Tell it how it is.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/why-brisbane-deal-stinks-20100814-1240d.html
Why Brisbane deal stinks
PHIL GOULD
August 15, 2010
Broncos-bound ... but the Greg Inglis deal doesn't sit right. Photo: Getty Images
Well done to Greg Inglis. It's a great choice to sign with the Brisbane Broncos. There's no doubting their professionalism. He'll do very well in their colours.
Congratulations also to the Broncos; not only for signing this quality player, but for what it says about their hunger for success.
Glenn Lazarus, Gorden Tallis, Anthony Mundine, Scott Prince, right through to Israel Folau and now Greg Inglis - history shows us the Broncos want the best players, so they go get the best players.
Many have viewed these signings with jealousy and even disgust. The word "cheats" has been mumbled on many occasions to describe their seemingly super-flexible salary cap which has allowed them to house dozens of Test and Origin stars over the years and win the club no fewer than six premierships.
I don't look at it that way. I don't care if a football club looks after a player's family with housing or employment, sends him on exotic holidays, helps him to invest in profitable business ventures, uses him in TV commercials for sponsors, donates money to the player's favourite charity or church, or even slips him a little extra spending money. The great players deserve it. This is how a professional football club should conduct its affairs.
I'm not for one minute suggesting Brisbane offer such benefits. But they are in the business of winning and they make winning their business. Good luck to them.
BUT IT STINKS
Having praised the player and the club, let me now say the whole Inglis affair stinks.
No other NRL club stood a chance of recruiting this great player. The News Ltd-owned Melbourne Storm release Inglis to the News Ltd-owned Broncos, all the while carrying on their private negotiations under the noses of the News Ltd-owned NRL. The conflict of interest is painfully obvious. It's a joke. You'd think after everything that's happened, the NRL would be looking for total transparency on deals like this and if players are forced to leave the Storm, they would end up in the waiting arms of our more needy clubs.
Let's recap for a moment. The NRL disqualified the Melbourne Storm over salary cap rorts. This action has effectively ruined the 2010 competition and embarrassed our code for the second time in eight seasons. Why hasn't NRL management been held responsible for this mess? For mine it's a case of ''Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!''
We are led to believe the only people who knew about the Melbourne rorts were the independent directors of the Storm and the previous management group.
Apparently no one at News knew. The News-appointed directors at the Storm didn't know. No one at the NRL knew. At the very least, someone should've been charged with grade-five naivety.
The sacking of the independent directors by the club owner, News, meant none of the events surrounding the implementation of the rorts or the timeline of discovery would be examined under oath in court. We are left with no choice but to take them at their word.
NRL boss David Gallop maintains the salary cap is essential to evenly distribute talent throughout the competition. Well, Mr Gallop, could you please explain how allowing Mr Inglis to go to the Broncos fits into your talent-equalisation scheme? Hmmm? While on the subject of distributing talent, could you please explain how losing quality players such as Brett Finch, Jeff Lima, Ryan Hoffman and Luke O'Donnell to the English Super League, not to mention more than a hundred players before them, justifies your over-protection of these out-dated salary cap laws?
As for the Inglis deal, on the score of perception, why haven't you advised both News and the Broncos that this is not a good look at this time? Perception is reality. How do you delude yourself into thinking the entire rugby league community can't see through this farce?
Even if the NRL is convinced the Brisbane contract is squeaky clean, surely you must understand that in allowing this trade, you have now lost what little was left of the public's fading confidence.
Besides, what guarantees can you give that everything about the Inglis deal with the Broncos satisfies salary-cap scrutiny? After all, for the past five years you thought his deal with the Storm was legal.
The News-owned Melbourne Storm systematically rorted the salary cap well beyond the NRL's detection methods and supposedly beyond the knowledge of News or their trusted representatives on the Storm's board of directors for at least the past five years. So what guarantees can you provide the rugby league public that everything is above board at the other News-owned club, the Brisbane Broncos?
In the wake of the massive embarrassment at the Melbourne Storm, why hasn't News ordered one of those forensic audits of their Brisbane Broncos operation? What audit processes have been in place at the Broncos over the past 10 years that weren't in place at the Melbourne Storm? If both clubs have been subjected to the same News audit processes, then why has the NRL allowed the Broncos to trade on the player market until such times as a full forensic audit clears the Broncos of any past wrong doing?
Of course, there is no hard evidence to suggest the Broncos have done anything wrong, but the Broncos haven't missed the top eight since 1992 and they did beat the Storm in the 2006 grand final when the Storm were apparently well over the salary cap. Isn't anyone just a little curious? While News may well plead its ignorance over the Melbourne cap rorts, why hasn't Gallop asked the media company to show reason why it shouldn't be asked to surrender ownership of both its NRL clubs? Surely the buck stops with the owner of the club, whether it was aware of the rorting or not.
In other professional sports around the world, if a franchise deliberately broke rules to the extent the Storm is alleged to have done, then the owner of that franchise would be barred from the sport, certainly not allowed to have two franchises in the same competition and have one franchise benefit by buying the best player from the other offending franchise.
Either News and the NRL believe the rugby league public is so dumb they can't think for themselves on these issues, or our game's owners and leaders are so arrogant they don't give a damn what the fans think.
They seem to believe if they put out a headline saying everything is OK, we should just swallow it, no matter how bitter the taste.
The fans should be saying enough is enough!
BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE
Why hasn't the NRL been pushing for another franchise in Brisbane?
Why has this News-owned club been allowed to hold a monopoly advantage in Brisbane for so long when it's so obvious our game needs another team in this city? Sydney's population is approximately double the size of Brisbane. But Sydney accommodates nine NRL teams; Brisbane only has one.
Rugby league on free-to-air television rates higher per capita in Brisbane than in any other city in the country. How much more valuable would our TV rights be if we had another team playing out of Suncorp Stadium so Brisbane hosted an NRL match every weekend?
The Broncos enjoy a huge advantage over other NRL clubs on the score of attendances, corporate support, revenue, sponsorships and recruitment. Being the only team in Brisbane means they are regulars on free-to-air TV coverage which adds tremendous value to the sponsorship packages. The number of third-party deals they can offer their players is staggering when compared to what other NRL clubs can arrange.
These benefits, which come as a result of their monopoly status in such a large market, allows the Brisbane Broncos to recruit and retain extra numbers of representative class players, stockpile the best of junior talent and spend millions more on their coaching, staffing and football programs than any club in the league.
Surely it is time for a second team in Brisbane. It would sure add value to our next broadcast rights deal. If the NRL won't put another team in Brisbane and is willing to allow the News-owned club to continue to flourish in its monopoly position, then why doesn't the NRL charge the Broncos an "exclusivity fee" of, say, $4 million per season which can be distributed among the battling clubs?
Perhaps Gallop could explain to us why he has not pursued such a project. Why has the News-owned Broncos been allowed such a free run with this monopoly situation?
You know, the truth is, even if Gallop was motivated to have a second team in Brisbane, the NRL doesn't have the expertise or the money to establish a new business in that or any other area.
Look at the way the AFL plans and attacks its expansion programs. It is professional, well organised and aggressive.
The NRL has no strategy. It sits back and waits for people to apply and hopes those pursuing a new franchise have the energy and money to do all the work.
WHY DOESN'T BRISBANE PAY FOR MELBOURNE?
As part of its list of requirements to step aside from its ownership of the game to allow a truly independent commission to govern over rugby league in this country, News initially demanded the NRL continue to fund the Melbourne Storm for the next five seasons to the tune of $6 million per year.
This initial request has now been negotiated down to a more realistic total of around $14 million- $15 million for the same period; but when you think about it, why should the other 15 clubs have to fund this News-owned club?
News cries poor over the cost of running the Storm, yet the media conglomerate also owns the Brisbane Broncos, who, as we now know, prosper financially from their monopoly status in the rugby league mad south-east Queensland region.
Two possible solutions are:
❏ As News owns both clubs, why can't the significant profits from the Broncos pay for the shortfalls that need to be financed at the Storm? Or:
❏ News Limited should sell its 69 per cent stake in the Broncos to minority shareholders so the media group has a financial interest only in the one NRL franchise in Melbourne.
Given the events of the past 15 years, in particular the events of the past six months, and more particularly the events of the past week, surely it is time our game frees itself of media ownership.
We desperately need to establish a truly independent commission to govern the future of the NRL competition.
We also need a new, vibrant, professional, independent leadership group to ensure rugby league at all levels realises its true potential.
