http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/1cc49baa669e506867faad1583fce624
IN a comeback worthy of considerable applause, ARLC chairman John Grant is on the verge of saving his job despite 15 proxy votes already cast to oust him.
Take a lesson here; the man will not quit.
Grant was gone for all money a fortnight ago. You would not back him with toy money.
Four club chairmen walked out after he reneged on a deal to pay their clubs 130 per cent of the salary cap and they quickly gathered their numbers and called an extraordinary general meeting where, shaking a fistful of proxy votes, they declared they had the numbers to sack Grant as the Australian Rugby League Commission chairman.
Not anymore.
In the quiet corridors, where most business gets done, rumours lit up the game yesterday that two clubs have flipped, delivering Grant the balance of power.
It was staggering to conceive. The level of venom directed at Grant a fortnight ago ultimately put the game on the brink of civil war.
Yet the NRL is a place for the implausible. The game not only survives, but thrives, on intrigue and political murder.
Grant has refused to rest since the proxy votes were cast and the clubs are speaking openly to each other about Grant’s approaches for reconciliation.
With such news being whispered it left nothing to do but call those clubs for confirmation.
One of them categorically denied it.
“Our chairman is usually the most reasonable person but he said the way the NRL have conducted themselves throughout all this is unreasonable,” the club’s chief executive said, under condition of anonymity. He didn’t want to be associated with any part of this one.
NOT YET: Why Moses won’t be a Blue in 2017
HEADACHE: Who will play fullback for the Blues?
“We’re committed to the cause,” he said.
The other, though, not so much.
“At this stage we are all in it together and we will see what comes before December 20, in terms of what they come up with,” the club chairman said.
“We want the 130 per cent to be reinstated. That’s the starting point.
“It is all about he operating margin, all about self sustainability.”
At this stage ... such words are the death of commitment.
The clubs’ greatest injury was the Commissioner telling them the 130 per cent club grant was off the table. They want it restored and Grant is believed to be close to conceding, albeit on a reduced salary cap.
A close second to that, they wanted better representation on the Commission with two seats to be given to clubs.
With one club prepared to retain Grant if he permits the 130 per cent, Grant needs only one more club and, the clubs fear, might already have it.
Another club boss said yesterday that unless the NRL restored the 130 per cent guarantee and also changed the constitution to allow two club representatives on the Commission the vote to oust Grant would go ahead as agreed.
But he also had heard the rumours about two clubs flipping ...
Still, nothing is simple in this game.
If the 130 per cent returns to the table, as clubs hope will happen Tuesday, it raises a multitude of simple questions that require complex answers.
What will the new salary cap be? Most say it will be significantly less than the $10 million expected, more like $8 million.
“If it is $8 million they will get another walkout,” a club boss said.
An $8 million cap would leave the players as the biggest losers, with no significant pay rise despite the broadcast deal almost doubling.
Clubs will defend that by arguing that when the current deal was implemented the players received almost all the extra money with little done to insulate the clubs against the rising costs.
This deal, they say, will somewhat restore balance.
There are other, significant questions, to be asked if such a deal is done. Where will the money be taken from and, if available now, why wasn’t it available before?
Some have wondered whether Grant is robbing Peter to pay Paul in a bid to deliver the 130 per cent.
Already the clubs have knocked back the NRL’s offer of funding of 112 per cent of the salary cap, with the clubs believing Grant will raise that offer to 120 per cent, which they will also knock back.
But restoring it to 130 per cent will please only some clubs, who believe further changes still need to be made.
If nothing else, Grant’s survival will likely cause a shocking split between clubs.
Several powerful clubs have a multitude of complaints about the NRL’s management practices and see sacking Grant as the lightning rod required to force the Commission take notice.
But Grant needs only two clubs to be satisfied with him returning the 130 per cent to win the vote at the EGM.
Clubs have also noted that when Grant first spoke at the chairmen’s meeting and opened by telling them the 130 per cent was no longer available, he began by saying it was on chief executive Todd Greenberg’s recommendation.
The clubs are unable to sack Todd Greenberg.
Greenberg then stood and told the chairmen: “I will stake my career on this.”
What does this mean for Greenberg?
“We can’t remove Todd Greenberg so the only thing we can do, constitutionally, is remove the Chairman,” another club boss said.
Given the clubs have gone after Grant, who loves the job, because they are unable to sack Greenberg, what will come of the relationship between Grant and Greenberg if the chairman should somehow survive?
Grant met Melbourne chairman Bart Campbell last Monday in Melbourne in an attempt to reach a peace deal. They agreed to say nothing and continue negotiations.
Grant refused to be drawn on changing circumstances, saying only: “We have got an engagement with them at the moment which may or may not conclude.”
It left little room for speculation but it didn’t stop it.
The corridors are alive with speculation.
