NRL to run "dying game" in NZ

[LeagueNut]

http://www.stuff.co.nz//4422760a1823.html

NRL urged to take over running of dying game in NZ
By STEVE KILGALLON - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 02 March 2008

Phil Campbell, who has resigned as the vice-chairman of the New Zealand Rugby League, says Australia's National Rugby League should seize control of the sport in this country before it dies.

Campbell's dire warning comes just two days after NRL finance director Ed Farish visited NZRL headquarters in Auckland, to continue long-running discussions over increasing the NRL's development grant to New Zealand.

Campbell said he was sick of politics and infighting destroying the sport and that the entire administration needed replacing. He advocated sports funding body Sparc and the NRL should hold board seats. An independent commissioner with wide-ranging powers should be appointed. The Sunday Star-Times understands the NRL do want a closer relationship, but don't want a board seat for fear of looking like big brother.

In his only interview, Campbell told the Star-Times he resigned due to "tall poppy syndrome, hidden agendas and personal issues" blighting the sport.

"I am worried about the future of the game," Campbell said. "I think what is needed is for the NRL and someone from the Ministry of Sport or Sparc to clean it out. Clean it all up get rid of the politics, personal issues, tall poppy syndrome. It is costing them thousands of dollars in sponsorship, all this sh*t. This isn't good for rugby league.

"I know a lot of people in the game are saying `what are you doing at rugby league headquarters?'

"This image cannot be good for the game. With all this stuff, who wants to bring their kids [into league]? I wouldn't let my kids play rugby league now. No, politics has killed it. There are a lot of problems in the game."

Campbell has been involved in grassroots rugby league since 1954, spent six years as chairman of the Ponsonby club, been a two-time NZRL board member, an Auckland board member and played a key role in establishing the Masters competition for over-35s. But he said: "I am making a stand and getting out of the game because the politics, these people who are involved are undermining league and we need to get rid of them.

"I have had enough, I am a bit emotional about it all now [after] all the work I've done over the years ... my family has been involved in rugby league since 1920."

Citing the two senior Kiwis who spoke out about Gary Kemble's suitability as national coach, Campbell added: "Roy Asotasi and David Kidwell ... they made a stand, they spoke out, and I am making a stand now."

And asked if the game could continue the way it was going, he said: "It can't. It's killing us."

NZRL general manager Peter Cordtz said Campbell had outlined his concerns but the league wouldn't be commenting. Campbell also withdrew his nomination for re-election to the affiliates board seat, handing it to the only other nominee, Students official Malcolm Cherrie.

It is clear his resignation was timed as an attempt to force the board to call a special general meeting to air the game's key issues. Without Campbell, the originally nine-strong board fell below their necessary five-man quorum. While he refused to comment, Campbell did say he filed his resignation at 2.50pm last Monday, although the NZRL said he went on Tuesday.

Campbell thus cannot have played a part in Tuesday's co-opting of Allen Gore to restore that quorum. It's understood the league acted on legal advice from their president, Trevor Maxwell, despite the constitution apparently preventing Gore's appointment. What seems likely is the league realised, with the AGM looming, that anyone protesting would have to take costly, lengthy and pointless legal action to have the decision overturned.

Wellington chairman Stephen Franks, who has nominated Peter Mellars, one of four candidates pursuing the other board vacancy, said: "It's quite clear when you get that number of resignations [Campbell was the fifth director to quit] that you have to have a circuit-breaker at some time and do something different."

Meanwhile, Farish is the second senior Australian official to visit the NZRL in recent weeks after an appearance by Australian Rugby League chairman Colin Love. Farish is holidaying in Hawkes' Bay, but did make a lengthy visit to HQ, just weeks after the ARL advanced the NZRL $350,000 against profits on May's trans-Tasman test.

 

[gong_eagle]

Over to you Gallop

 

[LeagueNut]

Yep, sounds good to me. Maybe just as a temporary thing though, don't know if I'd want "them" here forever.

 

[Rich102]

The similarities between the NZRL and the Wanganui Health Board are obvious. Only trouble is in rugby league's case the government can't step in and appoint a commissioner.
I would be all in favour of more NRL involvement - cut out the regional politics of the NZRL.

With NZ so involved with Australian rugby league competitions and clubs might it be time to set up an Australasian rugby league?

Anyway it is time for something to be done - and quickly.

 

[Quidgybo]

I think the relationship between NZRL and NRL ultimately needs to be the other way around. The NRL makes huges amounts of money by running a top tier professional competition exploiting support for RL across Australian *and* New Zealand. For its part the ARL half own the NRL, appoint half the board members and receive an annual dividend of $8m. What do the NZRL get for the exploitation of their territory for profit by the NRL (and thus the profit of News Ltd and the ARL)? Ultimately I believe that if and when News Ltd is forced to divest their 50% interest in the NRL, that share should not go back to the ARL. The inherent accountability that is provided by a balance of power where no one party can take a decision without the agreement of some or all of the other partners is something I think is worth preserving. In my opinion the News Ltd share should be split three ways - one third (16.6% of the total) to the member clubs, one third to the players (through the Players Association) and one third to the NZRL.

Effectively this would mean that the ARL could not pass any decision for the NRL without the agreement of at least one of the NZRL, the Players Association, or the clubs. But the ARL would maintain a veto in its own right on any decision. The NRL boards would remain at 6 members with the ARL appointing 3 members, and one member each by the NZRL, Players Association and the clubs. And assuming the NRL choses to maintain the annual dividend of $16m, then the ARL would continue to receive $8m (in addition to profits from Origin and Kangaroos matches) for running the game in Australia below the top tier, the Players Association would receive $2.6m for running retired player programs or whatever else it sees fit, and the clubs would receive an additional income for their efforts to promote and develop the game. But most importantly IMO, the NZRL would be left with a reliable, regular income stream from NRL's exploitation of their territory which along with profits from Kiwis matches could be plowed back into running the game in New Zealand below the top tier.

Of course the NZRL has other problems that urgently need addressing. But some financial certainty with a share of the profits made off the back of their work would go a long way to securing the game's future in that country.

Leigh

 

[Micistm]

Wow. I respect Phils passion though, and in a backward sick way it's kind of comforting (And disturbing at the same time) that some in the NZRL feel the way fans do. Obviously though, I guess it goes without saying many of them are fans themselves, which IMO has been a problem for a while...a game by fans for fans with no good business nouse or direction.
I would love to see the NRL/ARL come in and assist/set up a good structure for the game here. Can we get an 'advisor' in the same way Bennetts working with the team?! ;-)

Kind of a sick joke, I have these mental visions of the NRL coming in much like the US into Iraq.. on the hunt in the deck of cards 'Most wanted' in the NZRL...who does the role of Saddam?

Seriously though, I have to make a joke otherwise I'd just cry. It breaks your heart whats happened to the game here. There's been so much damage in the last couple of years, and a lot of it seems traceable to certain points/people...yet nothing is learnt. Aussie professionalism is needed, badly

 

[LeagueNut]

Of course the NZRL has other problems that urgently need addressing. But some financial certainty with a share of the profits made off the back of their work would go a long way to securing the game's future in that country.

Good post, and I agree with this point - BUT before any such arrangement is made, the first step is a complete overhaul of NZRL management.

If we kept the same NZRL structure in charge and said "here, have an extra few million each year courtesy of the NRL" we'd probably end up destroying the game in the entire Southern Hemisphere.

 

[ozbash]

it should be NZRL in name only, those clowns couldnt organise a root in a brothell.

bring in the NRL !!

 

[Lossy]

As much as Quidgybo's suggestion has much merit, and the financial split in generating revenue is interesting, this can't be approached as a full-on trans-Tasman bailout in exchange for being able to exploit the NZ market, no doubt further. NZ created the mess, NZ should fix the mess. With NRL input, sure, but not with an NRL or Aussie-based dictum.

While there is a certain amount of sense in NRL involvement, NZ league's fate needs to be self-determined. A Sparc/MOS clean-out is one step, but the main issue is political. This means the people within the process are the problem, infecting the entity with their greed, ego and sense of possession of the game for their and their cronies own end. You can't get rid of too many people or your resource levels diminish and there are only a finite amount of people to replace them. So you need a dramatically revamped structure, an NZRL personnel clean-out, a removal of voting power from all districts until which time there can be a range of voting options restored with the aim of rederessing any possible imbalance.

LeagueNut's comment on change, and the outcome of giving the power and money-hungry more of the same is dead-on.

 

[Quidgybo]

As much as Quidgybo's suggestion has much merit, and the financial split in generating revenue is interesting, this can't be approached as a full-on trans-Tasman bailout in exchange for being able to exploit the NZ market, no doubt further. NZ created the mess, NZ should fix the mess. With NRL input, sure, but not with an NRL or Aussie-based dictum.

The suggestion for the NZRL to take a minority share in the NRL has nothing to do with the current mess. As you point out that is entirely political and domestic. And the solution must start and end at home. But once that problem is resolved, what is the long term financial model for the game in New Zealand? That's the single biggest question facing New Zealand RL in the age of multi-million dollar professionalism. How will the game continue to fund the grassroots and stay competitive domestically (against Union) and internationally (against the Kangaroos) while the most profitable part of the game, the professional top tier, returns all profits generated from New Zealand to two Australian companies - one of which is the Australian Rugby League. This whole political mess is a relatively minor short term squabble. Solving it does nothing in itself to answer the long term strategic questions for the game in New Zealand.

Leigh.

 

[ozbash]

NZ created the mess, NZ should fix the mess. With NRL input, sure, but not with an NRL or Aussie-based dictum.

well, when the sponsors say 'enoughs enough' and the cupboard is bare and asset sales look to be the order of the day, will we admit defeat then ?

get someone in before its too late.

 

[shiznit]

why cant the govt step in??? i remember the aus govt doing something similar with australian football after the NSL fell apart.

ive always advocated for the govt to get in there and fix this mess by providing the bulk of funding for the game below the kiwis level. and because they would be providing funding for the game they would be entitled to have board representation.

i know it bugs alot of people to have the govt interfering in things like this but im pretty certain if NZ rugby was going through this kind of trouble than the govt wouldnt hesitate to get involved.

 

[Quidgybo]

I don't think it's realistic to expect the government to become the major funding source in a country where one of our game's biggest rivals, Rugby Union, is the dominant sport and where voters and MLCs are likely to be overwhelmingly pro-Union. As a sport with a minority but none the less significant following, League has every right to expect some government funding. But I wouldn't be relying on it as the basis for the game's future financial security. The game makes more than enough money from the New Zealand market to be financially self sufficient and competitive both against its rival codes domestically and within the wider Rugby League world internationally. It's just a matter of which controlling bodies are currently collecting that money and ensuring it finds it way back to the body that needs it to plow back into the game.

Leigh.

 

[MKEB...]

in reply to shiznit: they did, by pretty much underwriting the next RWc on behalf of the NZRFU

 

[Lossy]

The suggestion for the NZRL to take a minority share in the NRL has nothing to do with the current mess. As you point out that is entirely political and domestic. And the solution must start and end at home. But once that problem is resolved, what is the long term financial model for the game in New Zealand? That's the single biggest question facing New Zealand RL in the age of multi-million dollar professionalism. How will the game continue to fund the grassroots and stay competitive domestically (against Union) and internationally (against the Kangaroos) while the most profitable part of the game, the professional top tier, returns all profits generated from New Zealand to two Australian companies - one of which is the Australian Rugby League.
Leigh.

Understood, and your key question is bolded as you are correct, but this hinges on what you say below.

This whole political mess is a relatively minor short term squabble. Solving it does nothing in itself to answer the long term strategic questions for the game in New Zealand.

This is not, "a relatively minor short term squabble." The super league "war" was short-term. This has been going on for quite some time, and is decimating the game. Pre '84 I couldn't tell you, so yourself and Skinner, etc., may need to correct me, but there was a period of reasonable stability until George Rainey departed: at least outwardly. Since then it's been rabble. Giving the fox more chooks creates a predictable outcome.

well, when the sponsors say 'enoughs enough' and the cupboard is bare and asset sales look to be the order of the day, will we admit defeat then ?

get someone in before its too late.

Ozbash, we're admitting defeat now. Be honest, jack-all real change has occurred so of course we get the same results. A least the first wave of actual, real-life, independent reform should be NZ based. There's hardly been a revolution among the districts. If there isn't the will, then the demise is our own doing, and is deserved.

If, however, SPARC, the Government -- whose actions should be admin-related, not treated as a cash-cow -- or the districts do nothing, but there is a will to allow the NRL to step in... sure. The problem will be that Quidgybo's idea will not be adopted, so we'll still be the poor cousin, but that will be permanent, so hope and aspiration be damned.

How about a compromise? Take out the political players and place into administration first. Then, the independent administrators court the NRL and negotiate from there. Reformists get their clean-out, the code gets some stability, and those wanting the NRL to stick their oar in get that too.

 

[Quidgybo]

This has been going on for quite some time, and is decimating the game. Pre '84 I couldn't tell you, so yourself and Skinner, etc., may need to correct me, but there was a period of reasonable stability until George Rainey departed: at least outwardly. Since then it's been rabble. Giving the fox more chooks creates a predictable outcome.

I don't think Rugby League in New Zealand was necessarily any better or worse run than League in Australia in the years before Super League. In both cases it was an essentially amateur or semi pro sport run by political power brokers serving their own self interests and providing jobs for the boys. Professionalism and business accountability were almost alien concepts (with a couple of honourable exceptions). The difference between the administration of the game in Australia and New Zealand since then is, for want of a better description, the Super League war forced RL administration in Australia to "grow up". No longer could decisions be made to protect power bases or create personal empires. News Ltd's involvement has forced business decisions to be made on business principles - dollars and cents. Of course News Ltd's business priorities aren't necessarily what is good for RL as a game but it has forced a fundamental change in how the game is run even by the traditional powers (eg. the ARL's subsidising of the Reds entry into the JBC). Unfortunately this process of "growing up" doesn't seemed to have happened within the NZRL. While the rest of RL administration has been dragged into the modern age of multi-million dollar professional sport, the administration in NZ still seems stuck in the RL world of the 1980s and early 90s.


Leigh.

 

[NZ Warrior]

I'm so glad I don't have to worry about any of this. I feel great.

 

[ozbash]

I'm so glad I don't have to worry about any of this. I feel great.

fence sitter

 

[Lossy]

I don't think Rugby League in New Zealand was necessarily any better or worse run than League in Australia in the years before Super League. In both cases it was an essentially amateur or semi pro sport run by political power brokers serving their own self interests and providing jobs for the boys. Professionalism and business accountability were almost alien concepts (with a couple of honourable exceptions). The difference between the administration of the game in Australia and New Zealand since then is, for want of a better description, the Super League war forced RL administration in Australia to "grow up". No longer could decisions be made to protect power bases or create personal empires. News Ltd's involvement has forced business decisions to be made on business principles - dollars and cents. Of course News Ltd's business priorities aren't necessarily what is good for RL as a game but it has forced a fundamental change in how the game is run even by the traditional powers (eg. the ARL's subsidising of the Reds entry into the JBC). Unfortunately this process of "growing up" doesn't seemed to have happened within the NZRL. While the rest of RL administration has been dragged into the modern age of multi-million dollar professional sport, the administration in NZ still seems stuck in the RL world of the 1980s and early 90s.


Leigh.

Economies of scale too, I suppose. The size and profile of Australian RL cannot be underestimated in luring quality admin's to a high-profile sport. That, coupled with the spectre of RU and ARL looming meant the wake up was quick. NZRL has no such driver, coming from the cheap seats.

The New Zealand issue is that once the kingdom was created, it's been hard to usurp the crown from those who wish to vie for it. Harder still when they are corrupt, and only a few like-minded individuals are needed to keep the cycle going. Given traitors are summarily dispatched, and the King throws some crumbs from the royal table to minor dissenters there's no surprise that the NZRL has been left to play the royal fool of NZ sport.

With a vigilant, profit-hungry board, the NRL couldn't keep such people in their court.

 

[Archangel2]

Well said Lossy...Well said.
Our game has lasted through two world wars and a depression, but it seems that the present governance and administration will do what everything else that has been thrown at our code...what gets me is why this lot running our game still hang on grimly to our game like they do...the only reason that they do is there guilt at the real truth coming out.

I never thought that I would want the Ockers to run anything but with the state of our game, this looks like our only chance to get the game back on an even footing.