NRL faces major turmoil as clubs threaten breakaway league

[Last Week]

People saying that Smith stuffed up the TV deal remember it very differently to me. From what I recall, he had News by the f**king balls. We had close to a billion dollars deal with 9 for 4 matches and Fox Sports had just lost the EPL to Optus. Foxtel is a dying medium and cannot afford to have AFL as it's flagship product in NSW and Qld, where 55% of the market is. News was being bent over by Smith.

The problem is that they used their media clout and pushed Smith out. The clubs didn't help either. The commission blinked. Smith was gone, Grant gave News their Friday 6pm match aswell as most of their Super Saturday nights back for a measly deal that we have now.

As for the digital arm, it's our best solution to take away our reliance on pay TV. Which, again, is dying. The quicker we can control how we distribute our content, the better off we'll be long term. We'll also be able to create more content for us to sell. Look at the NFL and the NBA.

This entire process now is about the clubs wanting more money but with less conditions. Grant shouldn't have told them that they will get 30% of the salary cap on top, that's a failure. But the clubs are trying to use what ever they can against the commission to get their way. The NSW NRL clubs control the NSWRL, which goes against the purpose of giving the state leagues a stakehold in the running of the commission.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Richards hinds says it better than me. Yes Grant has flaws but geez if he goes, it's 10 years back

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...e/news-story/f3cc55324e4e7d09cb245267cd84ead7

 

[El Diablo]

righto John

you're not convincing anyone.

 

[adamkungl]

Richards hinds says it better than me. Yes Grant has flaws but geez if he goes, it's 10 years back

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...e/news-story/f3cc55324e4e7d09cb245267cd84ead7

Nonsense, there's nothing special about Grant or anything the NRL have done in the last few years.

Getting the TV deal they did was the bare minimum expectation after extracting themselves from News Ltd.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

righto John

you're not convincing anyone.

Still not John.

Do you normal comment and add absolutely nothing to the discussion? Is that a thing you do?
I'm not fussed if I'm not convincing anyone. I'm just adding my opinion and how I see the potential demise of my favorite sport rugby league. Looking through all the differing agendas and making my own decision is something we all can do.
I guess if there is eventually enough bad publicity/media subconsciencely people whether they support RL start to believe the bulldust.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Nonsense, there's nothing special about Grant or anything the NRL have done in the last few years.

Getting the TV deal they did was the bare minimum expectation after extracting themselves from News Ltd.

Never said he was special. I said he had flaws. And Nrl had a good deal till Smith left and they gave in to the media.

Stadium deals
Tv Ratings up
Membership Up
More money than ever.
Plus others I couldn't be arsed to write

Most of that I can accept to be minimum standard but with all the hidden agendas, media leaks, infighting with the media and clubs not a bad effort.

 

[siv]

The advance from the next tv deal is $50mill to be spent this year and next, so the $360mill a year is now $350mill a year from 2018.
We don't know what the NZ deal was worth, they have not released its value strangely. Presuming the NRL maintains, or hopefully grows, it's non tv revenue in next 5 years it is safe to say they will be operating on a revenue base of $500mill plus.

So what would be the reasonable split of this to clubs? Let's say the NRL comp should be able to operate on 20% admin cost which is not unreasonable that brings the amount down to $400mill. Let's say $100mill to grass roots plus 20% admin cost brings it down to $280mill, then club bail out costs of say $10mill reserve brings it it to $270mill, then costs such as the touch footy link up, Melbourne storm extra payment (are they still getting this?) another $10mill brings it down to $260mill, women's league, rep footy costs in a RLWC year etc another $10mill = $250mill.

That would still leave potentially $15mill a club,
it shouldn't be unreasonable to see a $9mill salary cap and a $12-13mill club grant.

Only item I see missing is the removal.of u20s back to State Leagues ie a $300k cap reduction in 2017 and $5 mil annual funding diverted from NRL clubs to NSWRL an QRL

So I have cap for Top 25 and second tier at $6.8 mil

$14 mil grant is what I expect in 2021. Double of 2017

That means a cap of $10.7 mil in 2021 whuch cannot go up in double amount due to 130% deal

The salary cap needs to be raised steadily around $780k per year which mean the grant goes up $1 mil per year

But we jumped from Top 25 to Top 30 plus 6

Now the 11 players 26 to 36 werent on minimum wages before and were only covered by the $460k srcond tier cap

 

[BuffaloRules]

People saying that Smith stuffed up the TV deal remember it very differently to me. From what I recall, he had News by the f**king balls. We had close to a billion dollars deal with 9 for 4 matches and Fox Sports had just lost the EPL to Optus. Foxtel is a dying medium and cannot afford to have AFL as it's flagship product in NSW and Qld, where 55% of the market is. News was being bent over by Smith.

The problem is that they used their media clout and pushed Smith out. The clubs didn't help either. The commission blinked. Smith was gone, Grant gave News their Friday 6pm match aswell as most of their Super Saturday nights back for a measly deal that we have now.

t.

As I argued repeatedly when the final deal was announced,the earlier FTA deal that Smith agreed with Nine (Gyngel) proved to be bad because the NRL lost control of their product.

Nine ended up having control over selling the Sat Night game to Fox and the decision whether Fox could simulcast the FTA games to offset what Nine ended up paying... This ultimately meant after Nine sold these back to Fox, they only ended up paying about 35 per cent more than the last time... Way unders considering they got a new night spot (Thursday)..

Also Smith embarrassing Murdoch didn't end up doing the NRL any favours did it, regardless of how justified it may have been..

 

[Stormwarrior82]

As I argued repeatedly when the final deal was announced,the earlier FTA deal that Smith agreed with Nine (Gyngel) proved to be bad because the NRL lost control of their product.

Nine ended up having control over selling the Sat Night game to Fox and the decision whether Fox could simulcast the FTA games to offset what Nine ended up paying... This ultimately meant after Nine sold these back to Fox, they only ended up paying about 35 per cent more than the last time... Way unders considering they got a new night spot (Thursday)..

Also Smith embarrassing Murdoch didn't end up doing the NRL any favours did it, regardless of how justified it may have been..

During this process I thought Nrl could decide if Foxtel got nines 4th game. I felt Smith left because pressure came from Nrl hierarchi to let Foxtel have it to appease the masses. Smith obviously said yes fine, but not while I'm here. So left

 

[Captain Apollo]

The on sale of the Saturday game from Nine to Fox Sports could only happen with the NRL's approval.

 

[BuffaloRules]

During this process I thought Nrl could decide if Foxtel got nines 4th game. I felt Smith left because pressure came from Nrl hierarchi to let Foxtel have it to appease the masses. Smith obviously said yes fine, but not while I'm here. So left

It was Nine's call I believe

 

[BuffaloRules]

The on sale of the Saturday game from Nine to Fox Sports could only happen with the NRL's approval.

Did Nine end up paying enough or not?

 

[undertaker]

People saying that Smith stuffed up the TV deal remember it very differently to me. From what I recall, he had News by the f**king balls. We had close to a billion dollars deal with 9 for 4 matches and Fox Sports had just lost the EPL to Optus. Foxtel is a dying medium and cannot afford to have AFL as it's flagship product in NSW and Qld, where 55% of the market is. News was being bent over by Smith.

The problem is that they used their media clout and pushed Smith out. The clubs didn't help either. The commission blinked. Smith was gone, Grant gave News their Friday 6pm match aswell as most of their Super Saturday nights back for a measly deal that we have now.

100% correct. Well said.

Smith had News Ltd by the balls, evidenced by the constant barrage of hate directed towards the ARLC and the NRL from the Daily Telegraph/Australian newspapers, and constant negative comments on Fox Sports RL programs after the FTA component of the tv rights was finalised with Ch9 and Monday Night Football was scrapped.

To this day, I still can't understand why Grant et al. at the ARLC quickly rushed back to finalise negotiations with Fox Sports after Smith resigned. It just made the ARLC look extremely weak and amateur as a professional sports body, especially after what the News Ltd outlets had done to them. Had the ARLC held off the other part of the negotiations and made News Ltd sweat it out ala Richard Simmons-style for at least another year, they would've had them very nervous (especially after losing the EPL to Optus). And I still can't believe the ARLC agreed to the Friday 6pm matches. It needs to be revealed who specifically/individually at the ARLC ever thought this was a good idea?

I always had my doubts about Grant, and especially Greenberg. It's a joke he ever became CEO, and is like David Gallop mk 2.0. The handling of the Barba incident at the Bulldogs was a red flag, and reminded me a lot of when people on this forum were ardently promoting Michael Searle at the Titans as a future NRL CEO just as information about the Titans Centre of Excellence debacle and other major financial problems at the club were coming to light. The NRL will not reach it's full potential under Greenberg and Grant, and instead will remain constant underachievers

 

[taipan]

Mate you are by the looks of it a Storm/Warrior
's fan.The Storm CEO spelt it out and is one of the leaders being against Grant.
I've got Foxtel,which has Sky News apart from Fox Sports plus the FTAs.I have seen him Grant pop up more than a couple of occasions.The guy is more out there then the fumble ball Chairman.

Let me say this ,I have no doubt Grant is a good man ,a former RL International and successful businessman.Of course any Chairmanship is a respected position.He wants the best for the game, we all do.
But Chairmen should not make rash verbal undertakings ,and clubs then as a result ,do their maths on prospective salary caps.Players not signing for 2018 and beyond until that is resolved.It's a cluster.....

If he wants to be above the tit for tat, he should leave that to Greenberg who was a former NRL CEO and has a fair rl background in admin.

If you make a commitment in business and then go back on it, expect the continuous attacks.TBH I think there are more issues than just this one.Asking clubs to put in $150,000 each to a fund ,to prevent a club falling over.Surely in this day and age,if a club with competent business people ,receiving grants can't run a club then we have problems.
The trying to get McLachlan as CEO and getting knocked back, then realising they have one under their nose .came across as amateur,especially the claim they advertised overseas. I have given admin after admin a rap to start with, and then at the end they let me down.It started with that
goose Moffat.
TBH I still don't know why Pearce was there, he looked like a statue.

Look at it this way if Grant can get all the club chairs together next weekend ,resolve the financials with a full explanation of where the code is attend where it should be.I will be the first to applaud his efforts .

And I also agree there are club chairs with ego trips and enjoy the power,but their clubs are also throwing money in towards players and grassroots in their respective areas.They deserve a voice.

And I vehemently hated News journos bagging Grant and the commission day after day.Their media outlets roll out at times vindictive garbage.

 

[insert.pause]

The NRL says it has to spend more on grassroots development and its big digital strategy, headed by former Network 10 executive Rebecca Horne. The digital plan is said to cost $100 million over five years, it will have complete control of the sport's digital assets and apparently involves the building of a business that one day could even see the NRL broadcast matches directly to consumers rather than sell all rights to broadcasters.

That is a grand ambition and, given how good a broadcast product rugby league is, one worth investigating. But clubs say they are completely unaware of the details and worry about the cost of setting up and maintaining such a venture. The NRL insists it will bring in more revenue and be profitable in time for the next round of broadcast rights in 2022.






Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/sport/n...l-preglory-days-20161125-gsxt1c#ixzz4RCb698Gt
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...c/news-story/8d7dc0a483bfa0075cd21d00e098ea91

Bulldogs chairman Ray Dib says he’s lost faith in the NRL and the ARLC

DEAN RITCHIE, The Daily Telegraph
42 minutes ago

IT was the one-sentence “Dear John” letter which has intensified the war between NRL clubs and ARL Commission chairman John Grant.

And it will help ensure clubs boycott a meeting with Grant and the NRL over funding later this week.

Fed-up Canterbury chairman Ray Dib sent Grant a strongly worded email stating he would refuse to have any dealings with the commission or the NRL.

Dib said he had lost “faith and confidence” in both organisations after the NRL reneged on a funding agreement for clubs reached last December.

The Daily Telegraph obtained a copy of the letter, which read: “John, I will not be attending any further meetings with the ARLC or the NRL as I no longer have any faith or confidence under your chairmanship. Regards, Ray Dib.”

It is understood the NRL will email clubs on Monday with details of the next meeting, expected to be either Thursday or Friday, and accompanied with an agenda. Grant may be sitting in the room with no clubs to talk to.

The NRL hopes to reach a settlement on the ugly issue later in the week but the clubs simply won’t deal with Grant anymore.

Other clubs are expected to follow Canterbury’s lead and snub any meetings or dealings with Grant until he walks away.

“We want him (Grant) to step down — do the right thing for the sake of the game. He should put the game first,” Dib said. “All of us are custodians of the game and our clubs. We all have an expiry date or a due-by date.

“It’s not personal against John. Absolutely not personal. But you know what? The clubs have lost faith and confidence — what stronger message do you need? They keep changing the landscape and moving the goalposts. I’ve had a gutful.

“Everyone has to put the game first. If everyone puts the game first, their clubs and state bodies second and put the individual third, we will get the right outcome. We have made a stance.

“I have already replied to John Grant when he sent an email out the other the day. I was the first to respond. We are all united. There’s no question about that, we’re united.”

There must now be doubts as to whether the NRL will even bother to arrange a meeting with the disgruntled clubs. The clubs last week issued a vote of no confidence in Grant.

Another chairman said Grant’s position was “untenable’’.

“We’re being treated like mugs, like fools,’’ he said. “Sixteen members have signed individual letters saying they want Grant to stand down. If that happened in any other field, whether in business, politics or a corporation, what would happen? He would stand down if he had any pride.

“It’s untenable. How can we turn up now to any meeting and sit across the table after we sent in that (vote of no confidence) letter. It would be a bit hypocritical.”

The NRL offered each club a $1.5 million advance for 2016 and 2017, a deal which was secured last year. The first payment for next season was due on November 1 but clubs were told the money — which has to be repaid — would now arrive on November 30, and the next payment on December 1.

That means those clubs wanting the money would receive $250,000 in two days. The NRL claims any club wanting the advance would be given the money, but clubs are unsure whether the money would be issued given they are at war with the NRL

 

[Jatz Crackers]

"It’s untenable. How can we turn up now to any meeting and sit across the table after we sent in that (vote of no confidence) letter. It would be a bit hypocritical.”

That is supposed to be a quote from an unnamed Club Chairman and of course it being inside any News Ltd story must be treated with a one tonne ute full of caveat salt.

But really, just how unprofessional & somewhat unintelligent is it to justify your position solely based upon the fact you would appear hypocritical to backtrack rather than being steadfast in the position you have taken being judicious.

Honestly, if that is an indication of how the clubs handle internal business then maybe the game would be better served with 16 new club CEOs.

 

[Perth Red]

Given most of them are struggling to run themselves the idea they somehow know what is best for the game is laughable. If they hadn't screwed up their own businesses the demand for huge grant increases wouldnt be so needed and the game could get on and invest these windfalls in growing itself to a whole new level.

 

[El Diablo]

how are Perth going?

 

[siv]

Don't trust Dib