Is the NZRL getting screwed?

[TheDMC]

Take out the SOO financial and glory incentive and we should be fine - lose a few players here and there, but just who are genuinely more committed to Australia then NZ, and thats okay.

This should happen with the introduction of proposed SOO eligibility rule that one must have played for Qland/NSW state by the age of 15. Clubs can't sign up players younger 15 or under.

Any kiwi born person who has gone to live in Australia before age of 15, whether for family reasons or even for a potential league career, and they want to play SOO and for Australia, that's fine.

A kiwi who goes over to Aus after aged 15 to play league, and fulfills residency requirements, (3 years or whatever) then if they want to play for Australia that's fine too. Personally I'd think they are a numbnuts like Tamou, but who wants non-committed kiwis playing for us anyway. At least they wouldn't be choosing to do so based on a massive financial incentive like 150g a year for SOO...

It is a globalized world fellas and people have the right to change residency and commitment of country, lets not get too precious about it. Kiwi's didn't complain about Annelise Coberger, Erakovich, Danny Lee, and the hordes of pacific islanders who have done the country proud in rugby union.

In terms of NZ getting screwed by Aus $$ for TV Deal etc benefits, would be interesting to see whether the ARL's charter includes giving a shit about growing the game outside of oz. Probably not.

 

[Fonzie]

Take out the SOO financial and glory incentive and we should be fine - lose a few players here and there, but just who are genuinely more committed to Australia then NZ, and thats okay.

This should happen with the introduction of proposed SOO eligibility rule that one must have played for Qland/NSW state by the age of 15. Clubs can't sign up players younger 15 or under.

The proposed SOO eligibility rule solves the problem for Kiwis who head to Oz at 15 or later (like Kasiano), but it doesn't help at all for the ones who go across younger (like Tamou or Papali). For the ones who go across earlier (or who are heritage players), the financial incentive of SOO is still there, and you will still get players committing to NSW or Qld and Australia for the cash. The financial incentive needs to be taken out by equalising payments - then you will get players making more genuine choices about who they want to play for. Paying the NZ players is the job of the NZRL (I think), which gets back to the original point - they need cash from the ARLC.

 

[TheDMC]

The proposed SOO eligibility rule solves the problem for Kiwis who head to Oz at 15 or later (like Kasiano), but it doesn't help at all for the ones who go across younger (like Tamou or Papali). For the ones who go across earlier (or who are heritage players), the financial incentive of SOO is still there, and you will still get players committing to NSW or Qld and Australia for the cash. The financial incentive needs to be taken out by equalising payments - then you will get players making more genuine choices about who they want to play for. Paying the NZ players is the job of the NZRL (I think), which gets back to the original point - they need cash from the ARLC.

Would equalising payments see players making more genuine choices? Hmm maybe not.

Okay say NZRL gets a bunch more money.

1.)Let's say Kiwi players get 50grand per kiwi test against Aussie, well obviously Aussie players will demand at least that. So a player would still, financially, favour playing for Aussie as they would get SOO payments plus international payments (I would suggest most young SOO players would back themselves to get an Aussie rep jersey).

2) Regardless, would it be wise for NZRL to try peg payments to match SOO, the latter being much more commercially valuable than international league? That would be like when Argentina matching its currency to the $US - works for awhile then ends in bankruptcy.

Equalising payments just aint the solution...

 

[Fonzie]

1.)Let's say Kiwi players get 50grand per kiwi test against Aussie, well obviously Aussie players will demand at least that. So a player would still, financially, favour playing for Aussie as they would get SOO payments plus international payments (I would suggest most young SOO players would back themselves to get an Aussie rep jersey).

Equalising payments just aint the solution...

Fair point mate, equalising payments would be an improvement but as you say won't solve the problem because Aussie players have many more opportunities through Origin.

I guess the eligibility issue needs a more structural solution, which is probably a discussion for another thread.

 

[Diesel]

Why does the NZRL not play more tests against the Pacific Island teams or PNG. The more tests we play, the better our guys bond nd the more guys we can blood. This NZRL team doesn't necessarily need to be the top players.

We could potentially have 2 Kiwi's squads (especially in the lead up, and during WC years), where one team plays England/GB, Australia and another that plays the lower ranked European and Pacific teams.

 

[Rich102]

Why does the NZRL not play more tests against the Pacific Island teams or PNG. The more tests we play, the better our guys bond nd the more guys we can blood. This NZRL team doesn't necessarily need to be the top players.

We could potentially have 2 Kiwi's squads (especially in the lead up, and during WC years), where one team plays England/GB, Australia and another that plays the lower ranked European and Pacific teams.

Easy answer. Not enough people will pay to see it to cover the costs.

 

[tangalife]

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.

Ben Te'o has played for Junior Kiwis, Samoa and now Queensland :lol:

THAT is a joke.

Also, what if Tamou and Papalii end up dropping form and never get to play for Aus or Origin for years in the future - but surely would be good enough for the kiwis? That is a possible rort also.

Also I dont think these guys get 50k in origin just yet. I'm sure its just 20k at the moment with it ment to increase to 50k, and i dont even know if that is per game but for the whole series?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

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."

My goodness gracious, more idiocy from Kemp. We do not have a 30 per cent stake in the NRL because that is the percentage of Kiwis in it. Does Spain have a 10 per cent stake in the EPL because of the amount of their players in it? No. We have a small stake based on one team and a smaller broadcasting presence. Simple. And to compare it to English settlers? Holy hell. Australia had a thriving competition long before we became a bigger presence in it. There's no treaty here Tony you muppet.

The smaller nations are already dead, international league is a joke. Why can't Mr Glenn and his billions sort something out rather than expect a handout from the ARLC?

 

[mean_maori_mean]

My goodness gracious, more idiocy from Kemp. We do not have a 30 per cent stake in the NRL because that is the percentage of Kiwis in it. Does Spain have a 10 per cent stake in the EPL because of the amount of their players in it? No. We have a small stake based on one team and a smaller broadcasting presence. Simple. And to compare it to English settlers? Holy hell. Australia had a thriving competition long before we became a bigger presence in it. There's no treaty here Tony you muppet.

The smaller nations are already dead, international league is a joke. Why can't Mr Glenn and his billions sort something out rather than expect a handout from the ARLC?

Not really - perhaps the figures are exaggerated but make perfect sense too me and you will find the ARLC will agree.

Essentially it is an Australasian competition these days and that should be reflected in the funding.

Why should the warriors get all the money - they dont actually develop the game in new zealand.
While they provide the pathways for some young players - clearly they dont provide enough development for the player nor the game as the momment. nor do they apparently need the money

Remember the warriors goal is too win the NRL and NYC competitions - nothing else?
So they want to start a school comp - so they can jam pack their nyc team even more than usual

 

[jaseg]

30% stake in playing stock maybe, but that's matched by a ~9% stake in TV revenues, and a 6.25% stake in club involvement. Notice how that number keeps on going down? I imagine if you look at corporate money, the NZ stake goes down even further.

Still, if they're getting less than, say, 7% of the total grants given by the ARLC for development of the game then yes, they are getting screwed. That's a fairly arbitrary figure based on quoted amounts, guesswork and calculations in my head (ok, that last part is less of an accuracy issue - I do this sort of thing for a living). It's too hard to make a definitive comment either way without more facts.

Still, a NZ vs Pacific Allstars game/series alongside Origin could only help in retaining talent, as could increased rep player payments (matching Aus simply isn't sustainable, but something - anything - significant is better than nothing). I have less of a problem losing Papalii (very disappointing, but still) than losing Tamou, Te'o or (potentially) Tuivasa-Sheck, Kasiano & Taumololo - since Papalii has a decent claim for Australia anyway. These things are always going to happen - and happen both ways, but we just need to ensure it doesn't become systematic.

 

[Illiterate]

All star games are a waste of time. They need to get rid of the 4nations and have a nz v England series throw the year. Then at the end of the year alternate witch team plays Australia

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Not really - perhaps the figures are exaggerated but make perfect sense too me and you will find the ARLC will agree.

Essentially it is an Australasian competition these days and that should be reflected in the funding.

Why should the warriors get all the money - they dont actually develop the game in new zealand.
While they provide the pathways for some young players - clearly they dont provide enough development for the player nor the game as the momment. nor do they apparently need the money

Remember the warriors goal is too win the NRL and NYC competitions - nothing else?
So they want to start a school comp - so they can jam pack their nyc team even more than usual

I don't think the ARLC will agree and give us 30 percent of 1 billion. It'll be same old, same old. Do they really care if international football takes off again or will be happy that the NRL continues to be a worthy product that conjures up massive television money? CH 9/Fox won't have any demands about internationals, or very little. So no one will care too much.

 

[spear tackle]

I don't really see why the NZRL should get any money from the NRL comp.
I dont think the NZRL have any financial stake in the Warriors so why should they get a slice of the pie?
For years here Rugby League has been a joke (although it seems to be getting its house in order in recent times)when it comes to organising a comp they could of done something years ago but reginal infighting put stop to that.
We have for years been hearing about this North Vs South, Kiwi Roots, North Of The Bombays Vs The Rest or whatever you want to call it, still nothing ever came of it.
A lot of the youg guys that go to Australia would never have acheived what they have done if they remained here due to lack of sponsership infrastructure etc and the NZRL only has itself to blame sadly.
So if we were to get a "cut" from the ARLC for the amount of players we have in that compitition maybe we should hit up the ESL as well.
While we're at it maybe the NZRU should be asking for a cut from europe , japan and any other countries who have our players and both the NZR and NZRL and the Warriors can hit that club up in Japan for grabbing Omar Slimankle of us as well. Maybe I'm way of the mark but thats my view on it.
Still eligibility laws really do need to be tightened up -big time.

 

[ramraider275]

Kemp's "Letters of Intent" mean squat to some players when 50k is on the table.

 

[Skinner]

I don't really see why the NZRL should get any money from the NRL comp.
I dont think the NZRL have any financial stake in the Warriors so why should they get a slice of the pie?
For years here Rugby League has been a joke (although it seems to be getting its house in order in recent times)when it comes to organising a comp they could of done something years ago but reginal infighting put stop to that.
We have for years been hearing about this North Vs South, Kiwi Roots, North Of The Bombays Vs The Rest or whatever you want to call it, still nothing ever came of it.
A lot of the youg guys that go to Australia would never have acheived what they have done if they remained here due to lack of sponsership infrastructure etc and the NZRL only has itself to blame sadly.
So if we were to get a "cut" from the ARLC for the amount of players we have in that compitition maybe we should hit up the ESL as well.
While we're at it maybe the NZRU should be asking for a cut from europe , japan and any other countries who have our players and both the NZR and NZRL and the Warriors can hit that club up in Japan for grabbing Omar Slimankle of us as well. Maybe I'm way of the mark but thats my view on it.
Still eligibility laws really do need to be tightened up -big time.

I think you are right on the nail mate - good post.

 

[mean]

For years here Rugby League has been a joke (although it seems to be getting its house in order in recent times)when it comes to organising a comp they could of done something years ago but reginal infighting put stop to that.

Speaking of which .... why is Selwyn Pearson working for Auckland League? The NZRL get rid of him and it flourishes as it should've done. So what does he bring? Besides dirty secrets and the intimate knowledge of the pokie scandals with questionable practices.

 

[spear tackle]

I was drunk when I made the above post, but it is how I see the situation.

 

[ozenzud]

The TV deal is $1 billion dollars over 4 years or something. A lot of that money will go into the NRL clubs, but I understand that some will head to grass roots footy. The ARL should, if it is slightly enlightened, take a portion of that money, and put it to international development.

The NZRL have a turnover of about $6mill. They make profit of a few hundred thousand a year, largely based on the returns from test matches. From that, they run the local game the NPC and so on. At the moment, the NZRL are getting development officers into the regions for the first time in a decade or two.

Funding for the local regions from the NZRL is pretty small. Rugby here is a commercial giant and it is struggling to maintain its programs.

If the NZRL were to get a tiny portion say $250,000 to $500,000 a year from the ARL, that would be a singificant contribution to the local game and it would pay huge dividends to our games development here.

A development officer, a real one, in Fiji, Samoa, Tongo etc would similarly have hugh benefits for the sport. That would eventually lead to greater returns for the ARL in meaningful internationals and markets for the NRL.

Investment in the game, pure and simple. Investment for a better return in future.

That Tonearmterriost comment above, enlightened. Strangely enough, NZRL took his advice before he game it and started the National Provinical Competition and has it televised on Sky. Bit of a way to go to get it to the status of the NRL but.

 

[Fonzie]

Reading the discussion I can't help but feel like the nzrl should roll under the umbrella of the arlc. There are comments from kiwis about the nzrl not having the capability, and comments from (insular) aussies about 'why should we care'. If the nzrl became a bodyy under the arlc like the qrl, maybe it would get a better share of grassroots funding, and be able to leverage off the central administrative capability of tjhe arlc. Thoughts?