Is the NZRL getting screwed?

[Fonzie]

The Origin v NZ eligibility / payments issue has got me thinking about NZRL finances.

As far as I know the NZRL does not get a significant grant from the ARLC. If that is right, it is unfair and helps explain some of the difficulties the Kiwis are having.

The Australian component of the new ARLC broadcasting deal is worth around $205m per year, which works at an average of around $13.7 million generated by each of the 15 Australian franchises. Of that, each club will apparently get a grant of around $6m, leaving $115 (or $7.7m per club) for the ARLC for its collective spending programs.

The NZ component of the deal is being estimated at $20m per year based on a single club (Warriors). So after the Warriors grant the ARLC will take $14 for its collective spending programs.

My question is whether the NZRL are getting screwed on two fronts here:

1. Why should the ARLC take all of that surplus $14m generated by the Warriors in NZ? Surely there is a good argument that the NZRL should be enttiled to at least some of it. If the average Aussie club is generating a surplus of $7.7, then maybe the NZRL should be entitled to any surplus above that amount. Imagine what the NZRL could do with an extra A$6.3m per year?

2. Are the ARLCs collectve spending programs appropriately reflecting NZs contribution to the pool of money? My view from the cheap seats is that the ARLC (and before that the NRL) did sweet FA for NZ development (whether grassroots or the national team), but others may know more and can correct me.

 

[IanG]

Well the commission need to come to the party to a point otherwise the gap is only going to get wider. Mind you I don't know what their association with the Rugby League International Federation is.

 

[Canard]

I have a massive problem with the argument that the NZ TV deal is solely because of the Warriors.

The money is paid to broadcast the entire NRL not just the Warriors.

If that logic was applied in Australia, then the Broncos could argue that 40 to 50% of the ENTIRE deals is due broadcasters wanting to show them every Friday night, so they should have the lions share.

 

[flamin]

Obviously NZRL has gained many benefits from Australia inviting the Warriors into our competition but I haven't heard any info on the ARLC/NRL directly helping the game over there. A strong NZ game has positive flow on effects throughout the NRL so there's good reason for us to invest in the NZRL.

 

[Frailty]

If NZRL are willing, they should merge into the ARLC so that NZ Development falls under the ARLC too.

The TV Deal goes to the Competition which is the ARLC, so why would they give money to the NZRL who are well in their rights to sell their competition?

 

[Fonzie]

I have a massive problem with the argument that the NZ TV deal is solely because of the Warriors.

The money is paid to broadcast the entire NRL not just the Warriors.

If that logic was applied in Australia, then the Broncos could argue that 40 to 50% of the ENTIRE deals is due broadcasters wanting to show them every Friday night, so they should have the lions share.

Understand what you are saying, although I doubt they would get a significant $NZ deal without the Warriors. Similarly, a portion of the $AUS deal is for the rights to broadcast the Warriors in Australia.

The problem with the Broncos analogy is that I am not suggesting the Warriors should get a bigger share as a club, I am asking whether the NZRL should get a bigger share as the governing body in NZ. The ARLC charter covers managing the game in Qld, but does not include NZ (thats the NZRLs job).

 

[Frailty]

Understand what you are saying, although I doubt they would get a significant $NZ deal without the Warriors. Similarly, a portion of the $AUS deal is for the rights to broadcast the Warriors in Australia.

The problem with the Broncos analogy is that I am not suggesting the Warriors should get a bigger share as a club, I am asking whether the NZRL should get a bigger share as the governing body in NZ. The ARLC charter covers managing the game in Qld, but does not include NZ (thats the NZRLs job).

Nor should it be. Any money generated by the NRL competition should go to the ARLC as they run the competition.

 

[Perth Red]

Absolutely they are! This isn't so much about how much the Warriors bring to the table (though I can guarantee without them the NZ TV deal would be worth a heck of a lot less) but what is NZ worth to the game? You only have to look at how much every club is relying on NZ talent, the as of yet untapped value of Int RL to the game and then add in the value of having one, and hopefully two in the not too distant future, NRL teams in NZ. To my understanding the NZRL don't receive a cent from the ARLC. Their primary source of funding is from revenue from Kiwi games plus Govt grants.

Ideally we would see a NZ rep on the ARLC and a significant amount of funding flowing from the ARLC riches to further develop the game over there.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

NZ can feel free to piss off and start their own league.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

This is just another example of the issues facing the ARLC and its obligation to support the rest of the game. The NZRL contributes a hell of a lot to the NRL in terms of player development and as a result it should be supported by those who run the NRL. That's before you even consider that having a strong NZRL and therefore a strong Kiwis side and stronger international game is beneficial to not only the ARLC and the NRL but the game in general.

Its an argumant between those who want to take everything out of the game and give it to the NRL clubs an those who want the sport to survive and prosper. There's only one way for the ARLC to go if the game is to survive in some places and grow in others. But that doesn't mean that will be the way they go.

 

[Fonzie]

Nor should it be. Any money generated by the NRL competition should go to the ARLC as they run the competition.

This makes sense if you take the view that this is an ARLC comp, and that NZ is allowed to participate at the ARLCs invitation and as a 'favour' to the NZRL (and I think that is the traditional view).

For mine we need to move past that. True, without the ARLC comp NZ would have no professional comp to play in or pathways for its players to reach the pinnacle. But equally, if NZ withdrew from the from the ARLC comp then the ARLC would lose valuable surplus revenue, a considerable junior base and the goodwill associated with its successful expansion in the NZ market. Its a win-win, and the benefits shuold be shared between the parties making it happen.

 

[mean_maori_mean]

Absolutely they are! This isn't so much about how much the Warriors bring to the table (though I can guarantee without them the NZ TV deal would be worth a heck of a lot less) but what is NZ worth to the game? You only have to look at how much every club is relying on NZ talent, the as of yet untapped value of Int RL to the game and then add in the value of having one, and hopefully two in the not too distant future, NRL teams in NZ. To my understanding the NZRL don't receive a cent from the ARLC. Their primary source of funding is from revenue from Kiwi games plus Govt grants.

Ideally we would see a NZ rep on the ARLC and a significant amount of funding flowing from the ARLC riches to further develop the game over there.

this.
I am sure they share ideas and learnings etc
Which is a start.

But agreed - there should be higher investment and im sure it will happen (at some leve)

There is no reason for young kiwis to move to aussie until they are 17/18. They have shown that already. The warriors could field three team in the nyc that would all make the top 8 imo.
They could fill nyc teams like the titans (who are hopeless).

However if ARLC can invest more through NZ league then they can do even more to foster these potential NRL players also simply grow the game in nz. The potential customer base of the game as well as the player base.
If they can invest or do more work in nz with nzrl - then we have more succesful kiwis coming through.

 

[Wheeled Warrior]

NZ can feel free to piss off and start their own league.

Yup it's attitudes like this that is killing the game. I pity your narrow mind if you can't see that having NZ in the mix is good for the game overall :roll:

 

[Fast Eddie]

The best part is how the Roosters are stacked with Kiwis and TT cries himself to sleep over that fact.

 

[ozbash]

Where was this gem moved from ?

 

[Blair]

"Is the NZRL getting screwed?"

Dunno 'Fonzie', depends if there are plenty of 'chicks' working there and, if so, you'd be the first person I'd point the finger at.

 

[Fonzie]

Have to agree with this from Kemp.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/league/news/article.cfm?c_id=79&objectid=10836492

"Although New Zealanders make up around 30 per cent of NRL and NYC players, the NZRL was likely to see only a pittance from the recently agreed A$1 billion television deal. Kemp likened that to English settlers arriving in New Zealand. "It's like a ship coming into the harbour and saying 'we'll have all those nice things over there and here's a couple of muskets'. It's that all over again.

"The residency equation will stop some of it but it is not going to fix it. For me, the answer is looking at the pathways and then supporting the pathways. If it's a billion-dollar business, I dunno ... if we've got a 30 per cent stake in something, shouldn't we be rewarded for that? We are getting railroaded. It wouldn't cost them $600,000 to create pathways here.

"We are up against it big time with the $1 billion deal. If they get this wrong by not taking a whole of league outlook they could kill the smaller nations."

 

[Manurewa_Marlins]

Believe it or not, just because someone is a New Zealander does not mean the NZRL is responsible for them being born as such.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

:lol: at kemp

 

[ramraider275]

We are getting screwed!!!!!

Enforce the rules, kids need to make that choice the minute they make Junior Kiwis or Kangaroos, they can't be eligible for to play for another country after a decent stand down period e.g. 5 yrs.

Tony Kemp is right in everything he is saying the National game will become a joke soon if something isn't done about it. This has been going on for years, where Oz national/state teams only want the best we got, e.g. Matt Utai was sounded out as a possible NSW winger when he burst out onto the scene before choosing NZ.

It's a joke to watch a kid run around in the local game here, make rep sides here, and get a chance to go to OZ to play, then when they are something, "come play for NSW or Queensland" - Ben Te'o is another joke, no one talks about it, I watched him in the local game years ago and play secondary school league, how does he qualify for SOO.

I feel sorry for the local kids in the OZ states that want are 100% ozzies but they lose there spot to a kiwi.