RoosTah
Juniors
- Messages
- 2,257
Great summary in the SMH today as to why the Super League war is almost impossible to repeat today:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...e-mk-ii-can-never-happen-20150827-gj91ps.html
Why Super League Mk II can never happen
On the proviso you're reading this column in the fortress of solitude that is your own lounge room not reclining in some mung bean-themed Eastern Suburbs cafe then try this. Walk over to the nearest floor-to-ceiling wall. Standing side-on to the wall, wedge your foot as close as physically possible to the junction of wall and floor.
Next, stand bolt upright so your left hip and shoulder each touch the wall, along with your foot. Finally, without losing any of these three contact points, crane your neck so that your left ear yes, you guessed it rests against the wall. By this stage your feet will likely be quite close together. Now, slowly lift your right foot by extending your leg outwards, in the direction diametrically opposite to the wall as high as you can.
For those playing along at home, by now you KNOW how this experiment ends. For those brunching alfresco in the Tamarama sun, let's just leave it by saying some things are physically impossible.
Equally, no amount of tactical sang-froid will bring about a panacea to a devilishly complex problem, when the solution is premised with legal improbabilities blended with commercial lunacy. The chatter and scaremongering heralding the potential for "Super League Mk II" would be oh, so boring; if the suggestion was itself not so ludicrous.
The structure of the top rugby league premiership competition, played in Australia in the early 1990s has as much in common with the structure of the current NRL as a mung bean salad has in common with a chocolate sundae. Until 1994 the NSW Rugby League ran the elite competition. In 1995 control was ceded to the Australian Rugby League, for reasons including that teams from Queensland, Western Australia and New Zealand now participated.
Yet the actual arrangements existing between the ARL and the clubs were vague. Clubs weren't bound to the ARL by anything like iron-clad agreements. Rather, the clubs were rusted onto the ARL by trust, and an assumption of loyalty. That fidelity did not, in many cases, prove impervious to the penetration of Rupert Murdoch's gigantic can of golden WD-40.
When "peace in our time" was declared in 1998, ending the "Super League War", what remained of the ARL was teetering on the edge of a financial cliff. The union of the ARL and News Limited, in forming the NRL Partnership that controlled the elite competition until 2011, was a marriage of convenience. And all the while, News Limited had slipped a noose around the neck of the sport by securing effective control over the game's media rights for the next quarter century, as a key term of rugby league's own Treaty of Versailles.
Fast-forward a decade and a half. The negotiations that finally ejected News Limited from part-owning the NRL were horrendously complex; the parlaying took years. But however complicated those discussions were, one thing is certain: all parties knew exactly the terms of the bargain.
The ARL Commission formed in 2012, and itself the exact same company that was the ARL - exists with the core objective of being the single controlling and administrative body for rugby league in Australia. This includes running the NRL (which it does through a separate, wholly-owned subsidiary company) and State of Origin; however the ARLC has equal responsibilities to foster, develop and fund the game at all levels.
The voting stakeholders in the ARLC comprise the 16 NRL clubs, the NSW and Queensland state governing bodies, and the eight ARLC directors; but voting powers are unequal. The reason the directors are members is to dilute the voting strength of the NRL clubs. Strict tests of independence from stakeholders must be satisfied before any person can be a director.
There is nothing stopping the ARLC's members demolishing the commission model, and starting afresh. However to do so, 15 of the 16 clubs AND both state governing bodies must agree. That will not happen while the ARLC owns two NRL clubs.
Fourteen clubs, or alternatively ten clubs and the two state bodies could together vote to remove any director, such as John Grant; however his replacement is selected by the remaining directors, NOT the clubs (who can only appoint directors in certain discrete or catastrophic circumstances).
As for chief executive Dave Smith, he is one step further insulated than even the directors. The CEO is appointed at the pleasure of the board, and Smith knows it. If the clubs seek to pass some type of "no confidence" motion, as has been mooted, its effect would be a nullity. Apart from being entitled to vote on a very limited number of matters, NRL clubs have no real voice at all under the ARLC's constitution.
Moreover, commercial problems abound. NRL clubs do not own their own brands. Penrith doesn't own the panther; nor does Canberra have title to the raider. Rather, the ARLC owns all club trademarks, and then licenses those logos back to the clubs for limited marketing, merchandising and sponsorship purposes. Though this issue alone wouldn't stop a club leaving, the "Penrith Piranhas" doesn't have any heritage or quite the same pizzazz.
Also, careful examination would be required as to what promises clubs have made to the ARLC, to not "compete" with the NRL competition by participating elsewhere. It stands to reason - bearing in mind the Super League debacle - that clubs playing in the NRL undertake, in their participation agreements, to do so exclusively. But it would be commercially naïve to assume those clubs haven't also promised to not compete in rival competitions even after their NRL participation obligations end. Any such restraints would be no absolute barrier - courts don't like post-term restraints, and clubs could always try shifting assets to new corporate entities not likewise hamstrung but these contractual barriers would be significant.
Further, this analysis does not even touch on other serious issues. What happens to the Australian Sports Commission and other governmental support afforded to the ARLC? What of the hundreds of players signed to NRL contracts registered with the controlling body, which contain promises given to the NRL about myriad issues? What churn in fans and club members would be sustained by all this corporate jiggery-pokery? What wider scaffolds would any mooted breakaway competition have, besides running a 12-team competition? Issues around junior football development pathways, and the game at the representative level would need to be addressed.
The short point is that there simply will not be any breakaway from a structure that all parties signed up to with eyes wide open.
Darren Kane is a Sydney sports lawyer
@sportslawyer7
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...e-mk-ii-can-never-happen-20150827-gj91ps.html
