The licencing agreement only covers a period of five years.
It is still the governing document that provides their funding and is negotiated with the clubs. It remains an entitlement to clubs existing in the competition.
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.
And? Thats the way the league body is set up. The clubs should get funding - they ARE the league.
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 League doesnt have the power to force a club to relocate as long as they remain a viable entity. In the AFL, they dont have this power either - and the consent of the clubs is required for any license addition, subtraction or move.
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.
That is their right to negotiate.
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.
Kind of. It was alternately up and down, and then consistently up from 2003 - with 15 teams in the comp from 2002.
| Year | Games | Aggregate | Ave |
| 180 | 2964288 | 16468 |
| 180 | 2640690 | 14670 |
| 180 | 2604501 | 14469 |
| 180 | 2355184 | 13084 |
| 182 | 2412528 | 13256 |
| 182 | 2614665 | 14366 |
| 204 | 2843065 | 13937 |
| 240 | 2624359 | 10935 |
| 132 | 1308824 | 9915 |
| 1997SL | 90 | 1111189 | 12347 |
Your appeal to emotion and tradition isn't a valid argument and only extends to Sydney.
The fact that you dont have any respect for the history and tradition of the game is appalling. You arent a rugby league fan, your a queensland rugby league fan...maybe.
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.
So? They arent actually in the NRL are they. They can always form their own comp.
This is delusional and wrong.
Its not.
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.
And has the potential to regain those people.
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.
Enough will for it to make a difference. And the NSW gov didnt say it wont build any more, its saying it wont build them right now.
On a per capita basis rugby league is more popular in Brisbane and PNG.
And on a per capita basis the most popular AFL foothold is Nauru. So what?
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.
Yes, addint a new team to f**king Brisbane - a pre existing rugby league stronghold - will DEFINITELY grow the game.
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.
Not without club approval. Literally one of the few powers the clubs retained in the AFL Constitution.
Or the fact the Sydney NRL clubs struggle to make enough revenue from football operations to compete with the Broncos, Cowboys, Swans and Lions?
They make enough revenue elsewhere to get along just fine. And despite your belief otherwise, the grant should be considered a football revenue.
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.
It isnt propping up if its giving the same grant to every club in the league.
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.
Sure, if you ignore Leagues clubs and associated entities. Which is rather dishonest.
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.
Im rather curious as to where you pulled that from
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.
Your post literally bought in the AFL. I mean I literally responded to a post that had Australian Fumbleball or some crap in it. Lol moved the goalposts.
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.
Rugby league could as well, they just dont feel the need to.
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 have done for decades.
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.
And thats fine, thats what negotiations are for. But regardless, the NRL has an obligation to provide a grant to the clubs, it cannot withdraw it.
If that was the case then why did they threaten to form a break away competition unless their funding agreement was increased?
Part of the negotiation strategy. You know this
