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

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
The NRL must be run by a bunch of socialist dummies. They are taking away the clubs chances to make as much money as possible (by having games on stupid days and times) which means the clubs are even more dependent on the NRL itself. The NRL also wants the clubs to put in a certain amount of money per year into a fund to save incompetent clubs. They also want a salary cap on football department spending. So basically an incompetent club can continue being incompetent, but will get away with it because the well run clubs will be brought down to their level. This isn't how it should be.

I hate this idea that the NRL is a free market. It is so clearly wrong...

The 16 clubs we have a quarantined as NRL participants. If the game was genuinely a free market, there would be a free flow of teams into and out of the top level.

The 16 clubs now have the privilege of being a protected species. Either they give up that right or they accept the responsibilities that come with it....
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,865
Play the ball, not the man.
That was the message from besieged ARL Commission (ARLC) chairman John Grant to NRL club bosses on Tuesday after refusing to stand down over a funding backflip.
Grant said he could understand why NRL chairmen were upset but urged them to stop taking it personally and start showing leadership.

Grant said standing down would achieve nothing.

"Independence is very important. When you vote as a bloc, you give up your independence," he said.

"What we are seeing is a loss of independence of the individual clubs.

"To me, it needs leadership that says 'we are not going down the right track here'."

Some club chairmen have already vowed to boycott any future meetings with Grant.

But Grant on Tuesday denied his role had become untenable, instead offering to re-open talks with clubs as early as Thursday.

"Will I step down? That's not being considered at the moment," said Grant who had held the position for five years.

"My removal is certainly not going to do anything.

"Forget personalities - all the stuff that has gone on in the media.

"Chairmen have an obligation to their clubs to be sitting at the table talking.

"We are letting football politics get in the way of what we really want to do."

Grant fell out with clubs at a meeting last week after the governing body reneged on an agreement to fund clubs 130 per cent of their salary cap from 2018.


Read more at http://wwos.nine.com.au/2016/11/29/09/08/arl-commissioners-back-john-grant#fRB3fqucUT9G8fCI.99
 

alien

Referee
Messages
20,279
Wish washy indecision.... Grant has always said, "look after current clubs first then Nrl club expansion". Is still saying it. Not oblivious, but can understand, Don't get them mixed up.

Would you want our expansions clubs like suns and gws?

That's fine I'm happy to disagree with you. This is all about opinions.

Which expansion clubs do you think would be like the Gold Coast Suns and the GWS Giants? I am confident clubs from Perth, Adelaide, and a second Brisbane club would be a lot more successful.
 

alien

Referee
Messages
20,279
The Sharks in fact were one of the clubs Super league did not want initially

This is true. Super League wanted Western Suburbs Magpies to join. The Magpies might have thought they were doing the right thing by staying loyal to the ARL, but it was the ARL who chose to make the agreement with Super League later to form the NRL, and the ARL knew there would be clubs kicked out. Sometimes clubs just have to do what it takes to survive. The Western Reds joined Super League because under the ARL, they had to pay for all the other team's travel and accommodation when they played in Perth, and the Reds knew it wasn't financially sustainable.
 

alien

Referee
Messages
20,279
I dont understand why everyone is so against this safety net idea...

Its not like clubs are paying cash back to the ARLC, just that the ARLC is withholding a portion of the grant and putting it aside to cushion and f*ck ups.

And its not like there is no repercussions for running a club into the ground. The first act of the ARLC after stepping in would be to remove all of the offending directors; they would all be routed out and probably band from the game.

This fund is just an insurance policy to protect the game and the fans from shitty directors. why is that so terrible?

I can understand it for new expansion clubs, but for clubs who have had a long time to strengthen their brand - no. They are stopping expansion. If they continuously need financial help to survive (above what the other clubs get), then they should fold/compete in a lower tier comp, or relocate. They are just holding the game back.
 

Von Hipper

Juniors
Messages
178
I dont understand why everyone is so against this safety net idea...

Its not like clubs are paying cash back to the ARLC, just that the ARLC is withholding a portion of the grant and putting it aside to cushion and f*ck ups.

And its not like there is no repercussions for running a club into the ground. The first act of the ARLC after stepping in would be to remove all of the offending directors; they would all be routed out and probably band from the game.

This fund is just an insurance policy to protect the game and the fans from shitty directors. why is that so terrible?

Same here. Essentially it's a deterrent too for other clubs to be badly run since it will affect future grants.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,553
Which was exactly the Same situation the Reds were in due to the stupid travel expenses anchor put around their neck by the Arl. So it's ok to be disloyal if you're broke? Ok glad wecleared up that the two clubs were in the same boat and you'd want neither in some mythical land trench war lol.

The Reds offered to cover the travel expenses of the other team as part of their bid proposal...

Don't blame the ARL for that...

Also, how could that had that have sent them broke before the first game had been played?
 

Von Hipper

Juniors
Messages
178
I hate this idea that the NRL is a free market. It is so clearly wrong...

The 16 clubs we have a quarantined as NRL participants. If the game was genuinely a free market, there would be a free flow of teams into and out of the top level.

The 16 clubs now have the privilege of being a protected species. Either they give up that right or they accept the responsibilities that come with it....

This guy gets it. The clubs want their cake and to eat it almost too.

Put aside next year's budgets I think, and think about future years now.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,762
Reading between the lines the MOU was taken off the table for a good reason. There is No upside for the Nrl admin doing otherwise.

If we listen to some of the statements that have come out of the meeting last week a few things are clear.
1. The Nrl are worried about grassroots funding
2. Digital presence
3. Cost of salary cap and grants
4. The MOU and other clause need a dramatic change.

1. Just the other day I have noticed ads on tv for kids and playing rugby league that I can't remember ever seeing before.

Grassroots is something we definitely need to promote and is well and truely needed.
Richo's review may be similar to what ends up happening with the grassroots/pathways to the Nrl.
The under 20 removal will affect this as well

2. Now something I hope can take Nrl to another level is digital. What form this will take in the coming years hopefully will be awesome and the clubs will play a massive part in that. Even help increase there own clubs bank balance.

3. Having 100% salary cap covered is a certainty. Now having KPI could cause clubs wanting extra $$. And then other potential costs that may come like the push into digital and associated cost in starting that up.

4. My thoughts about the MOU is that in its current form was too much for the Nrl and the KPI clauses weren't agree to either. Doesn't mean a similar amount can't be agreed to though.

With the under 20s being removed that in itself reportedly saves the clubs upwards of $1 million per year. That money could be moved to clubs new digital dept?

Some clubs are very active in the grassroots department and I think the Nrl must have some plan for the clubs going forward.

There are a lot of things at play here. Hopefully the clubs can act like adults this time around and go to the meeting on Thursday and Listen to what the Nrl has to say.

Any saving of $1 mil of U20 costs will come with a grant reduction

A report done by the the NRL indicated that to run a junior operation requires $2 mil

Add to that the $1 mil to run a state league team

So each of the 32 state league clubs need to generate $3 mil

The $5 mil being diverted for u20s splits to be $156k per state league club

Add to that $100k Cup grants fron the NSWRL

$256k is way short to cover basic player costs which are around $500k and $250k

So basically the NRL/NSWRL/QRL need to giving each state league club $1 mil

Thats $32 mil a year rather than the $8 mil today
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,614
Any saving of $1 mil of U20 costs will come with a grant reduction

A report done by the the NRL indicated that to run a junior operation requires $2 mil

Add to that the $1 mil to run a state league team

So each of the 32 state league clubs need to generate $3 mil

The $5 mil being diverted for u20s splits to be $156k per state league club

Add to that $100k Cup grants fron the NSWRL



$256k is way short to cover basic player costs which are around $500k and $250k

So basically the NRL/NSWRL/QRL need to giving each state league club $1 mil

Thats $32 mil a year rather than the $8 mil today

This.

It shits me that people think that pushing the 20s to state level, saves money.

It only saves money at NRL, and forces that cost onto comps that can barely afford to run now.

It's far cheaper for the NRL clubs to run this competition.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Which was exactly the Same situation the Reds were in due to the stupid travel expenses anchor put around their neck by the Arl. So it's ok to be disloyal if you're broke? Ok glad wecleared up that the two clubs were in the same boat and you'd want neither in some mythical land trench war lol.

Usual BS.
The difference was you guys were in for 5 minutes barely kicked a ball in anger.
The Sharks had decades of mismanagement and nearly going broke.They showed nearly four decades of loyalty to the ARL ,In fact they were in the sights of the ARL for removal or relocation.The Reds were not in the sights of the ARL or SL for removal.
If you can't see the difference,you need your head examined.I repeat a mere blip in time and you change sides,I repeat great in a war situation also.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,762
This.

It shits me that people think that pushing the 20s to state level, saves money.

It only saves money at NRL, and forces that cost onto comps that can barely afford to run now.

It's far cheaper for the NRL clubs to run this competition.

This is my logic for letting NRL club run a National RG and National U20s

Overall its cheaper for the ARLC to run as it is only 16 teams rather than 32

NRL clubs have the financial capability and ability to attract sponsors, TV exposure etc. And now have 36 FG and RG players on their books in 2017. Plus 25 u20s players also in 2017

State Leagues struggle to generate $1 mil of revenue. Yes let them play but allow them to live within their means as they do today

It would have way more sensible for NSW Cup to merge with RM Cup and add NSW Country regions into a true NSW Cup without NRL club AFTER National RG/U20 was setup
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Im fairly sure this is entirely wrong...

Shane Richardson was running the club at the time and was one of SLs big supporters. According to the book "Super League: the inside story" the sharks team and most of the players were signed up to SL on the first day.

Yes most of the players were already signed up to SL,not the club " officially " ATT.Remember the toing and froing to get E.T to sign up.
Peter Gow was the high profile pusher, and at the very forefront.He was at the front table at the football members' meeting to finally decide to go to SL at the auditorium.I was there and never seen an audience so deeply divided,the old guard and the new.It was already a fait accompli or a PR exercise .Some fans did not support the club during the SL era.So my summation prior is not wrong.
The memory of those actual events 21 years ago, of course is not 100%,but pretty close to the mark.

From memory Gow,Meninga,Ribot,,others not 100% sure think Quayle or Arko,and I can understand Richo's position.The whole SL set up started in Brisbane ,with Morgan,Ribes,Rupert .

In fact I hate to admit it ,in the final analysis the Shark's decision kept them in the game.If they hadn't gone over ,I see a joint venture with the Dragons.
The Sharks were really unwanted by SL initially ,and the ARL had had enough of the financial problems.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,762
Usual BS.
The difference was you guys were in for 5 minutes barely kicked a ball in anger.
The Sharks had decades of mismanagement and nearly going broke.They showed nearly four decades of loyalty to the ARL ,In fact they were in the sights of the ARL for removal or relocation.The Reds were not in the sights of the ARL or SL for removal.
If you can't see the difference,you need your head examined.I repeat a mere blip in time and you change sides,I repeat great in a war situation also.
Sharks ARL loyality - ha

They were the one of the first clubs to jumpship when Murdoch came knocking with cash in hand
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
I spelt out the reasons before.
One of the first clubs LOL.In fact SL did not want them in their competition initially.They were eventually signed up to get the Sydney numbers.If you don't know that, then I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,488
I hate this idea that the NRL is a free market. It is so clearly wrong...

The 16 clubs we have a quarantined as NRL participants. If the game was genuinely a free market, there would be a free flow of teams into and out of the top level.

The 16 clubs now have the privilege of being a protected species. Either they give up that right or they accept the responsibilities that come with it....

Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. Go and look up at how the ARLC is constituted. It is comprised of Commissioners elected to run the game on behalf of the clubs, the NSWRL and the QRL. It is not some entity which exists without any connection to the clubs at all. The ARLC is designed to ensure that no one club or group of clubs gains an unfair advantage over the others.

If it was as you suggest, the clubs would not have the voting rights they do, which going by all reports they are going to exercise.

The Commission is elected. As such ignore your voters concerns and they will vote you out. That is the hallmark of any organisation where people are elected to positions
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,865
The Reds offered to cover the travel expenses of the other team as part of their bid proposal...

Don't blame the ARL for that...

Also, how could that had that have sent them broke before the first game had been played?

They didn't "offer" it was a stipulation of them being accepted. That would have been around 1992, by the time 1994/95 came around they had a clearer picture of income and expenditure and could see they were screwed before they even started. A deal with Ansett didn't eventuate like they had been promised and the rest is history. Everyone says how rich the arl was pre superleague yet they put this financial noose around the Reds from day one, not very smart wouldn't you agree?
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,865
The Reds offered to cover the travel expenses of the other team as part of their bid proposal...

Don't blame the ARL for that...

Also, how could that had that have sent them broke before the first game had been played?

They didn't "offer" it was a stipulation of them being accepted. That would have been around 1992, by the time 1994/95 came around they had a clearer picture of income and expenditure and could see they were screwed before they even started. A deal with Ansett didn't eventuate like they had been promised and the rest is history. Everyone says how rich the arl was pre superleague yet they put this financial noose around the Reds from day one, not very smart wouldn't you agree?
Usual BS.
The difference was you guys were in for 5 minutes barely kicked a ball in anger.
The Sharks had decades of mismanagement and nearly going broke.They showed nearly four decades of loyalty to the ARL ,In fact they were in the sights of the ARL for removal or relocation.The Reds were not in the sights of the ARL or SL for removal.
If you can't see the difference,you need your head examined.I repeat a mere blip in time and you change sides,I repeat great in a war situation also.

40 years of supporting your basket case to survive and you flipped at the first opportunity, not only that but your star player became one of the figureheads of superleague. weak, very weak.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
They didn't "offer" it was a stipulation of them being accepted. That would have been around 1992, by the time 1994/95 came around they had a clearer picture of income and expenditure and could see they were screwed before they even started. A deal with Ansett didn't eventuate like they had been promised and the rest is history. Everyone says how rich the arl was pre superleague yet they put this financial noose around the Reds from day one, not very smart wouldn't you agree?

Interesting that you care about financial nooses when it's your own club.

I say the NRL was right to doit, after all that travel money needs to be spend on grassroots.

Whenever anyone questions outrageous financial decisions, just say "grassroots"
 

Latest posts

Top