What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NRL faces major turmoil as clubs threaten breakaway league

Von Hipper

Juniors
Messages
178
Yeah but in my defence I didn't realise he was full genius until just now.

Full genius? I've addressed this elsewhere but I think you're a pea-brain.

How popular do you think nrl is? Why do people have to rep their group and not state? Why can't people travel? Do you think this is everyone gets a rep jumper day or everyone gets a trophy day?

The nrl don't have the money to support every silly cause you lot have going on. The afl do great on captial city stuff, 6m viewers and here we are trying to sink money into crl where it won't make even a tiny difference.

Get a grip, tool.
 

Von Hipper

Juniors
Messages
178
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...s/news-story/00dc127b832afefdfb1b6b7471c769ad

Knights chairman Brian McGuigan says John Grant has ‘stuffed up’ and must apologise to clubs
November 28, 2016 9:42pm
Barry Toohey

NEWCASTLE chairman Brian McGuigan says John Grant “stuffed up” and has called on the ARL Commission chairman to immediately apologise in a bid to bring warring factions back to the negotiating table to resolve the funding crisis issue.

The Gold Coast Titans weren’t the only club not to sign a formal letter calling for Grant to resign with McGuigan revealing the NRL-controlled Knights also abstained from voting.

“How can we vote against the hand that feeds us?’’ McGuigan said.

“The Titans and ourselves abstained from voting with the complete understanding of the other clubs because we are in an invidious position.

“But we are as one with all the other clubs — it’s just the way we go about resolving it is the issue now.”

McGuigan said he never considered walking out of the meeting with Grant last Wednesday but can understand the views of those who did.

“For me, walking out was too extreme but some of the chairman who did walk were the people who were part of the subcommittee that had been directly negotiating with the NRL,” he said.

“That’s why they felt so concerned and deflated by the NRL saying they were cancelling the talks and going back to scratch.

“It hit them very hard because I think we all felt we were within a couple of hours of having all our issues agree to before having the rug pulled out from under us.”

While he said he couldn’t speak for other chairmen, McGuigan said he is prepared to meet with Grant later this week to keep the dialogue going.

But he said an apology has to be the first port of call.

“I would hope there would be an apology from Johns to all those chairmen who were offended by the way in which we were disrespected,” he said.

“By the way in which the whole thing has been handled and presented.

“John stuffed up. He has admitted everywhere that Wednesday’s gospel was a fiasco and that the chairmen, particularly the negotiating people were offended and that has got to be corrected by an apology.

“He had only returned home that morning and I don’t think it had been prepared well enough or thought through well enough when it was presented.

“I’d put it down to a lack of being updated about every body’s expectations.

“I hope we can get back together and thrash it out. People will be sceptical about such a view but I just think you get a lot further with honey than you do with vinegar.”

McGuigan admitted he doesn’t know if a resolution is possible with Grant remaining as chairman given the hostility from other clubs.

“I don’t have an answer to that,” he said.

“We have received some correspondence from John which I’m yet to respond to but will say I am available for meetings at any time because the only way to resolve this is to talk.

“We have to get back to talk. If we can’t with everybody, we have to go by ourselves and hopefully as a result of moving forward, we can entice some of those other chairmen back.

“We have to find a way to go forward and get this resolved for the good of the game.”

I agree.
But let me get this right, because an apology may help, think this has already been said, but these BROKE ass clubs want verbal pleasantries while they spend money they don't have to fight management for money bitterly and demand an apology?

Don't be idiots. Get a fkn funding agreement in place!! Lol

And that's what this Newcastle chairman is trying to do. Absolutely agree with him
 
Last edited:

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,850
what puzzles me is why the NRL offered 130% of salary cap, when they are at 85% now..

Why not just offer 100% of cap ...

Speculating but I reckon 30% would cover overheads associated with these salaries. In other words the clubs would have zero out of pocket expenses in relation to salaries.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,777
Issue is standard corporate law and practice

You cannot spend more than you earn

Teams like Parra who have $50 mil in cash reserve but that took at hit this year

If you continue to run at a loss this cash reserve will disappear

Or you will be forced to borrow just lile Tinkler did

Then a financial issue or event arises and you can't recover

You then get put into administration by corporate law

And we know they don't give a rats about centiments, members no longer have a say or vote. They only care about recovering the money from whoever wants to buy or make a merger offer.

And of course the NRL has the right to revoke the licence

The NRL needs to divorce itself from owning RL clubs
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,777
I agree.
But let me get this right, because an apology may help, think this has already been said, but these BROKE ass clubs want verbal pleasantries while they spend money they don't have to fight management for money bitterly and demand an apology?

Don't be idiots. Get a fkn funding agreement in place!! Lol

And that's what this Newcastle chairman is trying to do. Absolutely agree with him

Simple answer

NRL pull out of supporting these clubs if they don't toe the line
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,634
The AFL clubs lose double the amount that NRL clubs do, but they just get the handouts from the governing body with minimal outrage and care factor from anybody...
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,634
Perhaps we should move to the AFL model where the "rich" clubs get less than half the money of the poor clubs?

Wonder if Dib and Politis would agree to this?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-funding-battle-with-afl-20160915-grhf6q.html

Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast and Fremantle have all made individual presentations to league chief Gillon McLachlan to voice disappointment with the game's new investment model that they claim has over-corrected in the equalisation push.

As the AFL intensifies efforts to close the gap between rich and poor clubs, the game's wealthiest franchises have learned they will each receive an estimated $8.6 million next year, which in real terms means they will receive no lift from the richest sport media deal in Australian history. The poorer clubs, led by 2016 preliminary finalist Greater Western Sydney, are expected to receive more than $20 million at the bottom of a sliding scale that has been presented to the AFL Commission.

Gold Coast, Brisbane and St Kilda make up the bottom four and biggest welfare recipients
 

Cumberland Throw

First Grade
Messages
6,553
Haha looking at that AFL article.. do the NRL clubs realise how lucky they are..

Canterbury is the richest club in NRL based on revenue, (LC included)...

They would get about $5M a year... and Manly would get $10M a year.. based on the AFL model

And Ray Dib is blowing up about being offered $8M
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
Simple answer

NRL pull out of supporting these clubs if they don't toe the line

The more likely scenario here is the Clubs pull out of supporting the NRL.

The clubs can live without the NRL, the NRL can not live without the clubs.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Every word of this is garbage.

1) The clubs are running losses for the most part because they have been underfunded since 1998.
Why don't they just spend within their means?

Ok, let's say Mr Doust decides to spend $1mil less than most other clubs on player salaries and another $1mil less on football operations, and a bit less on marketing and admin too.
Suddenly his club is coming last 3 or 4 years in a row.
If Dragons fans boycott after finishing 9th, how do you expect them to react to this?
What about someone like Melbourne even more dependent on success due to being an an AFL city?

It doesn't work. Any club that fell behind that far would bleed fans and thus money and die within 5 years. Cronulla came close in 2009-11.

It's a completely ridiculous proposal and wouldn't be an issue if they got a fair share of the sport's worth.


2) "GIFTED millions of dollars by the NRL"
Hold the f**king phone, who earns this money for the NRL? Do people pay for Foxtel to watch Greenberg vs Grant, or Souths vs Broncos?
Clubs (via the players they employ) earn the money. The NRL is the middleman.


3) The NRL in using the clubs to earn money for the competition actively sabotages individual clubs ability to earn money, which would probably help them break even.
Last year if a club got 3 Monday or Thursday night games they've likely missed out on close to 30,000 paying fans compared to a Sunday afternoon. That could be worth well over $1 million directly.
Indirectly, it affects their sponsorship value through lower crowd averages.
Speaking of sponsorship value, how about that FTA TV exposure they aren't getting unless their name happens to be "Brisbane Broncos".


Stop peddling the myth that clubs are incompetent money black holes. If they were paid their worth they'd be profitable.
As i said earlier, this is akin to saying a poor person should be paid 60% of their actual salary because being poor is evidence they can't be trusted with the whole lot.

Garbage you say?

Actually a little surprised people agree with you.

1. Clubs Running at losses because of underfunding, bullshit. Their losses should be disappearing due to the first time in 2012 that the salary cap was covered by the Grant. That extra money the clubs were expected to pay prior to 2012 to cover cap, what happened to that money? They most likely spent it on the football department or whatever.?
So in other words they just spent more. Not great business sense. But there are other things at play.

Your example isnt a great one.
Say Mr Doust does spend 1 mill less on the salary cap. And also 1 mill less in football dept spend. And in marketing,admin cost, whatever. You know what he still has, 1 million f**king dollars.
The salary cap is paid for. It's on the clubs to manage that not the Nrl.
The other thing at play is that some clubs can't compete with other clubs due to the clubs ownership structure. That's the difference and the reason there needs to be a football dept cap. Packer and Crowe can throw money at souths football dept and would never have issues, don't think Mr Doust, titans, Newcastle, would have the same luxury. And by the way I'm absolutely sure Premiers Cronulla spent less than the Storm did in this department.

2. "Gifted" hmmm. Does the fact that clubs have received millions of extra funding Beyond the salary cap amount sound better?

Your right people dont pay to watch Grant v Dib (I probably would) but as the origin period shows they sometimes don't watch a souths v Broncos either. I would argue it's the players and their background that the fans relate to more. But both parties should have a say. The clubs just have their say on the back page every second day.

3. The Nrl earns money from clubs? What? Are you sure youre not a club board member? Sense of Entitlement!!!!!!
These clubs play and use the Nrl banner to help increase their business. They also receive grants to help with salary cap, administration and growing of their business. As well as get a Nrl license for free. What do the clubs do? Complain every step of the way.
I'm sure Perth would like a license.

Also it's no myth were peddling about the clubs and black holes it's called history.
Your example is crap again. It would be like the poor man getting 130% of his wage with a few conditions and then him complaining that it's not enough.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
The more likely scenario here is the Clubs pull out of supporting the NRL.

The clubs can live without the NRL, the NRL can not live without the clubs.

Lol the Nrl have the tv deal. If the clubs don't want to deal with the Nrl, sure they can leave, but discard any Nrl badging. As long as the Nrl have the players they can structure the comp the way it should be and get rid of 78 Sydney teams and have teams in brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, nz.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,634
Lol the Nrl have the tv deal. If the clubs don't want to deal with the Nrl, sure they can leave, but discard any Nrl badging. As long as the Nrl have the players they can structure the comp the way it should be and get rid of 78 Sydney teams and have teams in brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, nz.

Yet the AFL thinks its worthwhile to have 94 teams in Melbourne where they have a total stranglehold on the city already, and spends gazillions every year propping up several Melbourne based basket cases...

This is the competition the NRL wants to emulate right?

Why do the AFL persevere with their crappy heartland clubs??
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Talking a lot of sense in this thread...

It would be great if people could get past their biases of NRL Clubs = GreedyJabba The Hutts and NRL Admin = Underfunded Robin Hood crusaders who's only interest is the poor grassroots and expansion ( has Grant ever said anything positive about expansion!?)

Grant/commission/CEO all want expansion but the greedyJabba the hutts need more money to help their 100+ year clubs out which stops expansion. Simples
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,634
Grant/commission/CEO all want expansion but the greedyJabba the hutts need more money to help their 100+ year clubs out which stops expansion. Simples

When was the last time Grant spoke about expansion positively? If you could provide a link?

I think expansion has been well and truly lost in the NRL Admin Sherwood Forest for some time now...
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Yet the AFL thinks its worthwhile to have 94 teams in Melbourne where they have a total stranglehold on the city already, and spends gazillions every year propping up several Melbourne based basket cases...

This is the competition the NRL wants to emulate right?

Why do the AFL persevere with their crappy heartland clubs??

I don't think Nrl has the stranglehold in Sydney that the afl have in Melbourne. We aren't emulating it we are doing it as well.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,634
I don't think Nrl has the stranglehold in Sydney that the afl have in Melbourne. We aren't emulating it we are doing it as well.

So the answer in achieving that stranglehold will be getting rid of 100 year old Sydney clubs... Got it...

The point being of my post is that the AFL could easily get rid of one of their basket cases and not miss a beat given their popularity in Melbourne, but they choose to fund them for a lot more money than any struggling NRL club has ever got as a hand out...

Then you get a story like this year when one of the basket case clubs wins the Flag and its the biggest AFL story in yonks...
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036

Latest posts

Top