consultancy firm who were doing the work alongside him.
He, or the exec group, would have been giving regular reports to the full commission and they would have been responsible for the governance and decisions signing off.

As said it was clear News ltd had been in discussions with AFL for some time, had been offered I have no doubt numerous times, to come to the NRL table and then spat the dummy when their arrogance was called out. Just a damn shame we A) didn't have another viable alternative bidder B) Didn't have enough money in the bank to tell them to frick off for a couple of years and seen their subscription rate plummet C) had bigger balls to allow Smith to do his thing and make them suffer for their outrageous media stunt in announcing the AFL deal and damaging the NRL in doing so.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
Just on the nine 4th FTA game. They allegedly saved $175mill selling it back to Fox.
Surely we could have given them the 4th FTA game at a new popular slot and still given Fox exclusive Saturday and 5 exclusive games through expansion to get their $1billion? That $175mill would have easily paid for two expansion teams!!
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Facts ey? Were you at the negotiations? Because to say that smith alone was at the negotiation table is a big “I don’t know what the f$&k I’m talking about”. Or you believed the News Ltd papers. I then showed you a link from a News Ltd paper (courier mail) that said Grant and Samuels were both there at the start. Which you denied? We will never really know but discounting my link is interesting to say the least



I’m ok with you believing that the 9 deal was done fast. But fast doesn’t necessary mean wrong. Do you think the afl deal (week later) was done fast as well? Or they happen to be 95% done when we announced our deal? If that was the case fox were clearly delaying us to get the afl deal done first. And I’m sure fox would then say sorry Nrl we don’t have any money left for you, Take it or leave it (we get f@&ked either way.

The outrage over the 9 deal was unjustified. It would be like my realestate agent complaining about me buying a car. 9 was a fta deal and Fox was a paytv/simulcast deal. I guess the Nrl next time should just ask fox what they want to pay and accept it.

Really .Every big Tv deal I have witnessed at a press conference for any code,involves more than one individual.I found it more than unusual, especially when Grant always seems to get involved in the past.
Is it a flipping crime to ask why?

You appear to have been at the negotiations LOL.I have stated in a response to my views, some based on facts, some observations and some assumptions.Which is what most of us do.Unless you attend NRL Board meetings.
News Ltd papers have hardly been 100% correct with all their reporting over the many years.And guess what they to make assumptions which may be correct or incorrect.
That's my point.You call it denial if you wish that's your prerogative.Whether they were there or not, they weren't there at the press conference.That to me seems strange.Others might not think so, tough titty.

You're "OK "with my beliefs as to the speed whatever of the 9 deal.I'm not going to lose any sleep whether you are OK or not, it's just my opinion no less valid than yours.

I'm not outraged at the 9 deal ,IMO it could have been set up better with all partners .I'm outraged at the fact grassroots has been neglected for so long.I'm outraged because clubs appear to be anti internationaI .I'm outraged the code has the tendency to go one step forward and two steps back.I'm outraged crowds have gone down as well as grassroots numbers.

Real estate agents tend to go for the maximum price for their vendors,so perhaps the NRL did or didn't push hard enough, or were snookered.They tend to include as many buyers or bidders as possible.That's why many real estate agents, run around in decent motor vehicles
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...0w199.html?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

NRL 2018: Clubs split on constitutional reform risks new rugby league civil war


The NRL is on the brink of a damaging new civil war amid suggestions that as many as five clubs plan to reject proposed constitutional reform at a secret ballot next Wednesday.

After many months of negotiations and drafting, the changes to the Australian Rugby League Commission constitution will be voted on by clubs at the NRL annual general meeting in Sydney. It will take the opposition of just two clubs, or either the NSWRL or QRL, to derail them.
With conversations between club chairmen and their boards heating up as the vote approaches, the indication is that there are more than enough clubs planning to knock back the terms of the reforms, with their primary reservation being the power that the states would assume when granted seats on the commission.

A series of club board meetings in the coming days appear set to determine the fate of the proposed overhaul, which would see the commission expanded from eight members to 10 with two seats for club representatives and one each claimed by the states. However, Fairfax Media was told as many as five clubs were in the "no" camp a week out from the vote and unless they can be convinced into a last-minute change of heart the process seems doomed.

Such a failure would send the clubs' quest for a voice on the commission back to square one and leave former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, who is expected to take over as chairman from the departing John Grant at the AGM, with the assignment of charting an alternative way forward and averting a fresh outbreak of hostility between League Central and powerful dissenters in clubland.

Beattie has been active on social media this week with the landmark vote approaching.

"The NRL AGM on February 21 will decide on the future of constitutional reform," Beattie said. "If I am fortunate enough to be elected chair, the game will move forward immediately. How that is done will depend on the outcome of the meeting.

"I will be consulting widely before and after the AGM with the current and future commissioners and the leaders of the game. We will not be standing still."

Clubs last week voted for Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys and Sydney lawyer Glen Selikowitz to be their representatives on a new 10-person commission and NSW chairman George Peponis and QRL chairman Bruce Hatcher would be the other additions, replaced by independents after 18 months.

Grant, who has expressed concerns about the terms of the reforms, and fellow commissioner Catherine Harris would be the two members of the current eight-person commission to make way.

However, key supporters of the changes such as Sydney Roosters chairman Nick Politis and South Sydney chairman Nick Pappas, who has drafted them, now face the likelihood of having their bid for club representation on the commission falling over.

It is unclear what Beattie, the presumptive chairman, will do in this instance but one option that may placate unhappy club bosses would be to install V'Landys, who received unanimous support to be one of their representatives, on the commission as an independent while designing another path towards constitutional change.

That would leave one other independent seat to fill and Harvey Norman chief executive Katie Page's name has been tossed around as one that may satisfy enough of the clubs.

The pro-reform bloc enters the vote having lost one of its major backers, ousted Canterbury chairman Ray Dib, and new Bulldogs chairwoman Lynne Anderson has not said publicly whether the new board at Belmore would retain its predecessor's stance.

The crestfallen Dib will at least retain his place as a NSWRL director alongside Peponis and Politis after Cronulla chairman Dino Mezzatesta on Tuesday withdrew his nomination to join the board at Friday's AGM.

Dib and former Parramatta director Geoff Gerard will as a result keep their seats on the NSWRL board.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,461
Good, hope it fails.

Giving states more power, and putting them on the commission, is crazy. Once they are there they can never be removed, because that would require changes to the constitution, which states would just veto.

The whole reason they have struggled to get changes over the line is because they have had to satisfy state demands because of their veto. And now they want to put them on the commission and give them greater power? It would be the single worst decision the game could ever make. The state veto, along with the three year independence test, were terrible compromises and the reason why the commission model hasn't worked effectively.

The NSWRL having club chairs on its board is also a conflict that could see people like Politis influence three votes, one for NSW and two for the clubs. That's not proportional.

They should instead be looking at ways to change how commissioners are nominated and appointed and find a way to canvass all members. I think if a majority of members can remove a director they should have some say in who is appointed to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top