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

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,462
You can't get a $3m handout and still expect to be allowed to threaten not to sign participation agreements, if any club wants to keep using that stick then they should have to pay the $3m back. You can't have your cake & eat it too.

Asking for an additional 'dividend' of any surplus the game makes is made only more unreasonable by the demand to approve the NRL's costs, somehow I think if clubs had approval of the NRL's budget and the incentive of collecting 30% of any surplus, the NRL wouldn't spend anything!

The same clubs who like to whinge they collectively lost $40m this year also demanding they should be able to micromanage the NRL, the nerve! Gotta laugh at the assertion the extra funding would have all clubs breaking even, the more they get, the more they spend.

The clubs should be given the choice of either having a say in the selection of a group of potential ARLC candidates to be put before the ARLC for a final vote, OR a final vote on a group of ARLC candidates initially selected by the ARLC, but not both. The constitution is designed to limit the influence of petty club factions, not promote them.

The ARLC should run the game, the clubs should run the clubs.
 
Last edited:

Mr Spock!

Referee
Messages
22,502
You can't get a $3m handout and still expect to be allowed to threaten not to sign participation agreements, if any club wants to keep using that stick then they should have to pay the $3m back. You can't have your cake & eat it too.

Asking for an additional 'dividend' of any surplus the game makes is made only more unreasonable by the demand to approve the NRL's costs, somehow I think if clubs had approval of the NRL's budget and the incentive of collecting 30% of any surplus, the NRL wouldn't spend anything!

The same clubs who like to whinge they collectively lost $40m this year also demanding they should be able to micromanage the NRL, the nerve! Gotta laugh at the assertion the extra funding would have all clubs breaking even, the more they get, the more they spend.

The clubs should be given the choice of either having a say in the selection of a group of potential ARLC candidates to be put before the ARLC for a final vote, OR a final vote on a group of ARLC candidates initially selected by the ARLC, but not both. The constitution is designed to limit the influence of petty club factions, not promote them.

The ARLC should run the game, the clubs should run the clubs.

Without the clubs there is no ARLC.
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
Just wondering whether some of the nrl clubs are too stupid to realise that this is the moment we have news limited by the balls and a bit of patience is required

Personally, i think they do realise this. I reckon they are just placing their own interests above the game as a whole....

If it was a choice between the game as a whole being the strongest it could be or their own little club getting a small advantage, i think most clubs would choose the latter.
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
Without the clubs there is no ARLC.

And the Clubs wouldnt exist without the wider RL community; juniors, supporters, etc...

As clubs are, by their very nature, feudal entities, they cannot be expected to act in the best interests of anyone other than themselves.

The ARLC are meant as a balance of power to prevent the clubs making idiotic decisions in their own short term interests, and what the game needs is non-partisan, rational decision makers in charge of the mountain of cash the game has come into.

There is a reason the Commission is independent, and the fact that the clubs are trying to erode this Independence shows just how vital it is to maintain.

You may be right in saying that there would be no ARLC without that clubs, but if the clubs were put in charge of the game, within 10 years, thee would be no game left at all....
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,885
Hang on 14 clubs lost a total of $40mill last year but somehow giving those 14 clubs an extra $25.9 million a year is going to solve their problems? Most Clubs can't run themselves successfully yet they feel they are qualified to run the whole game? Lol.

It's easy for a failing business to blame someone else and ask for more handouts to keep it going. Works for so long but eventually the cracks get bigger and bigger. Ask the Australian car manufacturing industry!

Too many clubs are very badly run by very por managers is the harsh reality. Keeping going back to the golden goose isn't the answer but the NRL doesn't have the balls to find the real answers so it will keep feeding the snouts at the trough.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,726
NRL clubs want changes to the constitution to give them a greater say in the make-up of the ARL Commission.

How's f**k off sound?

The clubs, who are set to report financial losses of $40 million between them for the 2015 season, believe the only way they can become stronger is through an increased share of the NRL's revenue and want a greater say on how it is distributed.

It was $30million not long ago..

It baffles the mind. These chairman can't manage clubs with revenue streams in the $25million area, but they think they can manage a billion dollar revenue?

annual grants of 130 per cent of the amount for total player payments;

Ok, but that 30% on top is all you can use for your first grade football staff? Not new gym equipment or supplement programs. All your other money you use to get yourself out of the financial shit hole you're all in.

a 30 per cent share of NRL profits;

Go f**k yourselves. The commission is a not for profit organisation. The profits of the NRL competition get filtered back through the game or go into an investment fund.

a review of the ARLC constitution;

Go f**k yourselves, again. Club appointed commissioners would no doubt be more interested in club interests. The current commissioners are most interested in the whole games interests.

NRL licences for an indefinite period;

You f**kers should sign the agreements for the next 50 years, get down on your knees and be grateful for being allowed to participate in Rugby League despite the crap a good chunk of you have put this game through. SL clubs, 2 major salary cap cheats, numerous cash bail outs despite decades of time to set yourselves up.

an independent review of the NRL's costs, and;
a say in approving the NRL's budget;

The NRLs costs are available to be seen in the annual report. And you f**kers want a say in the budget? f**k off. No matter what the budget says, you're just going to say "we need more money".

A vehicle to share digital rights revenue based on the model used in Major League Baseball;

No. You incompetent twats. You wouldn't know what to with such an invaluable asset. Greedy f**kers have seen that our digital rights could be worth around the $300million mark and want it all. f**k off, this money is going to be used to set the game up for the future which will, guess what, get you more money!

$3 million offered by the NRL but with no conditions attached
.

Lol, and you deserve this one off payment because?....

Should the funding demands of the clubs be met, most expect they could at least break even and the NRL would no longer have to prop up Gold Coast and Newcastle.

Yeah, until next time. Which will be in about 3 years.

If the clubs don't feel that progress is being made after Wednesday's meeting, they are expected to increase pressure on Grant and may seek to remove him as a commissioner - a task that would require a vote of 14 of the 26 ARLC members, comprised of representatives of the 16 clubs, the NSWRL, QRL and the eight commissioners.

No they won't. They don't have anywhere near the numbers to do so.

However, the clubs have no say in the appointment of commissioners and there is a growing belief that the constitution is no longer in the best interests of the game

You mean it isn't coddling the clubs as much as you like.

Agreed to at a time when the game was desperate to be rid of News Corp, the eligibility rules mean that the NRL is controlled by a board with little rugby league knowledge and some feel that they are out-dated.

Apparently John Grant and Wayne Pearce don't really know much about Rugby League. The commissioners mostly don't need to know the intricacies of the on field product. The clubs have been run by 'rugby league' people forever and look where they are?..

Campbell, who is the spokesman for the clubs, told Fairfax Media after a recent phone hook-up of club chairmen that the 16 clubs were unified in their determination to gain a better deal.

And they will if they just shut the f**k up, wait for the TV rights to be finalised and then talk. You will get more money! Greedy f**ks.

Clubs - give us $3million
ARLC - What for?
Clubs - Just cause.
ARLC - Well, here's $1.5million which you can keep but you have to agree to play in the NRL.
Clubs - no. Give me $3million now!
ARLC - Um, no.
Clubs - waaaah, I hate you, I hate the way you parent! Who made you in charge?! I want to pick who's in charge. Waaaah.

If only the ARLC could own the copyrights to all the clubs names, logos and colours.
 

POPEYE

Coach
Messages
11,397
Rugby League is to sport what a hobby is to a tradesman, great after a day's work in the real world, even removing the Sydneycentricity wouldn't help . . . better to enjoy it as much as you can and forget the whining
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
How's f**k off sound?



It was $30million not long ago..

It baffles the mind. These chairman can't manage clubs with revenue streams in the $25million area, but they think they can manage a billion dollar revenue?



Ok, but that 30% on top is all you can use for your first grade football staff? Not new gym equipment or supplement programs. All your other money you use to get yourself out of the financial shit hole you're all in.



Go f**k yourselves. The commission is a not for profit organisation. The profits of the NRL competition get filtered back through the game or go into an investment fund.



Go f**k yourselves, again. Club appointed commissioners would no doubt be more interested in club interests. The current commissioners are most interested in the whole games interests.



You f**kers should sign the agreements for the next 50 years, get down on your knees and be grateful for being allowed to participate in Rugby League despite the crap a good chunk of you have put this game through. SL clubs, 2 major salary cap cheats, numerous cash bail outs despite decades of time to set yourselves up.



The NRLs costs are available to be seen in the annual report. And you f**kers want a say in the budget? f**k off. No matter what the budget says, you're just going to say "we need more money".



No. You incompetent twats. You wouldn't know what to with such an invaluable asset. Greedy f**kers have seen that our digital rights could be worth around the $300million mark and want it all. f**k off, this money is going to be used to set the game up for the future which will, guess what, get you more money!

.

Lol, and you deserve this one off payment because?....



Yeah, until next time. Which will be in about 3 years.



No they won't. They don't have anywhere near the numbers to do so.



You mean it isn't coddling the clubs as much as you like.



Apparently John Grant and Wayne Pearce don't really know much about Rugby League. The commissioners mostly don't need to know the intricacies of the on field product. The clubs have been run by 'rugby league' people forever and look where they are?..



And they will if they just shut the f**k up, wait for the TV rights to be finalised and then talk. You will get more money! Greedy f**ks.

Clubs - give us $3million
ARLC - What for?
Clubs - Just cause.
ARLC - Well, here's $1.5million which you can keep but you have to agree to play in the NRL.
Clubs - no. Give me $3million now!
ARLC - Um, no.
Clubs - waaaah, I hate you, I hate the way you parent! Who made you in charge?! I want to pick who's in charge. Waaaah.

If only the ARLC could own the copyrights to all the clubs names, logos and colours.

100% this you have easily pulled apart another BS article. Just smacks of a couple of disgruntles chairmen clutching at straws and not willing to put the hard yards in to frow their own revenue like every elite pro club around the world in any sport. The man utd and dallas cowboys of this world get a large injection from tv money but they also aggressively grow their brands and revenues with merchandice and crowds. Something most nrl clubs have no concept of at all
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,765
Ok with 130% scenario

Seems that people are now dismissing a LC grant as part of a FC business model and crying poor. But will still take their LC grant. I remember Souths being kicked out of the comp because they rejected a LC grant.

Sorry tell which clubs are prifitable or breakeven AFTER LC grants

Happy for clubs to sign indefinitely rather than this stupid short term option

But there must be a financial clause option that allows the ARLC to terminate a club if it can't manage its books

The club losing $4 mil should be closed and replaced by a expansion entity

The Bears were put into administration and killed off for only being $2 mil in the red
 
Last edited:

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
That was in 1999 dollars. Inflate that 17 years and see where you end up.

The far more telling number would be a % of the budget expendature or revenue...

These days, a $2m loss on a $30m budget doesnt seem like much, whereas the $3m the Bear lost could have been in a budget as low as $5m a year.

You are right in saying the bald numbers cannot be compared fairly, but basic inflation is not the equalising mechanism you should choose...
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,885
Could be $50 if it means you have to close the doors, or $5million if it is a manageable debt due to assets or projected revenue increases. End of day 14 clubs losing $40million is ridiculous and shows how badly run they are, or how unsustainable the current make up of the competition is. Throwing more money at them by taking it away from other areas of the game has no historic evidence that it will make a blind bit of difference to their sustainability. sorry to hark on about the Panthers but they produce good financial reports so can see in detail what is going on for them and they increased their revenue significantly but still ran at a significant loss in 13-14. Sounds like their losses this year may be even higher.
 

Latest posts

Top