ARLC Commission Changes

[taipan]

Another internal fiasco .Only in rugby league.As the saying goes"when will they ever learn."

The one step forward ,two steps back NRL dance.Sheesh.

 

[El Diablo]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...s/news-story/547992e13de63564f657451de73c3eed

Queensland says don’t blame us if ARL reform fails

• The Australian
• 12:00AM February 14, 2018
• Brent Read

Queensland Rugby League chairman Bruce Hatcher hopes common sense will prevail but he says the fault won’t lie north of the border if constitutional reform falls over at next week’s annual general meeting.

A week before one of the most important votes in rugby league’s recent history, the prospect of constitutional reform remains in the balance.

ARL Commission chairman-in-waiting Peter Beattie has been working feverishly behind the scenes to keep reform on track, but The Australian understands several clubs are yet to decide whether to vote for or against changes that would result in the states and clubs gaining two representatives apiece on the commission.

The QRL and their NSW counterparts have worn much of the blame for the uncertainty, as several clubs and the commission itself raise concerns over changes to the constitution that would give the states significant power over decision-making.

The states would also retain their veto rights, which effectively means any significant change in the game requires the approval of Queensland and NSW. For a quorum at any general meeting, the states must be present.

Any committee must include a director of the NSW and Queensland rugby leagues. Those powers do not sit well with some clubs.

Hatcher suggests the disgruntled clubs need to suck it up, given the alternative is to retain a system that has driven both the states and the clubs to despair.

“You’re going to go back to a system that hasn’t worked?” Hatcher said.

“Those guys who are conducting a rearguard action including the commission have to ask themselves why did we get in a position where everyone was unhappy with the level of performance?

“Ultimately, what happened was a majority of stakeholders decided it wasn’t working and they wanted a change. I don’t understand why you would tear the whole building down for semantics or things that can be overcome with good governance.

“The most recent thing I have heard is they are not happy with veto rights. I don’t know if they understand what they are.

“It’s really a fail-safe situation. I think the most disappointing part of this is … a lot of clubs didn’t read the document. That would be my criticism.

“We did our homework. Certainly there has been robust debate. But when you are told you have reached agreement, and suddenly at the 11th hour you are told there is not agreement, where do you go?

“While it is not perfect, it will get everyone around the table and make decisions in the best interests of the game. That’s what I am hoping for.”

Hatcher and his NSW counterpart, George Peponis, will join the reformed ARL Commission as state representatives if constitutional reform goes through at the AGM on February 21.

The clubs will also get two representatives — Racing NSW chief executive Peter V’landys and Sydney lawyer Glen Selikowitz.

Hatcher said it was imperative that the game moved forward because history had shown that the commission’s current structure had reached its use-by date.

“What everyone endorsed as an independent commission to get on with life with a clean piece of paper clearly didn’t work because of a lack of communication and the speed decisions were made,” Hatcher said.

“They were far too slow and they didn’t engage or communicate. There has been a crisis of confidence. They have staggered from one crisis to another and hardly ever regained balance.

“I just can’t see why we would want the old commission back. They had years to appease people and I don’t think there was anyone convinced the model worked.

“Certainly power of veto (for the states) was never likely to be changed.

“We didn’t put it in there. News Limited put it in there (as part of negations with the ARL to form the ARL Commission) because they felt there was a possibility that the other members of the commission may overrun the state leagues, whose major responsibility is to look after grassroots.

“People tend to forget that we ceded a lot of our financial power to the commission.

“I am not over the moon with what we have been given in recent times.

“But I am an eternal optimist. I hope by the end of the day common sense will prevail.”

 

[El Diablo]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...d/news-story/4431a3281c312e92523acbcf5b2b8e67

Here we go again ... once again rugby league is divided

• The Australian
• 12:00AM February 14, 2018
• Brent Read
  

Here we are again. A week out from one of the most crucial votes in recent history and the game is once again splintered, the clubs and states divided over the future of constitutional reform.

In the upper echelons of clubland, among the more radical and frustrated voices, talk of a breakaway competition is again gaining traction.

Reform was meant to usher in a bright new dawn for the NRL and its clubs. Instead, it is threatening to pit them against each other.

ARL Commission chair-in-waiting Peter Beattie has been hammering the phones as he attempts to ensure his passage to the apex of rugby league is smooth.

He has work to do. There are serious concerns in clubland, many of which have already been outlined.

The most telling centre on the power the states retain under the proposal that would result in the commission being expanded to 10 members with six independents, two state representatives and two club representatives.

As well as gaining direct representation on the commission via their respective chairs — Bruce Hatcher in Queensland and doctor George Peponis in NSW — they have the ability to single-handedly stall or end any major changes to the game.

A quorum requires both the NSW Rugby League and Queensland to be in attendance, which the existing commissioners believe is evidence of the longstanding suspicion and divisions that have been part of the game but should be consigned to the past.

Any committee set up by the commission must have a director from both the Queensland and NSWRL. Each state is even required to have a representative on the national selection committee.

The states were given omnipotent power as part of the deal that allowed the game to transition to an independent commission six years ago, in part over fears that the clubs could wrest control and act in self-interest at the expense of the wider game.

At the time, the fears were well founded. Clubs were floundering financially and cared little for the respective state leagues. Their own survival was their overriding concern. Times have changed but suspicion is still the prevailing emotion in rugby league.

The states are suspicious of the clubs’ motives. The clubs are suspicious of one another. The game lurches from one crisis to another.

Beattie has been a voice of calm amid the hurricane of hubris. The former Queensland premier, should be knee-deep in preparations for the Commonwealth Games — of which he is the chairman — but has had his time eroded by brushfires in rugby league.

He has been bullish on social media this week, insisting the vote on February 21 will decide the future of reform and the game will move forwards regardless.

He also revealed he would consult with the future commissioners and leaders of the game in the lead-up to the vote. Beattie will know where he and the game stand heading into that meeting. Much is at stake, most notably for the clubs who have selected Peter V’landys and Glen Selikowitz to represent them on the reshaped commission.

V’landys, in particular, could emerge a winner either way. The brains behind mega-successful The Everest won unanimous support from the clubs.

Even if reform is voted down, Beattie and his fellow commissioners would need to find independent replacements for John Grant and Cathy Harris. V’landys would seem an obvious candidate to come on as an independent, given he is free of club ties and would meet the independence test.

V’landys no doubt feels a debt of gratitude to the clubs for their support and as such, would almost certainly seek their approval before accepting an invitation to act as an independent. If they give him their imprimatur, he could take an even more powerful and influential position on the commission, given the post of chair must always come from the ranks of those without club or state ties.

It means V’landys could eventually succeed Beattie as chair should he join the commission as an independent. Beattie could also appease some within the game by appointing another woman to the commission. Harris’s departure will leave only one woman on the commission — UN lawyer Megan Davis.

Harvey Norman chief executive Katie Page would seem an obvious candidate, given she knows the game and has been estranged from it long enough to pass the independence test.

Maybe it won’t come to that. Maybe Beattie will be able to use his negotiating skills, honed over a decade as Queensland premier, to resolve a dispute that threatens to turn bitter and ugly. Maybe he will be able to bring rival factions together and the game can move forward. Beattie was sometimes described as the “Teflon Premier” in Queensland for his ability to steer clear of controversy.

He’ll need all his negotiating skills to get rugby league out of another sticky situation.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Another internal fiasco .Only in rugby league.As the saying goes"when will they ever learn."

The one step forward ,two steps back NRL dance.Sheesh.

RL isnt the only group to have factional squabbles like this, we are just the only ones dumb enough to consistently fight it out in the media.....

 

[Perth Red]

For first time ever that Ive seen there was a big story in The West last week about infighting in AFL HQ and lack of club confidence in the CEO. Haven't see that before. Soccer is well known for its infighting and has some massive leadership problems. Union, well we know how the ARU has imploded and is viewed, good luck Raelene!

We are certainly not unique but we do love to air it in public and does seem to be constant rather than sporadic in our game mismanagement.

 

[El Diablo]

but we do love to air it in public

no

the media just doesn't report squabbles in other codes because there are repercussions if they do

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ses-together-before-vote-20180215-h0w60c.html

South Sydney chair Nick Pappas calls club bosses together before vote

• 
  Chris Barrett

South Sydney chairman Nick Pappas has asked his fellow 15 club supremos to come together in a room before next Wednesday's landmark vote on the future of the Australian Rugby League Commission as senior figures work the phones in a bid to avoid a constitutional crisis for the game.

The clock is ticking ahead of a moment of major significance for the code at the NRL annual general meeting in Sydney when a secret ballot will determine whether clubs and states have representation on the commission for the first time with two seats each on a board that would expand from eight to 10 members.

There has been increasing doubt in the past week that the overhaul will get the green light, with the opposition of only two clubs or either the NSWRL or Queensland Rugby League required to bring the proposal undone and send the lengthy reform process back to square one.

While as many as five clubs were said to be unconvinced a week out from the vote the politicking behind the scenes has continued in an effort by backers to get the changes over the line.

On Thursday, Pappas, who has drafted the constitution reform process on behalf of the clubs and as such is one of its primary supporters, sent an email calling on his fellow club chairs asking them to meet at League Central an hour before the AGM next Wednesday.

Whether that will serve as a setting for a last-ditch plea for clubs to endorse the proposal or an informal show of numbers is unclear but there is suspicion among chairs who are wary about being pressured by those in favour of it to show their hand.

Outgoing ARLC chairman John Grant has declared that the actual vote, to be held soon after when the AGM begins at 11am, would be conducted by secret ballot.

Grant, who is set to be replaced by former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, on Wednesday sent an email to club chairs telling them they did not have to resolve the matter next week but could take more time if it was required.

Those who have pushed hard for club voices on the commission over the many months of drafting, however, are running low on patience.

There are some clubs balking at the power that would be afforded to the states, specifically the requirement in the draft constitution that the NSWRL and QRL commissioners be present at any general meeting for it to go ahead and that every committee includes a director of both states. The states would also retain their power of veto.

Critics argue that the commission could potentially be brought ot a standstill under that framework by either of the states.

It is understood that Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys, who received unanimous support from the clubs to be one of their two commissioners, would accept joining the commission as an independent in the event the reforms fail as long as it was with the endorsement of clubs who backed him.

 

[El Diablo]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...m/news-story/f4e685d97dff7b1d8b52df0f28c0be03

NRL powerbrokers push for a club showdown on reform

• The Australian
• 12:00AM February 16, 2018
• Brent Read
  
  

NRL powerbrokers are pushing for a showdown of club chairs only hours before the secret vote that threatens to tear the game apart.

The Australian understands moves are afoot to have a chairs-only meeting to discuss concerns over constitutional reform on the morning of February 21 — the clubs and states are scheduled to vote on reform at the annual general meeting later that day.

It is understood a number of clubs are reluctant to vote in favour of reform amid concerns over the power that will reside with the states under the constitutional changes.

A series of board meetings early next week are likely to prove decisive — Wests Tigers and Melbourne are among the clubs who are due to finalise their stance at directors meetings on Monday night.

Should constitutional reform get voted down, the code will be left splintered. South Sydney chair Nick Pappas has been leading the push for reform and it is believed he and some of his fellow club bosses want to convene a meeting on the morning of February 21 to thrash out any lingering concerns and find some unanimity among the clubs.

While some chairs are believed to be reluctant to vote for constitutional change in its current guise, others have adopted the view that any change is better than the status quo. While they acknowledge it may not be perfect, they have described the changes as a starting point that can be finetuned down the track.

Others are reluctant to vote for reform that would give the states wider powers than they already have. Aside from retaining their veto rights over constitutional change — originally implemented to protect the game from the self-interest of clubs — the states would also be required for a quorum at meetings and would be included on all significant committees.

The clubs fear that may lead to the states either inadvertently or deliberately stalling change. QRL chair Bruce Hatcher, who will join the commission under the changes, counters that by pointing out that if they fail to attend a meeting, it would be rescheduled and the following meeting would go ahead regardless of their presence.

Hatcher remains committed to constitutional reform, in part because there is a sense in both Queensland and NSW that the states have often been ignored by the ARL Commission. Regardless, some clubs are concerned and may vote down reform as a result — if two or more clubs vote against reform, it fails.

The plan to meet prior to the AGM would ensure the clubs know where each other stands heading into that meeting. As it stands, the vote on constitutional reform, which would result in two state and two club representatives joining a 10-person commission, will be decided by secret ballot.

There has been a suspicion that some chairs have been saying one thing behind closed doors but are prepared to vote another way under the cloak of anonymity. Hence the push to have a face-to-face meeting before the vote is conducted.

The ramifications for the code could be significant. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V’landys and prominent Sydney lawyer Glen Selikowitz have already been nominated to join the commission as the club representatives, while Hatcher and his NSW counterpart George Peponis will be the state representatives.

Should constitutional reform fall over, Hatcher and Peponis would miss out. V’landys and Selikowitz could yet join the commission as independent candidates given neither has club ties, although that would largely hinge on the position of chairman-in-waiting Peter Beattie.

Beattie has spoken to both men, as well as a host of club chairs, as he attempts to avert the latest crisis to hit the code. There has been speculation that should reform get voted down, Beattie could add V’landys and Harvey Norman chief executive Katie Page, thereby increasing the number of women on the commission.

With Cathy Harris due to stand down next week, legal academic Megan Davis will be the only woman on the commission. Page has a longstanding connection with the game as a former board member and long-term sponsor.

However, she has been removed from the game long enough to now qualify as an independent and it is likely she would be widely accepted by the clubs.

 

[Last Week]

What is News Ltds obsession with Katie Page? Every article about commissioners and she's mentioned.

 

[insert.pause]

What is News Ltds obsession with Katie Page? Every article about commissioners and she's mentioned.

She was on the NRL Board as an appointee of news corp.

It would be the best outcome for everyone if Page & Vlandys were appointed independents while the clubs go back to the drawing board on the constitutional reform. The game gets two very good commissioners and the clubs get one of their guys on free, essentially giving them an extra commissioner to appoint once the constitution changes are agreed to. Long term It would actually be smarter for them to delay it and get there man on free, with the ability to become chairman, unlike a club appointed commissioner.

 

[taipan]

Well ,well ,well sometimes things eventually come out in the wash,as Roy Masters indicated in today's Snoring Herald "
Grant was ultimately brought down by the protracted negotiations which guaranteed the clubs annual revenue equivalent to 130% of the salary cap.
Grant was criticised ,initially for seeking to claw it back because revenue projections didn't justify it and was then accused of agreeing to the figure in order to save his position as chair.
Yet the original offer to clubs, even higher than 130% was made by former NRL CEO David Smith,and it was the subsequent NRL administration who discovered it was unsustainable.
As a team man,Grant never once ,publicly at least ,blamed others for the predicament in which he was placed."

I trust our mate PR takes a butchers hook at this, as one example of money being thrown around by Smith without it appears, thought for future income.
In my book it suggests whilst Smith had built up an initial surplus,he was going to give away chunks of it ,to clubs some of whom would have difficulty running a chook raffle.Further eating into grassroots funding.

 

[El Diablo]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...t/news-story/6fa77b6c70d3ed493794f55567d1d47f

NRL reform in limbo as clubs fear lack of numbers for Commission seat

• The Australian
• 12:00AM February 17, 2018
• Brent Read
  
  

NRL clubs are weighing up whether to postpone next week’s vote on constitutional reform amid fears they lack the numbers to secure a place on the ARL Commission.

The Weekend Australian understands after days of talks behind the scenes involving some of the most influential figures in the game, including ARL Commission chairman-in-waiting Peter Beattie, the clubs are starting to recognise that the short-term hurdles to constitutional reform appear insurmountable.

Some club powerbrokers believe they would be better off delaying a vote until they have the unanimity required to push through reform. Under the reform plan, which has been under discussion for more than a year, the clubs and states would get two representatives apiece on a 10-person commission.

There would also be six independent commissioners rather than the current eight.

Chairman John Grant and Cathy Harris are both due to stand down next week.

Beattie has been earmarked to replace Grant and has been working to ensure the game doesn’t descend into chaos.

It is understood Beattie will address club officials at the AGM on Wednesday. That meeting was supposed to usher in constitutional change, including Racing NSW chief executive Peter V’landys and Sydney lawyer Glen Selikowitz joining the commission as club representatives.

Queensland Rugby League chair Bruce Hatcher and his NSW counterpart George Peponis were ready to join the commission as state representatives. Those changes look likely to be put on hold, although Beattie could opt to bring V’landys on as an independent.

He would then have the option of pushing ahead with a seven-person commission while the clubs and states settle their differences. Or he could bring on another independent: Harvey Norman chief executive Katie Page has been mooted.

All that hinges on what direction the clubs and states take as they look to reach agreement on reform before Wednesday, when they are due to vote to determine changes to the commission.

If the clubs and states can’t agree on a way forward, which looks most likely, a vote on reform is likely to be delayed.

That would mean the commission continuing without club and state representatives for the foreseeable future.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Well ,well ,well sometimes things eventually come out in the wash,as Roy Masters indicated in today's Snoring Herald "
Grant was ultimately brought down by the protracted negotiations which guaranteed the clubs annual revenue equivalent to 130% of the salary cap.
Grant was criticised ,initially for seeking to claw it back because revenue projections didn't justify it and was then accused of agreeing to the figure in order to save his position as chair.
Yet the original offer to clubs, even higher than 130% was made by former NRL CEO David Smith,and it was the subsequent NRL administration who discovered it was unsustainable.
As a team man,Grant never once ,publicly at least ,blamed others for the predicament in which he was placed."

I trust our mate PR takes a butchers hook at this, as one example of money being thrown around by Smith without it appears, thought for future income.
In my book it suggests whilst Smith had built up an initial surplus,he was going to give away chunks of it ,to clubs some of whom would have difficulty running a chook raffle.Further eating into grassroots funding.

Just remember that smiths club agreements were done on potential tv deal revenues. (That’s a issue in itself) Tv deal amount must have come in lower than smith had expected. If the deal came in at $2-$2.3 mil smiths club deal wouldn’t of been so bad. And they also decided to spend money on the digital media dept as well after smith left.

I did like Roys article. Shows the real issues that really need to be changed.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...als-commission-shortfall-20180216-h0w7zt.html

 

[LeagueXIII]

Be wary when News Ltd push forward candidates.

 

[taipan]

Just remember that smiths club agreements were done on potential tv deal revenues. (That’s a issue in itself) Tv deal amount must have come in lower than smith had expected. If the deal came in at $2-$2.3 mil smiths club deal wouldn’t of been so bad. And they also decided to spend money on the digital media dept as well after smith left.

I did like Roys article. Shows the real issues that really need to be changed.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...als-commission-shortfall-20180216-h0w7zt.html

IMO you don't make promises to NRL clubs, unless you know the monetary figure coming in from TV deals is X amount.We now know the outcome.Or if you have decent monies in the kitty.

It appears from Roy's article(and it's just my view) either the ARLC gave the OK to Smith (which reading between the lines does not appear to be the case), else Grant would have stepped in earlier, or Smith did it his way assuming the Commission would accede to his decisions,after all he was the code's' CEO with a certain amount of licence.

The Digital issue had been bubbling along for some time even during Smith's tenure.IOW the NRL having decent control of its media announcements and "propaganda".Telstra and News had too much control over that aspect, hardly a secret, judging by the many negative(to sell papers) stories rolled out, even minor incidents.
I have no problem with the new Media set up, the website is clear, links to all clubs with all the info needed.

 

[Perth Red]

Well ,well ,well sometimes things eventually come out in the wash,as Roy Masters indicated in today's Snoring Herald "
Grant was ultimately brought down by the protracted negotiations which guaranteed the clubs annual revenue equivalent to 130% of the salary cap.
Grant was criticised ,initially for seeking to claw it back because revenue projections didn't justify it and was then accused of agreeing to the figure in order to save his position as chair.
Yet the original offer to clubs, even higher than 130% was made by former NRL CEO David Smith,and it was the subsequent NRL administration who discovered it was unsustainable.
As a team man,Grant never once ,publicly at least ,blamed others for the predicament in which he was placed."

I trust our mate PR takes a butchers hook at this, as one example of money being thrown around by Smith without it appears, thought for future income.
In my book it suggests whilst Smith had built up an initial surplus,he was going to give away chunks of it ,to clubs some of whom would have difficulty running a chook raffle.Further eating into grassroots funding.

Sounds like an apologetic puff piece for grants failures to me. Maybe smith was expecting a much smaller salary cap so 140% would have been less? Maybe smith didnt think spending $100million on “digital”, whatever that means, wasn’t necessaary and better to have sustainable clubs? Who knows, it’s gone and in the past.

Future is what’s important and under Greenburg and a very conflicted commision Its hard to have confidence of things getting much better. Let’s see what the strat plan has to say and if it will give us hope things will improve over next 5 years.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

IMO you don't make promises to NRL clubs, unless you know the monetary figure coming in from TV deals is X amount.We now know the outcome.Or if you have decent monies in the kitty.

It appears from Roy's article(and it's just my view) either the ARLC gave the OK to Smith (which reading between the lines does not appear to be the case), else Grant would have stepped in earlier, or Smith did it his way assuming the Commission would accede to his decisions,after all he was the code's' CEO with a certain amount of licence.

The Digital issue had been bubbling along for some time even during Smith's tenure.IOW the NRL having decent control of its media announcements and "propaganda".Telstra and News had too much control over that aspect, hardly a secret, judging by the many negative(to sell papers) stories rolled out, even minor incidents.
I have no problem with the new Media set up, the website is clear, links to all clubs with all the info needed.

Completely agree with your first point. It definitely wouldn’t of been the way I did it but it was a decision that not just smith would of agreed too. (whether it was right or wrong). Once smith was punted it seems the whole plan shifted. Paying the clubs the initial amount was still possible but not after Grant and others sold the digital media plan to the commissioners. By doing that it forced the commission to rethink the club funding.

We now have clubs happy about there funding and a worthwhile digital media department. Yes it was painful to get to this but I’m happy we’re its at now.

Seems strange that most are happy with where we are at but it cost a Ceo and chairman of the commission. Doesn’t quite add up.

 

[Disinterested third party]

RL isnt the only group to have factional squabbles like this, we are just the only ones dumb enough to consistently fight it out in the media.....

Issues like this don't matter. It's all about the wrong name.

 

[taipan]

Sounds like an apologetic puff piece for grants failures to me. Maybe smith was expecting a much smaller salary cap so 140% would have been less? Maybe smith didnt think spending $100million on “digital”, whatever that means, wasn’t necessaary and better to have sustainable clubs? Who knows, it’s gone and in the past.

Future is what’s important and under Greenburg and a very conflicted commision Its hard to have confidence of things getting much better. Let’s see what the strat plan has to say and if it will give us hope things will improve over next 5 years.

Sounds like you don't like the story contents.Goes against the Smith was fiscally responsible routine.
Well we had the first attempt at the future ,with Smith making rash forecasts about crowds,playing numbers etc etc..You fill in the blanks.

 

[taipan]

Completely agree with your first point. It definitely wouldn’t of been the way I did it but it was a decision that not just smith would of agreed too. (whether it was right or wrong). Once smith was punted it seems the whole plan shifted. Paying the clubs the initial amount was still possible but not after Grant and others sold the digital media plan to the commissioners. By doing that it forced the commission to rethink the club funding.

We now have clubs happy about there funding and a worthwhile digital media department. Yes it was painful to get to this but I’m happy we’re its at now.

Seems strange that most are happy with where we are at but it cost a Ceo and chairman of the commission. Doesn’t quite add up.

Look I don't have an issue with clubs getting funding over and above the salary cap.Some need it desperately.
What I have issues with ,when Smith stated he had $40m whatever in the future fund, yet it appears that would have been further reduced by his excessive promises to the clubs, and there is nothing really to show for his efforts at growing the grassroots.And since Greenberg has been in much the same stagnation.
The AFL have a digital dept,it churns out many pro AFL items.The NRL was left behind in that respect.
But Greenberg wanted to spend a hell of a lot more on grassroots ,and the extra club money was eating into that also.
Digital looks after promoting the code as a whole, whereas the extra funding , for clubs, some of whom may well waste it or be just plum lazy.I get the hesitancy.

Anycase leaving aside the shortcomings of the Gallops/Smiths/Grants/Greenbergs,the code at least:
1) Has a media /digital dept to spread the propaganda.Out of the hands of Telstra and News.
2)It has agreed to greatly increase funding for grassroots, than it has prior.
3)Got rid of ownership of the Knights and Titans, both albatrosses around the NRL's neck.
4) Is getting( fingers crossed )two new stadiums in addition to Parra in Sydney.
5) Is pushing for a female competition.
6) is getting a Chairman(again fingers crossed) Beattie who is pro expansion, and sh*t on my liver even the A League is planning expansion in 2019/20.
7)Looking like a another record year for memberships.
8) Some clubs now realise getting off their collective a*ses and reduce the gate cost as at ANZ,may in fact bring more families to the game.
9) Getting Adelaide Oval for a SOO in 2020 is another plus, and being paid to do so.
10) Ditto the new Perth stadium.
11) Cutting admin costs at H/O is an admission, too much sugar can make something still taste crappy.

The ongoing negatives still remain at this point;Crowds,participation,lack of expansion, and insular thinking regarding International rl(the clubs come first syndrome).