ARLC report card thus far?

[East Coast Tiger]

They dont need a 7s comp (although I like the idea),a pre season is out of the question,when they are looking at WCC with up to 6 teams.

No it doesn't mean they are doing anything nor does it mean they are doing nothing. Grant is a successful businessman not a in house lawyer,so he knows the ropes re plannning.And he has other more high profile people in his group.

The ARLC has been in position for just on 3 months,they have had to absorb the complexities and problems involving grassroots to the very top.
The code is hardly a backroom show or school tuckshop, it is a big organisation that was unwieldly and partly owned by a news organisation,that did not have a clue.

What's the use of it,well we will see when the Tv deal is done,as a starting point.And what ensues thereon.
Pretty hard to fully plan ahead,when you have no firm decision on the next 5 years income.

Who says they are looking at an expanded WCC? And if you want to pedal the line that "they've only been in three months" why are you talking about them ruling things like sevens out? You can't have it both ways. They're either planning well ahead and looking at things, or they're just getting their head around things and waiting for the TV deal. This contradiction makes me think it's all just hope and speculation.

 

[Fire]

5.7/10.

 

[taipan]

Who says they are looking at an expanded WCC? And if you want to pedal the line that "they've only been in three months" why are you talking about them ruling things like sevens out? You can't have it both ways. They're either planning well ahead and looking at things, or they're just getting their head around things and waiting for the TV deal. This contradiction makes me think it's all just hope and speculation.

The ESL.I am not ruling anything out FFS.They are requesting bids for the total offering and no doubt split offerings.What the split offerings are subject to conjecture.
You are having it both ways with your either planning well ahead or not.I believe they are planning well ahead.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The ESL.I am not ruling anything out FFS.They are requesting bids for the total offering and no doubt split offerings.What the split offerings are subject to conjecture.
You are having it both ways with your either planning well ahead or not.I believe they are planning well ahead.

"The ESL" has nothing to do with the ARLC and there is no evidence the IC is looking at an expanded WCC at all. Apart from Grant saying "we are looking at the next seven years" what evidence is there that they are actually planning anything? And if they are, what are they planning? And if you're taking the line that they aren't doing anything till the TV rights are completed then why the f**k are they saying they're planning ahead? It all reeks of throw-away lines and non-commital fluff.

 

[taipan]

"The ESL" has nothing to do with the ARLC and there is no evidence the IC is looking at an expanded WCC at all. Apart from Grant saying "we are looking at the next seven years" what evidence is there that they are actually planning anything? And if they are, what are they planning? And if you're taking the line that they aren't doing anything till the TV rights are completed then why the f**k are they saying they're planning ahead? It all reeks of throw-away lines and non-commital fluff.

Didn't say they did.They(the ESL) were the ones who came up with the WCC in the first place. Who says it can't be a selling point? Who pays for the WCC beamed back into Oz?
What evidence do you have I typed this post?
You can only go on what a new Chairman has stated.Either he is BS or he is doing just that planning. He is one of a highly qualified team.Take your pick.

You plan ahead based on receiving X amount as a conservative figure,you get X plus and you can expand on your future plans.hence the variance in grants to clubs,dependant on the TV deal.

The full committment comes into play when the money is signed, sealed and delivered.

 

[Loudstrat]

Its early days yet. Too early to really tell until they tackle the 3 big questions over the game: 1) The next TV rights deal, 2) Expansion and 3) Consolidating our marketplace and limiting the intrusion of competitors (esp bush footy and juniors).

To me, the IC was sold on two lines: 1) Get rid of News Ltd, and 2) Bring to the game commissioners with political and corporate links to the top end of town. A third - unifying the games leadership under a single umbrella with the good of the game paramount to all decision making - was an unstated assumption. So was a fourth ideal - transparency in decision making. Lets judge them on those points.

There's 7 things to judge them on, plus how they have managed the game thus far.

1) The next TV rights deal. The revelation that the stupid f*cking networks have supposedly overspent on AFL is a "D'oh" moment. Stiff f*cking sh*t. Our game is more valuable. Our season is longer. More people watch it. We are in the nations growth areas. Therefore, it is up to the IC to get a better deal anyway. Sure, the pool is small, but Kerry Packer paid a record for it once, and Rupert splurged on it too.

The main problem is timing - we fall a year after AFL's deal. Therefore, if the IC gets less than 1 billion deal without signing up for 3 years - to get in front of the AFL, then they should be lined up outside Henson Park and shot. Then resurrect the ARL and get John Quayle to run it.

VERDICT - too early to judge

2) Expansion. They havent done anything obvious. The clubs and expansion areas are still driving this. Early days yet. However, when David Gyngel threw his weight behind the Brisbane Clone bid, just because of the ratings, Grant or someone should have been in the media reclaiming the agenda.

VERDICT - Not encouraging. 4/10


3) Consolidating our marketplace. Same as above. Gus Gould seems to be manning the fort on his own, with the 4 WS clubs lugging the ammo boxes to his dugout. On the Gold Coast, the Titans faced extinction, and it was Gallop, not the IC, that stated the code's position. As far as using corporate clout to help out - none.

VERDICT - Poor 3/10


4) Get rid of News Ltd. This has been an abject failure. As soon as Quayle was torpedoed for the News Ltd stooge the whole IC process suddenly looked like a once hot fiancee putting on 25kgs and becoming frigid. Meanwhile Melbourne's handouts continue - with no incentive to become self sufficient - and no end game planned.

VERDICT - Fail 1/10


5) Bring to the game commissioners with political and corporate links to the top end of town. Sucess in this area will take time to emerge. That said, I was surprised at some great League corporate/political names that are not on the IC - blokes like Ron Coote, John Fahey. et al. Gerry Harvey's missus is there which is positive. I havent seen any evidence yet of influence.

VERDICT - to early to call.


6) Unifying the games leadership under a single umbrella with the good of the game. The News infiltration aside, it has to be regarded as a sucess.

VERDICT - Good 7/10


7) Transparency in decision making. I dont mind the bloke, but the day they signed up David Gallop without even advertising the vacancy of CEO is about as transparent as as Wendel Sailors butt cheeks. A golden opportunity to show a cynical League world that the dark days were finally over - was lost

VERDICT - poor - 2/10


8) Managing the game. About the only thing they did was rush into the stupid change in the finals format without any discussion. They obviously did this in the same way that a new boss always moves the fridge - taking ownership of the job. F*cking useless way to start.

VERDICT - too early to tell. We can only judge this after the TV rights deal is finalised, and other problems are dealt with.

OVERALL - a rather insipid start. The big issues are only just being tackled, and the big picture has not been presented yet. I'm not convinced that the IC is the way to go at all, but we have one so it better bloody work!

 

[Perth Red]

When they know what their budget is for the next 5 years I expect to see some strong strategic documents emerge for all aspects of the game. They are going to have somewhere around $150mill a year to play with so they had better do some pretty outstanding development work!

Priorities;
1 tv deal
2 expansion
3 nrl naming rights
4 submissions from every rl body of a strategic growth plan with funding requests linked to kpi's and outcomes
5 Wcc and new opportunities such as world 9's and rep calendar

 

[skeepe]

Fining the Raiders $10,000 because David Furner told the truth was a ridiculous decision.

 

[m0nty]

To me, the IC was sold on two lines: 1) Get rid of News Ltd, and 2) Bring to the game commissioners with political and corporate links to the top end of town. A third - unifying the games leadership under a single umbrella with the good of the game paramount to all decision making - was an unstated assumption. So was a fourth ideal - transparency in decision making. Lets judge them on those points.

There's 7 things to judge them on
...
8) Managing the game.

One thing is clear: Loudstrat is not qualified to work for the ARLC doing anything involving numbers.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Fining the Raiders $10,000 because David Furner told the truth was a ridiculous decision.

What happened skeepe? Refs screw the Raiders again?

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

The only real major decision they've made so far was dumping the Mcintyre system.

 

[Moffo]

I thought Moffo knew how companies were governed and operated.

For a start, they are board members. Gallop and his executive are the still the personnel running the day-to-day operations of the league.

Considering the new company and board members were only set up in the last 3 months, they and the executive team would still be hard at work with strategy analysis, planning and choice rather than implementing any new major objectives at this time .

It's a long-term process. Most of the strategy, processes, performance measures, etc need to evaluated and decided whether it is still relevant for the new company going forward. The old partnership had different stakeholders with different aims for their investment. The ship needs to change course & processes streamlined to set it up for future efficiency and outcomes that are effective.

I know a lot sunshine, I do it every day

Not all strategy should be long term you goose. A well thought out strategy will have tactical components to it to support short term objectives

I've only seen one decision to come out and that was the McIntyre. Three months of us paying them for that? Their general silence on a number of important and current league issues has been defeating

A cynic could argue that they've been put in there to provide a blocker between the public and news ltd. As I said, a symbolic action by news to create the facade of independence

 

[taipan]

Its early days yet. Too early to really tell until they tackle the 3 big questions over the game: 1) The next TV rights deal, 2) Expansion and 3) Consolidating our marketplace and limiting the intrusion of competitors (esp bush footy and juniors).

To me, the IC was sold on two lines: 1) Get rid of News Ltd, and 2) Bring to the game commissioners with political and corporate links to the top end of town. A third - unifying the games leadership under a single umbrella with the good of the game paramount to all decision making - was an unstated assumption. So was a fourth ideal - transparency in decision making. Lets judge them on those points.

There's 7 things to judge them on, plus how they have managed the game thus far.

1) The next TV rights deal. The revelation that the stupid f*cking networks have supposedly overspent on AFL is a "D'oh" moment. Stiff f*cking sh*t. Our game is more valuable. Our season is longer. More people watch it. We are in the nations growth areas. Therefore, it is up to the IC to get a better deal anyway. Sure, the pool is small, but Kerry Packer paid a record for it once, and Rupert splurged on it too.

The main problem is timing - we fall a year after AFL's deal. Therefore, if the IC gets less than 1 billion deal without signing up for 3 years - to get in front of the AFL, then they should be lined up outside Henson Park and shot. Then resurrect the ARL and get John Quayle to run it.

VERDICT - too early to judge

2) Expansion. They havent done anything obvious. The clubs and expansion areas are still driving this. Early days yet. However, when David Gyngel threw his weight behind the Brisbane Clone bid, just because of the ratings, Grant or someone should have been in the media reclaiming the agenda.

VERDICT - Not encouraging. 4/10


3) Consolidating our marketplace. Same as above. Gus Gould seems to be manning the fort on his own, with the 4 WS clubs lugging the ammo boxes to his dugout. On the Gold Coast, the Titans faced extinction, and it was Gallop, not the IC, that stated the code's position. As far as using corporate clout to help out - none.

VERDICT - Poor 3/10


4) Get rid of News Ltd. This has been an abject failure. As soon as Quayle was torpedoed for the News Ltd stooge the whole IC process suddenly looked like a once hot fiancee putting on 25kgs and becoming frigid. Meanwhile Melbourne's handouts continue - with no incentive to become self sufficient - and no end game planned.

VERDICT - Fail 1/10


5) Bring to the game commissioners with political and corporate links to the top end of town. Sucess in this area will take time to emerge. That said, I was surprised at some great League corporate/political names that are not on the IC - blokes like Ron Coote, John Fahey. et al. Gerry Harvey's missus is there which is positive. I havent seen any evidence yet of influence.

VERDICT - to early to call.


6) Unifying the games leadership under a single umbrella with the good of the game. The News infiltration aside, it has to be regarded as a sucess.

VERDICT - Good 7/10


7) Transparency in decision making. I dont mind the bloke, but the day they signed up David Gallop without even advertising the vacancy of CEO is about as transparent as as Wendel Sailors butt cheeks. A golden opportunity to show a cynical League world that the dark days were finally over - was lost

VERDICT - poor - 2/10


8) Managing the game. About the only thing they did was rush into the stupid change in the finals format without any discussion. They obviously did this in the same way that a new boss always moves the fridge - taking ownership of the job. F*cking useless way to start.

VERDICT - too early to tell. We can only judge this after the TV rights deal is finalised, and other problems are dealt with.

OVERALL - a rather insipid start. The big issues are only just being tackled, and the big picture has not been presented yet. I'm not convinced that the IC is the way to go at all, but we have one so it better bloody work!

Agree with most of the points,except having an IC instead of the factional last lot,has to be a plus.

 

[Parra]

The commission has achieved what it was set up to do - enable News Ltd to break it's NRL deal whilst at the same time allowing News to extend its first & last rights option, appoint the ceo and fund it's team in Melbourne.

mission accomplished

 

[taipan]

The commission has achieved what it was set up to do - enable News Ltd to break it's NRL deal whilst at the same time allowing News to extend its first & last rights option, appoint the ceo and fund it's team in Melbourne.

mission accomplished

The commission was not set up to do those things,it did those things as part of its duties. The commission was set up to rationalise and streamline the admin of the game to ensure independence.The independence can be argued,but it is a better set up than the previous shebang.

The first & last rights is no iron clad guarantee Foxsports gets the NRL,it is no doubt a great leverage , yet they could still miss out.

The CEO has to perform, Grant stated all were under review.

Anyone who suggests not underpinning the Storm, is insular and wants the code to remain a Qld/NSW game.Even the fumbleball brigade recognisethis.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

In what way is the ARLC more "streamlined" than the old admin? We now have eight commissioners instead of a six-man board, half of which were News Ltd employees, and the ARL, which was NSWRL and QRL folk. They still exist evem if the ARL doesn't.

 

[Parra]

The commission was set up to rationalise and streamline the admin of the game to ensure independence.

So you believe marketing and spin.

The truth is in the actions, not the sales pitch.

News Ltd got everything they asked for. And they broke the deal. League gets what it always gets - shafted.

 

[taipan]

In what way is the ARLC more "streamlined" than the old admin? We now have eight commissioners instead of a six-man board, half of which were News Ltd employees, and the ARL, which was NSWRL and QRL folk. They still exist evem if the ARL doesn't.

All in one building for starters, consolidation savings involved ,half are now not News Ltd employees,the chances of bitchfests between the QRL and the NSWRL will be lessened,communications bettered.Offfield incidents should be bettered handled than they were in the past and swifter.The CRL mmay get better opportunities to get the message across,being at teh fireplace.
Will it be the complete answer no,don't know any organisations that have struck perfection.

And in the past if they(the RLS) didn't perform they still retained their positions eg Carr.I doubt poor performance will be tolerated with the new regime,time will tell.
And so they should exist,they have their areas of responsibility..

 

[taipan]

So you believe marketing and spin.

The truth is in the actions, not the sales pitch.

News Ltd got everything they asked for. And they broke the deal. League gets what it always gets - shafted.

No, I leave that(the spin) to rugby union officials.
Sales pitch!!!The commission was not even the brainchild of News.
Action at last reports is not subject to a statute of limitations.The Tv deal is the first item on the agenda,that won't be finalised till latest August,then club grants,grassroots support etc. If you choose to put the cart before the horse,so be it. 3 months :roll:.The financial long term security of the game,hinges to a reasonable extent on the TV deal.

Well News did not get the $30m they were asking for (the storm),they got less.News Ltd shafted the game with the SL debacle,you are 16 years too late.The ugly reality is News has been in our faces until this year.And the ARL had its share of stuff ups also in the past without any News involvement..

I will reserve judgement,when the Tv deal is announced,as to whether the code is being shafted.If we get reamed again ,I will be the first to lead the charge of outraged critics.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

All in one building for starters, consolidation savings involved ,half are now not News Ltd employees,the chances of bitchfests between the QRL and the NSWRL will be lessened,communications bettered.Offfield incidents should be bettered handled than they were in the past and swifter.The CRL mmay get better opportunities to get the message across,being at teh fireplace.
Will it be the complete answer no,don't know any organisations that have struck perfection.

And in the past if they(the RLS) didn't perform they still retained their positions eg Carr.I doubt poor performance will be tolerated with the new regime,time will tell.
And so they should exist,they have their areas of responsibility..

The building has nothing to do with the IC. It could have and would have happened regardless of the IC forming. And the QRL is not housed in the new building, for obvious reasons, while the NSWRL and CRL were already together at Phillip St. And instead of employees being paid by another company the IC now pays people (appointed by News) instead. So once again, what has the IC done to streamline the admin?