Divided rugby league fell 25 years ago – but united has it conquered? by Steve Mascord.

[hineyrulz]

One can only imagine the extraordinary splurge of drivel being composed in Logan at this time.

 

[siv]

That's your opinion and it makes zero sense.

I care about the long-term survival of rugby league.

Only a simpleton would think the game benefits from having nine small clubs in Sydney while the rest of the country is under-represented. The fact you keep advocating for the game to squander its small fortune on keeping the game concentrated around Sydney is insane because it limits the amount of money we can generate from sponsorship and broadcast rights.

How many sports leagues in this country have no presence in Adelaide and Perth?

Here's a list of leagues that have teams in every metropolitan market.

• National Basketball League
• A-League
• W-League
• Australian Fumbleball League
• AFLW
• Big Bash League
• Women's Big Bash League
• Sheffield Shield
• Women's National Cricket League
• Super Netball
• Hockey One
• Australian Baseball League

Other leagues have a greater footprint in the metropolitan markets than our game. They include the Australian Ice Hockey League, Super Rugby, WNBL.



It's been explained to you a gazillion times already that Sydney cannot support nine clubs without assistance from the governing body. More importantly, propping up financially unviable teams in Sydney does nothing to grow the game in new markets. We've reached the maximum level of fan support in Sydney and it's not enough to support nine clubs. All of this crap about "it's the clubs' rights to hoard all the money and prevent expansion, blah blah blah" doesn't change any of this. I'd argue that propping up nine small clubs in Sydney isn't doing anything for the game at the grassroots level in the game's heartland when our income stream is well below AwFuL, who've been pumping millions into Queensland and NSW for decades and grown their participation base. They've actually made great strides in Queensland.


You know the bulk of their revenue comes from the annual grant and gaming machine earnings.

How do you explain V'landys saying "the business case must stack up" for the Dolphins to get a licence, yet there's several Sydney clubs who don't have half of what Redcliffe offer?

It's a massive double standard.

Why do you believe there should be one rule for Sydney and another rule for everyone else?



You got that one wrong.

News Ltd, then half-owners of the NRL, challenged the Federal Court decision to reinstate the Rabbitohs, subsequently won the High Court verdict but then declined to exercise their newly established power to boot them from the league once more.​

​

Souths embody redemption, resilience and the great game

'THE People's Team'' proclaimed a banner carried by one of the 80,000 in the march to Sydney Town Hall on an oppressively hot day in November 2000, protesting the sacking of South Sydney from the NRL.

www.smh.com.au

So?



Participation for fumbleball in NSW and Queensland has grown in leaps and bounds over the last 30 years. It draws bloody good crowds in Brisbane and Sydney. The Lions and Swans are financially stronger than every Sydney NRL club. I'd call that a win for AwFuL.

Now show me where it was stated rugby league would become a "major sport" in Adelaide in Perth?

I've never said anything of the sort.

I've said our game can carve out a strong niche if it invests enough time and resources into developing the game in new markets. The Melbourne Storm have proven that it's possible, despite numerous rugby league fans from Sydney calling for their removal over the years.

Now tell me why you believe rugby league fans outside of NSW are obligated to put the survival of nine small Sydney clubs ahead of expansion?

You know very well that the NSWRL f**ked over the Broncos, Cowboys, Crushers, Warriors and Reds. At one stage you cited an article that pointed out the double standards Quayle and Arthurson used against the Broncos to rob them of $500k. I've shown you a transcript of Neil Cadigan's book which details the harsh requirements heaped upon the expansion clubs in 1995. These requirements bankrupted the clubs and forced them to sign with Super League just to survive. I've never heard you condemn the league for its favouritism of NSWRL clubs.

Leagues across the country have been raped and pillaged to death by NSWRL clubs. Test football has taken a backseat because the NRL holds all the power, with the bulk of it being tied up in Sydney due to it holding most of the clubs. So not only has the traditional NSWRL clubs killed other competitions and limited the game's growth in new markets, they've turned the once thriving Test arena into a shell of what it once was. There was a time in the past when the biggest honour was playing for Australia on an Ashes Tour in front of massive crowds. Those days are gone because the clubs don't want to risk their players getting injured. It's hurt the game severely in England and prevented New Zealand Rugby League from earning much needed revenue from Test series. The game in New Zealand is in dire straights right now. The ARLC has done nothing to help it.

I'd like to see more teams in Queensland and New Zealand. I'd also like to see teams in Adelaide and Perth. That cannot happen while we've got nine small teams in Sydney. The fact that more than half of the teams from the most brutal collision sport are from one market gives them a massive advantage over the rest of the league, as they don't have to travel as far and are thus given more time to recover. Players take this into consideration when deciding which club to join.

You know what

I smell a new off field rivalary brewing right here

 

[Wb1234]

You know what

I smell a new off field rivalary brewing right here

Meth vs no meth

 

[Pneuma]

Meth vs no meth

There’s a metho in his madness!

 

[Cheese sandwich]

Can remember the wookie gave afl red a smackdown not long ago but he's just marched old mate from Logan straight out of the VIP room and launched him into the carpark.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The league funding the clubs is not an opinion, its literally in their license and funding agreements.

The licencing agreement only covers a period of five years.

There was a huge dispute between the clubs and then ARLC Chairman John Grant when it came up for renewal in 2012. It led to Grant giving them 130% of the salary cap to get them to sign a five year deal and save his job. The clubs got what they wanted then punted him.

When it came up for renewal Greenberg wanted the clubs to sign a perpetual licence similar to the one the VFL signed with its clubs in the 80s. Under his proposal clubs would need to meet certain criteria or risk being relocated. He actually asked Cronulla why they shouldn't be relocated when they were in debt.

The clubs signed another five year deal that expired last year. The clubs threatened to create their own competition unless they were given $5m on top of the cap. The RLPA demanded a salary cap of $11.3. So we're now giving each club $16.3m, despite the broadcast deal being similar to what it was when the previous licencing deal was negotiated.

Is it in the long term interest of rugby league to get rid of historic clubs with tens of thousands of fans, most of whom will not come back to the league (and this is based off the outcomes from the AFL and Fitzroy and the fallout from Superleague)

What evidence do you have that the game lost tens of thousands of fans?

Attendances for the game improved after the competition was reduced to 14 teams.

Your appeal to emotion and tradition isn't a valid argument and only extends to Sydney.

Why?

There are BRL clubs older than many Sydney NRL clubs. There are two or three traditional BRL clubs that are bigger and richer than some Sydney NRL clubs.

Its by far the largest rugby league centre on the planet. The game is on an even keel and rising. The game is clearly benefiting right now. Better facilities and smart scheduling will only see it grow further.

This is delusional and wrong.

Sydney does have a larger population than any other city that has rugby league as its main sport, but much of its growth over the last few decades has been from immigrants who don’t care about the game. The game was drawing better crowds in 2005 than it is today, despite Sydney having a larger population now than it did back then.

Not all Sydney clubs are going to get a gov funded stadium built for them. The NSW gov said it won't build any more. The handshake deal with V'landys which has been reneged only included upgrades to amenities of the suburban grounds.

On a per capita basis rugby league is more popular in Brisbane and PNG.

The only way the game can grow is by adding teams in new markets and possibly adding a third Brisbane team to cover southern Brisbane and Logan.

I see literally no reason why the NRL cant emulate the AFL expansion plan and keep its Sydney teams AND expand to Perth and maybe even Adelaide.

I can think of a few reasons.

How about the fact the AFL have perpetual licences with their clubs and the ARLC doesn't?

This allows the AFL to do whatever they want with regards to expansion.

Or the fact the Sydney NRL clubs struggle to make enough revenue from football operations to compete with the Broncos, Cowboys, Swans and Lions?

The AFL uses its money to prop up expansion clubs and a few Melbourne teams that they've tried to relocate interstate. The ARLC uses its money to prop up clubs that you claim are in the game's biggest market. If you're going to compare NRL Sydney with AFL Melbourne then be honest and admit the latter are far more profitable because they have far larger fan bases. If the Sydney NRL clubs had the same support as Melbourne AFL clubs then you would have a point, but they don't so your "let's copy AFL because feelings" idea is invalid.

You know how many of those league actually generate anywhere near the revenue - let alone profit - of the NRL?

1. The AFL

Going full on metro hasnt exactly been a massively financially rewarding exercise for anyone else.



Those are really bad examples of how to do something given they generate 3/10s of bugger all interest and support compared to the NRL

Now you're being irrational and shifting the goal posts. You just compared NRL clubs in Sydney with AFL clubs from Melbourne, despite the latter drawing far more revenue from football operations by virtue of having larger and more passionate fanbases. The AFL recently increased the gap between it and our game by a significant margin.

So not really a good example on your behalf, is it?

The other sports are able to support a national footprint despite being smaller than RL.

I'll point out that in markets like Adelaide and Perth these sports dwarf rugby league by virtue of the NRL having zero presence. Teams like the Perth Wildcats and Adelaide 36ers draw great support ftrom he public and corporate sector.

and its been explained to you, that the league has to support its incumbent clubs. They are literally the reason the league can afford to do anything. And as mentioned earlier - license and funding agreements etc etc.

Only for five years. By the time the next TV deal is signed there will be another despute between the clubs and the ARLC over funding.

Not one NRL team in Sydney is financially unviable. Period. I mean unless you start cherry picking their revenue streams, but i mean who would do a thing like that.

If that was the case then why did they threaten to form a break away competition unless their funding agreement was increased?

Why is the annual grant significantly higher than any other source of income?

Thats doubtful. Particularly since crowd figures used to actually be higher than they are now 10 years ago - and should get there again the way things are going.

The demography of Sydney has changed a fair bit over the last decade. There is no guarantee the new arrivals in Sydney will ever follow rugby league.

No one ever said it was the clubs right to prevent expansion.

Except that's what they've done for decades.

There are plenty of AFL fans who make the same argument about the AFL and its clubs.

Doesn't matter what they say as the AFL clubs have perpetual licences and the NRL clubs do not.

Not only are both of these legal forms of income in NSW, but they are entitled to the damn grant.

For five years.

No, its the price you pay to join a competition which has other options besides you. The League and incumbents get to choose who joins the club and under what terms. See also: the AFL and Tasmania.

The game needs Adelaide and Perth if it wishes to grow. Without Brisbane and Melbourne it would be f**ked.

Its always going to be a different standard now than teams that joined 30 years ago or decades earlier than that. Thats inevitable. Business has changed, financial conduct rules are different, and the league (and its incumbent clubs) have a right to expect any new bidder to be able to handle itself financially - this includes the same grant they will get as every other club in the league.

The AFL doesn't run by this motto and it's kicking our arse.

 

[Cheese sandwich]

No

 

[Perth Red]

Last year Canterbury Bulldogs got $17.1mill NRL grant and only managed to generate $2.1mill from their supporter base. This meant they required $3.6mill from their pokie den to remain viable. Best hope the mugs dont stop feeding that $57mill into them machines!

Football club revenue:
NRL grant $17.1mill
Sponsors and corporate sales $5.6mill
Gate and memberships $1.5mill
merch $600k
LC contribution $3.6mill

https://www.bulldogs.com.au/siteassets/documents/2021_annualreport_digital.pdf

 

[MugaB]

Thanks for that insightful contribution. Maybe needs a logan pic?

 

[Canard]

Last year Canterbury Bulldogs got $17.1mill NRL grant and only managed to generate $2.1mill from their supporter base. This meant they required $3.6mill from their pokie den to remain viable. Best hope the mugs dont stop feeding that $57mill into them machines!

Football club revenue:
NRL grant $17.1mill
Sponsors and corporate sales $5.6mill
Gate and memberships $1.5mill
merch $600k
LC contribution $3.6mill

https://www.bulldogs.com.au/siteassets/documents/2021_annualreport_digital.pdf

Surely you're not also arguing that the Doggies should be eliminated from the comp based on one year's results?

 

[Iamback]

I don't see Junior Development on that Bulldogs list

It is what Leagues Clubs are for to fund Junior leagues as the name says

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

So they werent removed for financial reasons by the NRL Partnership? I mean the High Court decision says they were wrongfully excluded. Being readmitted by the comp after being kicked out for financial cause was my point.

They were kicked from the 2000 and 2001 seasons for failing to meet the NRLs financial criteria, readmitted after the Federal Court appeal that went their way. Gallop stated in 2003 that the High Court decision didnt matter in terms of the club staying in the comp after reinstantement.

You said the NRL was obliged to bring the Rabbitohs back. The actual truth is on appeal the NRL won the right to exclude the Rabbitohs, but chose to include them because of the 80k who marched. It didn't take long for South Sydney to go back to being a basket case. In their second season they averaged less than 10k fans through the gate. The club came close to folding before Peter Holmes a Court and Russell Crowe bailed them out.

Kind of. depends whose figures you believe.

Go to you state library and look at the sports section of the newspaper archives. The BRL and NSWRL ran numerous lower grade competitions. There were plenty of semi-pro and amateur clubs playing underneath those competitions. In the BRL there were four grades of competition, even after the Broncos entered the NSWRL in 1988. Plenty of clubs have gone under across Brisbane and Sydney since 1988.

GWS and Gold Coast draw f**k all. The Lions are 20m in debt - half of it to the AFL - and receive 23m a year from the AFL in distributions, including 12m a year OVER the base distribition. The Swans are much better - but that club has existed since before there WAS a rugby league and draws on an extensive Melbourne membership from its South Melbourne days.

Lions still make more money from football operations than any Sydney club. GWS and Suns were a mistake, but that's hardly the same as adding one team to Adelaide and another to Perth. Gold Coast is a region and GWS are competing for support in an RL market that already has an AFL team.

They arent. The League is however obliged to support its clubs - again licence and funding agreements etc etc.

If you believe fans from outside of NSW aren't obligated to argue for the NRL to have nine clubs in Sydney then why do you get so pissy and hysterical when I advocate rationalisation?

You even bring the "no true Scotsman" fallacy into it by saying fans shouldn't be looking to cull financially unviable teams from an over saturated market.

The licencing agreement only holds validity for five years.

 

[Perth Red]

Surely you're not also arguing that the Doggies should be eliminated from the comp based on one year's results?

The Dogs are easily one of the biggest teams in Sydney

Not at all. Never mentioned culing anyone.
I thought the same, but a trawl through their last 7 years of annual reports shows their active supporter base (ie those who actually contribute funding) must be pretty low looking at their revenue streams. If they are one of the biggest in Sydney I dread to think what the others are generating!

They have gone significantly backwards in this area since a high of $5mill fan generated revenue in 2015.

 

[Perth Red]

I don't see Junior Development on that Bulldogs list

It is what Leagues Clubs are for to fund Junior leagues as the name says

The Bulldogs LC funded Jnr development $266k in 2021. Yep a massive $266k out of $60mill pokie den revenue!
0.4% of revenue going to Jnr RL almost justifies the social misery doesn't it?

 

[Perth Red]

GWS and Suns were a mistake,

$643mill for 7 years would argue otherwise!

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Not at all. Never mentioned culing anyone.
I thought the same, but a trawl through their last 7 years of annual reports shows their active supporter base (ie those who actually contribute funding) must be pretty low looking at their revenue streams. If they are one of the biggest in Sydney I dread to think what the others are generating!

They have gone significantly backwards in this area since a high of $5mill fan generated revenue in 2015.

@Canard doesn't bother to do any research before he mouths off like a punk. If he took the time to look at the annual reports I provided he would see the Bulldogs have struggled to generate revenue from football operations for years. He mouthed off about crowds without bothering to fact check his statement. All of the information is readily available on the internet but he chooses to be ignorant.

$643mill for 7 years would argue otherwise!

True. They're playing the long game. If it pays off in the long run -- which it very well could -- then they'll be set for life. If it fails they're no worse off than they were in 2011.

 

[Pneuma]

The licencing agreement only covers a period of five years.

There was a huge dispute between the clubs and then ARLC Chairman John Grant when it came up for renewal in 2012. It led to Grant giving them 130% of the salary cap to get them to sign a five year deal and save his job. The clubs got what they wanted then punted him.

When it came up for renewal Greenberg wanted the clubs to sign a perpetual licence similar to the one the VFL signed with its clubs in the 80s. Under his proposal clubs would need to meet certain criteria or risk being relocated. He actually asked Cronulla why they shouldn't be relocated when they were in debt.

The clubs signed another five year deal that expired last year. The clubs threatened to create their own competition unless they were given $5m on top of the cap. The RLPA demanded a salary cap of $11.3. So we're now giving each club $16.3m, despite the broadcast deal being similar to what it was when the previous licencing deal was negotiated.



What evidence do you have that the game lost tens of thousands of fans?

Attendances for the game improved after the competition was reduced to 14 teams.

Your appeal to emotion and tradition isn't a valid argument and only extends to Sydney.

Why?

There are BRL clubs older than many Sydney NRL clubs. There are two or three traditional BRL clubs that are bigger and richer than some Sydney NRL clubs.



This is delusional and wrong.

Sydney does have a larger population than any other city that has rugby league as its main sport, but much of its growth over the last few decades has been from immigrants who don’t care about the game. The game was drawing better crowds in 2005 than it is today, despite Sydney having a larger population now than it did back then.

Not all Sydney clubs are going to get a gov funded stadium built for them. The NSW gov said it won't build any more. The handshake deal with V'landys which has been reneged only included upgrades to amenities of the suburban grounds.

On a per capita basis rugby league is more popular in Brisbane and PNG.

The only way the game can grow is by adding teams in new markets and possibly adding a third Brisbane team to cover southern Brisbane and Logan.



I can think of a few reasons.

How about the fact the AFL have perpetual licences with their clubs and the ARLC doesn't?

This allows the AFL to do whatever they want with regards to expansion.

Or the fact the Sydney NRL clubs struggle to make enough revenue from football operations to compete with the Broncos, Cowboys, Swans and Lions?

The AFL uses its money to prop up expansion clubs and a few Melbourne teams that they've tried to relocate interstate. The ARLC uses its money to prop up clubs that you claim are in the game's biggest market. If you're going to compare NRL Sydney with AFL Melbourne then be honest and admit the latter are far more profitable because they have far larger fan bases. If the Sydney NRL clubs had the same support as Melbourne AFL clubs then you would have a point, but they don't so your "let's copy AFL because feelings" idea is invalid.



Now you're being irrational and shifting the goal posts. You just compared NRL clubs in Sydney with AFL clubs from Melbourne, despite the latter drawing far more revenue from football operations by virtue of having larger and more passionate fanbases. The AFL recently increased the gap between it and our game by a significant margin.

So not really a good example on your behalf, is it?

The other sports are able to support a national footprint despite being smaller than RL.

I'll point out that in markets like Adelaide and Perth these sports dwarf rugby league by virtue of the NRL having zero presence. Teams like the Perth Wildcats and Adelaide 36ers draw great support ftrom he public and corporate sector.



Only for five years. By the time the next TV deal is signed there will be another despute between the clubs and the ARLC over funding.



If that was the case then why did they threaten to form a break away competition unless their funding agreement was increased?

Why is the annual grant significantly higher than any other source of income?



The demography of Sydney has changed a fair bit over the last decade. There is no guarantee the new arrivals in Sydney will ever follow rugby league.



Except that's what they've done for decades.



Doesn't matter what they say as the AFL clubs have perpetual licences and the NRL clubs do not.



For five years.



The game needs Adelaide and Perth if it wishes to grow. Without Brisbane and Melbourne it would be f**ked.



The AFL doesn't run by this motto and it's kicking our arse.

Potato

 

[Pneuma]

$643mill for 7 years would argue otherwise!

You really are a monotonous repetitive boring old turd

 

[Pneuma]

The Bulldogs LC funded Jnr development $266k in 2021. Yep a massive $266k out of $60mill pokie den revenue!
0.4% of revenue going to Jnr RL almost justifies the social misery doesn't it?

Pokie dens! Bless! Pistol Pete! lol! Sock puppet! Obsession. Spite! Whinging boring old Pom!

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

@Canard doesn't bother to do any research before he mouths off like a punk. If he took the time to look at the annual reports I provided he would see the Bulldogs have struggled to generate revenue from football operations for years. He mouthed off about crowds without bothering to fact check his statement. All of the information is readily available on the internet but he chooses to be ignorant.



True. They're playing the long game. If it pays off in the long run -- which it very well could -- then they'll be set for life. If it fails they're no worse off than they were in 2011.

Jesus Christ