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.
My objection to the licencing agreement is the money spent propping up nine small Sydney clubs is akin to pissing up a wall because it provides no long-term return. It is be better to invest the money in the amateur side of the game across Australia, New Zealand and PNG because it will lead to more people playing it and translate to more fans watching it.
The game cannot survive unless it is strong at all the professional and amateur level.
Amateur rugby league competitions at the junior and senior level are taking a hit to prop up unviable clubs from Sydney. Clubs are dying and competitions are merging to stay afloat.
It's the same problem that has torn the Australian Rugby union and soccer communities apart, yet you're advocating for us to go down he same path for "tradition and history", which only matters in your eyes when it's a traditional NSWRL club.
In the long run decline of the game in the amateur ranks will kill the professional level. The talent from the amateur side of the game won't be there to fill the NRL squads with adequately skilled players. When the standard of competition declines the game will lose interest from casual fans and lead to less revenue from broadcast rights. The clubs will then strip more money from the lower tiers of the game and we'll be in the same position as rugby union and soccer.
And? Thats the way the league body is set up. The clubs should get funding - they ARE the league.
Without the amateur side of the game there are no players. Take away the players and you've got no game.
The League doesnt have the power to force a club to relocate as long as they remain a viable entity.
Which is why the clubs keep on demanding more funding from the ARLC when their licencing agreements are up for renewal. When this is pointed out you say it's their entitlement to argue for more money without giving a f**k about the long-term consequences it has on all levels of the game underneath the NRL. It's a really myopic stance you're taking and one that will set the game up for terminal decline. If you care about the game then you'll realise it begins at the amateur level.
In the AFL, they dont have this power either - and the consent of the clubs is required for any license addition, subtraction or move.
Back in the 90s Fitzroy were forced to merge with Brisbane. I've read that there were talks between Fitzroy and another Melbournian club that were advanced, but the AFL refused to allow it because they thought the new club would be too powerful. I remember seeing Sam Newman speak about it on the Brisbane Footy Show in 1996.
That is their right to negotiate.
And it's detrimental to the game's survival at a) the amateur level and b) growth in new markets.
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.
WTF?
I've read some ignorant shit on this board from biased NSWRL fans, but this takes the cake.
Since when is the NSWRL "the game"?
Try learning about the history ot the game before talking about it. "The game" began in a northern English city called Huddersfield in 1895 when a group of disgruntled rugby union clubs formed their own competition over pay disputes. It was originally called the Northern Union and played under the same rules as rugby union, but was later renamed the Rugby Football League and became a different sport some time before 1908 when the All Blacks drew large crowds across Britain with their emphasis on ball movement. The RFL capitalised on it by removing flankers and line outs. The ruck and maul system was replaced with the play the ball.
The game didn't make its way to Sydney until 1908. It was introduced by New Zealanders who played against Great Britain for the All Golds the previous year. The QRL was formed at the same time and fielded their competition in 1909.
So? They arent actually in the NRL are they. They can always form their own comp.
So their "history and tradition" doesn't count?
Only the "history and tradition" of NSWRL clubs matter?
This sort of myopic and selfish mentality is why our game has failed to expand outside of its traditional markets.
When the non-NSWRL clubs tried to form their own competition in 1996 the ARL took them to court.
The QRL has a seat on the ARLC. There's no way the clubs from the Queensland Cup could rebel without cutting all ties with the QRL.
And has the potential to regain those people.
But it hasn't and appears to be stagnant at best and in some cases in decline. The game also has the potential to carve out a strong niche in new markets, but won't until it stops basing all of its decisions around the self-interest of Sydney NRL clubs.
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.
The rebuild of Parramatta Stadium hasn't turned the Eels into a financial juggernaut like the Broncos and Cowboys. The Eels' revenue from football operations is still behind the Broncos and Cowboys.
Yes, addint a new team to f**king Brisbane - a pre existing rugby league stronghold - will DEFINITELY grow the game.
It'll lead to more profit-making derbies in Brisbane that draw big crowds and strong television ratings. It'll also bring in money from the corporate sector. The Dolphins are already making more money from sponsorship than any Sydney club. There are plenty of corporates who are turned away by the Broncos that would sponsor a third team.
Not without club approval. Literally one of the few powers the clubs retained in the AFL Constitution.
Did Fitzroy agree to no longer exist?
They make enough revenue elsewhere to get along just fine. And despite your belief otherwise, the grant should be considered a football revenue.
If that were true then they wouldn't keep on demanding more funding from the ARLC, would they?
Take away revenue from gaming and the annual grant and there's no way these clubs could cover the expenses relates to fielding a team in the NRL. You know this but deliberately deflect attention away from it whenever it's brought up. The annual grant isn't revenue from football operations because it's tied to the competition as a whole. Football operations include ticketing, membership, merchandise, sponsorship and corporate hospitality because fans and companies are paying to watch the football team. The annual grant is propped up by the broadcasters, who would pay significantly less if it was just Sydney teams in the league.
It isnt propping up if its giving the same grant to every club in the league.
It is when clubs like the Broncos, Cowboys, Titans and Storm are the reason Ch9 pay what they do to have a reach in Brisbane. Take them away and you lose the Brisbane market. Melbourne would go back to drawing just 5k viewers per game without the Storm. Grand final viewership in Brisbane and Melbourne would dry up. The cost of a 30 second commercial would drop significantly.
Sure, if you ignore Leagues clubs and associated entities. Which is rather dishonest.
WTF?
People go to the Leagues Clubs to play the pokies. Most of the people who play the pokies couldn't give a f**k about the football club.
