NRL rebellion: Rugby league clubs want CEO Dave Smith gone or threaten to leave comp

[carlosthedwarf]

Two weeks ago it was 12 CEOs. Now there's 8. At this rate there will be one left by the grand final

 

[LESStar58]

Its such a secret that Kent knows about it... right.. If anybody wanted to keep anything a secret the last person that they would tell would be that turd kent.

Kent is a c**k stain.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

problem is they would prob only offer half the amount..the this could all backfire

This isnt a simple case of "beat the 2nd highest bid by $1". NewsLtd is dependent on NRL and this is the NRLs chance for a massive payday.

The NRL doesnt need another group making a serious cash bid, they just need a plan B if NewsLd try to lowball.

At the last negotiations, it was reported that the ARLC were considering selling all 8 games to FTA for way less just to f*ck Rups. This time, Fox doesnt even have the F&L to fall back on; they eithr cough up or the ARLC sells to a competitor...

 

[Tinkler]

 

[elbusto]

This isnt a simple case of "beat the 2nd highest bid by $1". NewsLtd is dependent on NRL and this is the NRLs chance for a massive payday.

The NRL doesnt need another group making a serious cash bid, they just need a plan B if NewsLd try to lowball.

At the last negotiations, it was reported that the ARLC were considering selling all 8 games to FTA for way less just to f*ck Rups. This time, Fox doesnt even have the F&L to fall back on; they eithr cough up or the ARLC sells to a competitor...

Tinkerbell is thick. Don't waste too much time with it.

 

[Desert Qlder]

I agree, stonewash bumhuggers will come back.

 

[no name]

Carter's tucked in Jersey always bugs me in that photo.

 

[bobmar28]

Stupid by Smith...

Why did he not do the deal together with Nine for a total amount where there is the most leverage.

He just chose to do things the hard way..

now Smith has revealed his price... Foxtel can just investigate what max Netlix for example would be ... say $400 million....

Foxtel then would have the upper hand.

They will never have the upper hand. IMO NRL must get the same as AFL...per hour/game.

Otherwise sell to a competitor at a discount. Never let Foxtel use NRL fans to pay for an expensive AFL contract.

 

[Nerd]

They will never have the upper hand. IMO NRL must get the same as AFL...per hour/game.

Otherwise sell to a competitor at a discount. Never let Foxtel use NRL fans to pay for an expensive AFL contract.

+1

 

[RoosTah]

problem is they would prob only offer half the amount..the this could all backfire

ESPN are bidding for a huge chunk of the Australian sports market, so trust me when I say they aren't offering "half" of anything... They realise if they're going to take the NRL they have to stretch Fox. That means offering close to what Fox gave the AFL. Then if Fox wants to keep its subscriber base it will have to go over that and maybe more, which means they could be put in the awkward position of paying the same or more for the NRL rights in spite of less content and an avowed preference of AFL.

Tricky times ahead for Rupert's gang.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

They will never have the upper hand. IMO NRL must get the same as AFL...per hour/game.

Otherwise sell to a competitor at a discount. Never let Foxtel use NRL fans to pay for an expensive AFL contract.

Per VIEWER/ pergame...

 

[axl rose]

I agree, stonewash bumhuggers will come back.

Along with that Raiders jersey, what a classic.

Todd Greenberg next move will be to bring back Nike to 'design' all jerseys.

 

[insert.pause]

ESPN are bidding for a huge chunk of the Australian sports market, so trust me when I say they aren't offering "half" of anything... They realise if they're going to take the NRL they have to stretch Fox. That means offering close to what Fox gave the AFL. Then if Fox wants to keep its subscriber base it will have to go over that and maybe more, which means they could be put in the awkward position of paying the same or more for the NRL rights in spite of less content and an avowed preference of AFL.

Tricky times ahead for Rupert's gang.

I don't think they will even bid, nor bein sport. Fox will eventually pay the NRL what it's worth, just got to get over the emotional posturing. Once the dust settles I think a certain Fox Sports executive may make a quiet exit, as to avoid the perception that it was in fact Fox Sports, & not the NRL, that screwed up negotiations.

 

[whall15]

ESPN are bidding for a huge chunk of the Australian sports market, so trust me when I say they aren't offering "half" of anything... They realise if they're going to take the NRL they have to stretch Fox. That means offering close to what Fox gave the AFL. Then if Fox wants to keep its subscriber base it will have to go over that and maybe more, which means they could be put in the awkward position of paying the same or more for the NRL rights in spite of less content and an avowed preference of AFL.

Tricky times ahead for Rupert's gang.

They are? They just lost the Champions League rights to Bein.

 

[RoosTah]

I don't think they will even bid, nor bein sport. Fox will eventually pay the NRL what it's worth, just got to get over the emotional posturing. Once the dust settles I think a certain Fox Sports executive may make a quiet exit, as to avoid the perception that it was in fact Fox Sports, & not the NRL, that screwed up negotiations.

I wonder about BeIN, but ESPN have had a couple setbacks lately, and a huge chunck of the Aussie sports market AND taking one of Rupert's key products in his own backyard would be a bit of a coup for them. I've heard a few murmers from industry people that suggests that interest has been piqued with them as a result of Fox's dummy spit and assault on Smith and their apparent plan to low ball their offer to try and "teach him a lesson."

The feeling is that they're going to sit back and watch how it unfolds, and if Murdoch persists on offering the NRL only a piddling amount then ESPN will happily trump them and but the all the rights at a still cheap price.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...k=0a735d4f7bd2d29ed1ea81a1e8da4d26-1446494232

NRL clubs offered $3m ‘bonus’ if they sign participation agreements

The Australian
November 3, 2015 12:00AM
Brent Read
Senior sports writer
Sydney

ARL Commission chairman John Grant has moved to head off a revolution over future funding by offering the 16 clubs a $50 million sweetener in return for their loyalty to head office.

Grant, whose position has come under scrutiny in recent weeks amid acrimonious talks over the game’s finances, is understood to have raised the idea of offering each club $1.5m a year over the next two seasons.

The money comes with a caveat. If the clubs agree to sign new participation agreements — their current deals expire at the end of 2017 — the money would be a grant and therefore not repayable.

However, if the clubs refuse to sign new agreements, the money would in effect become a loan that clubs would be forced to repay should they opt out of the competition.

While some clubs are believed to be happy with the latest offerings from Rugby League Central, others are understood to be annoyed by what they view as an inducement to garner their loyalty.

The ARL Commission is due to receive a $50m advance from the Nine Network midway through next year as an advance on the $925m broadcasting deal which is due to come into effect from the 2018 season.

The clubs wanted the lion’s share of that money to prop up their ailing businesses — in total, they lost more than $30 million last year. It now appears the ARL Commission is willing to give them what they want, albeit on the proviso that they commit their futures to the competition, in effect removing a large amount of leverage the clubs have over the ARL Commission.

Some clubs have refused to extend their participation agreements while there remains an impasse with the game’s governing body. Aside from the issues of finances, the clubs are also attempting to change the constitution to gain a greater say over the appointment and removal of commissioners.

It is believed some clubs believe they should have a seat on the commission. The issue came to a head last week when a subcommittee representing the clubs walked away from a meeting with Grant. Late last week, the clubs unanimously voted to condemn the commission’s handling of talks.

The $3m offer could have a cathartic effect on the finances of some clubs. As it stands, only two clubs regularly turn a profit — Brisbane and South Sydney.

 

[insert.pause]

Not all club powerbrokers are necessarily impressed though. One chairman labelled it as a “sugar hit” and Grant’s way of “buying votes”.

Another said: “The $3 million is a catch-up payment from the past. All the money from the last broadcast deal effectively went straight to the players.

“Clubs have been the victims from the last deal because we have had serious inflationary pressure on coaching staff and other costs, which we have had no money to cover.”

The clubs are expected to meet with Grant again in November.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/arl...illion-sweetener/story-e6frf3ou-1227592237072

"inducement to garner their loyalty", “sugar hit”, "buying votes" ffs

Isn't that exactly what the chairman have been trying to achieve, aren't they the ones who have been using the participation agreements as a bargaining chip? It's only an 'inducement' because clubs are selling their loyalty.

I don't think some chairman want a resolution.

 

[Perth Red]

Great more of the games new wealth disappearing into the black hole that is clubs financial messes. That'll sort the game out lol.

seems a pretty good deal for the clubs if coupled with general grant increases above cpi over the life of the deal.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Great more of the games new wealth disappearing into the black hole that is clubs financial messes. That'll sort the game out lol.

seems a pretty good deal for the clubs if coupled with general grant increases above cpi over the life of the deal.

You're speaking my language, brother. The NRL is scared shitless of causing a scandal that Newscorp can whip them with by calling a spade a spade.

 

[DiegoNT]

People criticize the nrl for pumping money into the clubs, but forget how the nrl makes most of its money, from those very same clubs. If the nrl was to take only the profitable clubs, atm broncos and rabbitohs and replace the other 14 clubs with generic profit making clubs would anyone watch? Hell no. People will want to watch the comp that contains the dragons and bulldogs and roosters, Cowboys storm etc. The nrl is making so much money from having such a strong and attractive competition, so of course some of that money should go back to the very clubs that wearn it so much money. Broncos fans look down on others because their club makes so much money, what would happen if it went to the Queensland cup? It would lose a lot of money. Broncos make their money by being a successful club in the nrl, the nrl makes it money by being a well supported and attracted competition, the broncos success is actually linked to the other 15 clubs.