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

Front-Rower

First Grade
Messages
5,297
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


That may work in corporate environments however in sports administration, especially when grants are involved, the theory is to spend the entire amount, if not more.Why do they do this? Fear is if that if they do make money they will lose or have their their grant funding reduced.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
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...

No I hope it's not the answer. But these 100yr old clubs have had just that to increase their brand and now are acting like their 3year old kids not getting their way.

Same as the Nrl and Cronulla. And the grants aren't the only thing Nrl gives clubs. Interest free loans, forward payments. But hey that's just expected without a thanks.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
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.

The NRL don't have the players. The clubs do.

Love to see what the NRL's TV deal is worth with 16 plastic clubs and some reserve grade players lol
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,553
No I hope it's not the answer. But these 100yr old clubs have had just that to increase their brand and now are acting like their 3year old kids not getting their way.

Same as the Nrl and Cronulla. And the grants aren't the only thing Nrl gives clubs. Interest free loans, forward payments. But hey that's just expected without a thanks.

Im in favour of the NRL clubs getting more from the admin...

Like I said earlier, it just happens in the AFL as needed and no one blinks an eyelid...
 
Messages
14,816
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.
I think most of us agree that a majority of NRL clubs are poorly run. They need to be run on business lines imo.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Paywall brother...

The Australian 15 oct
Expanding the NSW and Qld Cup competitions, with the possible inclusion of teams from Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and New Zealand, will take precedence over adding more teams to the NRL competition, according to ARL Commission head John Grant.

While first grade bidding teams such as the West Coast Pirates in Perth, Brisbane Bombers and Central Coast Bears continue to wait in the wings, the ARLC is looking to invite sides from the Pacific and a second team from New Zealand.

The Warriors already play in the NSW Cup, and Papua New Guinea have been playing in the Qld Cup since 2014.

Grant said the NRL could increase beyond the current 16 teams by the time a new broadcast deal is negotiated for 2023 and beyond, but it was unlikely. The $1.8 billion deal struck in November last year comes into operation in 2018 and will expire in 2022.

The NRL has previously stated no expansion beyond 2020. Grant conceded the idea of growing the elite level was not completely out of range for the 2023 negotiations.

“Perhaps, but it would depend entirely on what our participation rates are looking like,” the chairman said. “Participation is like a pyramid. If you don’t build up the base you can’t add more to the top.

“Remember our expansion strategy is around State cups. With the NYC (under-20s) ending at the end of 2017 that’s around 400 players coming out of there and going into the NSW and Qld Cups and a few into the NRL.”

To accommodate that influx and deepen the pool of talent, Grant said the commission wanted to build off the growing popularity of rugby league both within Australia and among its neighbours.

Samoa hosted its first Test match last Saturday against Fiji, when around 10,000 spectators crammed into Apia’s stadium to help celebrate Samoan rugby league’s 30th anniversary.

The two nations, along with PNG and Tonga, already play in two Pacific Tests on the representative weekend in May, when Australia meet New Zealand and the NSW City-Country matches are held.

The ARLC wants to piggy back on the resurgence of the Pacific nations. Around 36 per cent of current NRL players come from a Polynesian background and that figure grows to over 60 per cent in junior grades. So instead of widening the NRL, or trying to start up a Victoria State Cup, the idea is to strengthen the NSW and Qld competitions.

“We’d see teams playing from around the Pacific, into New Zealand and from around Australia in that competition,” Grant said. “We’ll be putting much, much more of it on television as part of the new rights deal (starting 2018).

“We see expansion in that tier two competition having a much broader footprint. But another element of that is to make sure those clubs are closely linked to an NRL club so players coming back — who are not playing NRL — come back into those teams and make them strong on a competitive basis.

“So when people talk about expansion with me, I tell them it’s expansion at the tier two level.”
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
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.

This entire premise is based on the false assumption that the salary cap is the exact amount of funding that NRL clubs are entitled to.
To effectively compete in the competition it takes a lot more than player salaries.
The conditions the NRL creates in increasing the broadcast revenue decrease direct club revenue. Thus it should be up to them to adequately ensure its clubs are financed to a high standard, since the NRL limits their ability to do so.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,553
Thanks for posting but I don't think expanding the feeder comps is what we are really discussing here..

He is even saying that NRL expansion is "unlikely" even for the next TV deal which commences in 2023 which I think underscores the blokes total lack of vision...

Grant said the NRL could increase beyond the current 16 teams by the time a new broadcast deal is negotiated for 2023 and beyond, but it was unlikely.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Im in favour of the NRL clubs getting more from the admin...

Like I said earlier, it just happens in the AFL as needed and no one blinks an eyelid...

And that's fine. I can accept the clubs getting more money but if the clubs want the Nrl to bail out a struggling club, don't be surprised that there are conditions and KPI attached to that extra money.
That's what cause this entire issue.
The clubs liked the thought of receiving money/grants but didn't like to be held to account with KPI. After things clubs have done in the past don't blame the Nrl.
 

Diesel

Referee
Messages
23,771
Does the NRL licence state where teams must be based? Ie 8 licences must be in Sydney?
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Thanks for posting but I don't think expanding the feeder comps is what we are really discussing here..

He is even saying that NRL expansion is "unlikely" even for the next TV deal which commences in 2023 which I think underscores the blokes total lack of vision...

Expanding feeder comps is expanding the Nrl brands reach but I'll leave that there.

Yes Grant said unlikely before 2023 but "unlikely" has an element of yes. And as he has said numerous times it depends on the clubs becoming profitable. If Newcastle, titans, tigers and whoever else all get sorted next year by 21/22 they might decide to use the Nrl digital to broadcast the 9th game. who knows?
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,553
Expanding feeder comps is expanding the Nrl brands reach but I'll leave that there.

Yes Grant said unlikely before 2023 but "unlikely" has an element of yes. And as he has said numerous times it depends on the clubs becoming profitable. If Newcastle, titans, tigers and whoever else all get sorted next year by 21/22 they might decide to use the Nrl digital to broadcast the 9th game. who knows?

I think its a travesty that there not firm plans now to expand the comp commencing even in 2020/21 with say Perth as the 17th team, and then having the 18th team and the Ninth game come in for the new TV deal in 2023...

It shouldn't just be left up to fate in my view.. the NRL should be driving this not waiting to see what happens...
 

johnny plath

Juniors
Messages
402
The NRL don't have the players. The clubs do.

Love to see what the NRL's TV deal is worth with 16 plastic clubs and some reserve grade players lol

Right, so who are these players the clubs have going to play against if they have no comp?? You think the players will be happy with their huge pay cuts to play in some unknown comp?? If the clubs own the players, why are they registered with the nrl?? Again, where does the funding for the players come from if the nrl pays the salary cap to clubs?? I don't think anyone here is advocating losing clubs, but fmd what good is a club with no competition to play in...
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
The NRL don't have the players. The clubs do.

Love to see what the NRL's TV deal is worth with 16 plastic clubs and some reserve grade players lol

I guess it's differing opinions. I disagree. The players contracts need to be approved by the Nrl. The clubs have their position due to the licenses that the Nrl give them.

I'd love to see the Nrl and the rlpa come to an agreement that the Nrl accepts majority of the issues and convince the top 2/3 players of each team to sign on as Nrl ambassadors. therefore if there was any club breakaway the top 30 players would have to stay with the Nrl. Wonder what the clubs would do then.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
Right, so who are these players the clubs have going to play against if they have no comp?? You think the players will be happy with their huge pay cuts to play in some unknown comp?? If the clubs own the players, why are they registered with the nrl?? Again, where does the funding for the players come from if the nrl pays the salary cap to clubs?? I don't think anyone here is advocating losing clubs, but fmd what good is a club with no competition to play in...

The 16 clubs are united.
To be clear, I don't believe a breakaway comp is at all a possibility here, but IF push came to shove and the worst case scenario eventuated, the clubs could form a new competition fairly easily. Newcastle an Gold Coast aren't going to stop it.

How would the NRL go about forming 16 new clubs?
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
I think its a travesty that there not firm plans now to expand the comp commencing even in 2020/21 with say Perth as the 17th team, and then having the 18th team and the Ninth game come in for the new TV deal in 2023...

It shouldn't just be left up to fate in my view.. the NRL should be driving this not waiting to see what happens...

I think the Nrl have firm plans. They either want to keep it close to their chest or just really bad and explaining things. Probably a bit of both.

It seems the first thing is the rlpa and the salary cap. Then the clubs and grants, KPI. Once the grants,salary cap are all sorted then the Nrl can get more for those clubs that they need to sell. Once all clubs have had a year or 2 to get on there feet and are showing profits as well as digital and feeder expansion has started I would assume they would look at Nrl expansion.
All this doesn't happen in a year and most can see the seriousness of each individual issue.
 

johnny plath

Juniors
Messages
402
The 16 clubs are united.
To be clear, I don't believe a breakaway comp is at all a possibility here, but IF push came to shove and the worst case scenario eventuated, the clubs could form a new competition fairly easily. Newcastle an Gold Coast aren't going to stop it.

How would the NRL go about forming 16 new clubs?

they may be united, but if only one of the 16 is profitable, and the nrl actually has the money at the moment which it grants to clubs, how will the clubs pay players and hold on to them
 

DiegoNT

First Grade
Messages
9,378
So just on the possibility of a breakaway comp, even as highly unlikely as that is, what happens to the NRL tv's deal if all 16 clubs leave? I'm sure fox and 9 signed the deal on the understanding that they are showing the nrl with clubs like broncos, bulldogs etc. Does the tv deal become null and void.
 

DiegoNT

First Grade
Messages
9,378
they may be united, but if only one of the 16 is profitable, and the nrl actually has the money at the moment which it grants to clubs, how will the clubs pay players and hold on to them
If the 16 clubs break away, you don't think anyone would buy the rights to a comp featuring The Broncos, the bulldogs, the dragons etc?
 

Latest posts

Top