Peter V'landys - New NRL/ARLC Chairman

[Wb1234]

are you trying to get a job at the Daily Telegraph?

Yeh I mean gallop, grant, whittacker, welsh union guy, smith, Beattie and Greenberg are the competitors

and In the quarter of a century since they were all in power one of them added the titans

in under five years we’ll have dolphins and Perth

sorry for introducing facts into the argument

 

[Captain Apollo]

Some people who keep carrying on about how the administrators should "stand up to the club/players etc" really don't seem to live in the real world. They are administrators leading a competition in which they want clubs to participate, and players to play in. They are set up by the clubs to do that, not to rule them like an autocracy. Fact is the clubs can get rid of any and all Directors if enough of them get pissed off, so whilst the Commissioners try to do their best, they do realise that if piss enough people off and you will be out and the idea scrapped as a result.

Leadership is about persuasion, and also about convincing them of what is in their overall best interests, and showing it aligns with the game's best interests. It is not about dictating to them. Anyone who thinks it is really has no real world experience of working in a place where the decision makes are elected. You can only go as far as those who elect you will ultimately put up with.

 

[Wb1234]

Some people who keep carrying on about how the administrators should "stand up to the club/players etc" really don't seem to live in the real world. They are administrators leading a competition in which they want clubs to participate, and players to play in. They are set up by the clubs to do that, not to rule them like an autocracy. Fact is the clubs can get rid of any and all Directors if enough of them get pissed off, so whilst the Commissioners try to do their best, they do realise that if piss enough people off and you will be out and the idea scrapped as a result.

Leadership is about persuasion, and also about convincing them of what is in their overall best interests, and showing it aligns with the game's best interests. It is not about dictating to them. Anyone who thinks it is really has no real world experience of working in a place where the decision makes are elected. You can only go as far as those who elect you will ultimately put up with.

Agreed

but our clubs have pretty much their own self interest over the good of the game whilst the fumblers are the exact opposite supporting their expansion teams to the hilt

ten clubs paid for an independent report to try and kill the dolphins and their own report went against them

clubs aren’t letting the arlc do it’s job

 

[Iamback]

It is growing in some areas - but the growth should be higher.

If you had a super fund managed by PVL generating you a 4% return, while another super fund generated 15% - what you're saying is the PVL fund is growing at 4% - its growth. It is the best fund etc.

PVL's achievements include i) managing the game during covid, ii) expanding the game to include The Dolphins, iii) generating a profit and buying a pub in Brisbane.

PVL's actions that have, in my opinion, adversely impacts the LONG TERM health of the game include i) 6 again rule changes, ii) broadcast extension with Fox and Channel 9 (this one is huge as it locks us into a undervalued contract until 2028), iii) inability to work with NSW Govt on stadia policy, iv) wasting resources on challenging the governance arrangements of NSWRL, v) shutting down of the NRL digital business unit.

On balance, the cons outweigh the pros. I concede he has done much more than other leaders, but his approach is rocks or diamonds.

i - The rules changes that ESL adopted and are now in the International Rugby League Rules? Can't of been too bad for the game.

ii - This can't be commented on until we get details on both deals to compare but I did see this online the other day that has the TV component of AFL at $485m -

Analysing the AFL’s record-breaking media rights deal - SportsPro

After the AFL’s new AUS$4.5bn rights agreement, SportsPro evaluates what it means for the league over the next seven years.

www.sportspromedia.com

The financial split between Foxtel and Seven was not disclosed. According to the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), the current arrangement for the rights and costs represents a 65-35 split between the pair.

Channel 7 reported to the Stock exchange that they are paying 20% more. Making that $170m which if that is 35% of TV makes $485m the total package from TV

again it might just be rumour but you can't base someone under valuing a contract until you have the all of the details. So that point is a TBA until we atleast get 1 lot of figures

iii - I agree it was a bad look but to be fair the Govt did keep moving the goal posts and depends on the Financial windfall from the GF hosting rights as to whether it was a good or bad outcome. This too should be a TBA

iv - Souths, Sharks and the other clubs that argued the NSWRL elections are stakeholders of the commission, The Chairman needs to stand up for those under him. Not a good look but not entirely the fault of the ARLC

v- If they plan on increasing revenue via US and stuff ( Unlikely to happen but is worth a shot atleast short term ) shouldn't the game control it's digital property instead of a 3rd party getting the potential winfall

So alot of the stuff is a wait and see type of approach especially the longer term but your comparison to other leaders is spot on. That is what I judge the game on now

 

[mongoose]

It is growing in some areas - but the growth should be higher.

If you had a super fund managed by PVL generating you a 4% return, while another super fund generated 15% - what you're saying is the PVL fund is growing at 4% - its growth. It is the best fund etc.

PVL's achievements include i) managing the game during covid, ii) expanding the game to include The Dolphins, iii) generating a profit and buying a pub in Brisbane.

PVL's actions that have, in my opinion, adversely impacts the LONG TERM health of the game include i) 6 again rule changes, ii) broadcast extension with Fox and Channel 9 (this one is huge as it locks us into a undervalued contract until 2028), iii) inability to work with NSW Govt on stadia policy, iv) wasting resources on challenging the governance arrangements of NSWRL, v) shutting down of the NRL digital business unit.

On balance, the cons outweigh the pros. I concede he has done much more than other leaders, but his approach is rocks or diamonds.

I'll give V'landys one thing, he has generated some positive sentiment around the game which is very un-rugby league, but I wonder if this is just for mis-direction....

 

[mongoose]

Some people who keep carrying on about how the administrators should "stand up to the club/players etc" really don't seem to live in the real world. They are administrators leading a competition in which they want clubs to participate, and players to play in. They are set up by the clubs to do that, not to rule them like an autocracy. Fact is the clubs can get rid of any and all Directors if enough of them get pissed off, so whilst the Commissioners try to do their best, they do realise that if piss enough people off and you will be out and the idea scrapped as a result.

Leadership is about persuasion, and also about convincing them of what is in their overall best interests, and showing it aligns with the game's best interests. It is not about dictating to them. Anyone who thinks it is really has no real world experience of working in a place where the decision makes are elected. You can only go as far as those who elect you will ultimately put up with.

Clubs and players are always going to have the power in any negotiation, they are the product. The NRL could be replaced by the XYZ League and nothing would change. In saying that a competition can never work with clubs and players having too much power... what if one day the Broncos demand a bigger cut of the TV rights than every other club? they are well within their rights to as they get the biggest ratings. You need a head body that implements a fair competition that can grow the sport otherwise fans will lose interest.

 

[Perth Red]

I get people can not like PVL as a person, Or think possibly the TV deal was bad but you can't say with a straight face that there is no growth. Pretty much every metric says so, Aside from Crowds but Warriors being home should fix that. To me that is what matters

Possibly? Hahah you’re so funny,

 

[Perth Red]

I'll give V'landys one thing, he has generated some positive sentiment around the game which is very un-rugby league, but I wonder if this is just for mis-direction....

Is that generated or bought? I mean the sweet deal he gave the media you’d bloody hope he was getting good publicity from them!

 

[Captain Apollo]

Clubs and players are always going to have the power in any negotiation, they are the product. The NRL could be replaced by the XYZ League and nothing would change. In saying that a competition can never work with clubs and players having too much power... what if one day the Broncos demand a bigger cut of the TV rights than every other club? they are well within their rights to as they get the biggest ratings. You need a head body that implements a fair competition that can grow the sport otherwise fans will lose interest.

Ok, so 1 club out of 17 demands a bigger slice of the TV revenues. So what?! In all seriousness what administrator would say "sure, no problem here you go" and hand it over? The remaining 16 clubs would revolt over it and vote the commissioners out in a heart beat, or otherwise walk away and set up its own competition. Talk about a straw man argument - sheesh.

 

[Perth Red]

i - The rules changes that ESL adopted and are now in the International Rugby League Rules? Can't of been too bad for the game.

ii - This can't be commented on until we get details on both deals to compare but I did see this online the other day that has the TV component of AFL at $485m -

Analysing the AFL’s record-breaking media rights deal - SportsPro

After the AFL’s new AUS$4.5bn rights agreement, SportsPro evaluates what it means for the league over the next seven years.

www.sportspromedia.com

The financial split between Foxtel and Seven was not disclosed. According to the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), the current arrangement for the rights and costs represents a 65-35 split between the pair.

Channel 7 reported to the Stock exchange that they are paying 20% more. Making that $170m which if that is 35% of TV makes $485m the total package from TV

again it might just be rumour but you can't base someone under valuing a contract until you have the all of the details. So that point is a TBA until we atleast get 1 lot of figures

iii - I agree it was a bad look but to be fair the Govt did keep moving the goal posts and depends on the Financially winfall from the GF hosting rights as to whether it was a good or bad outcome. This too should be a TBA

iv - Souths, Sharks and the other clubs that argued the NSWRL elections are stakeholders of the commission, The Chairman needs to stand up for those under him. Not a good look but not entirely the fault of the ARLC

v- If they plan on increasing revenue via US and stuff ( Unlikely to happen but is worth a shot atleast short term ) shouldn't the game control it's digital property instead of a 3rd party getting the potential winfall

So alot of the stuff is a wait and see type of approach especially the longer term

here we go again lol. Afl has stated $643mill of which the cash is $570mill a year. So what you’re speculating in those figures only has these options
1. Afl have massively over stated the cash component (incredibly unlikely and unprecedented)
or 2. Telstra are paying $155mill a year ($100millcash)(haha)
or 3. Those figures are nonsense (likely)

AFL signs $4.5b, seven year broadcast deal with Seven and Foxtel

The record deal keeps the AFL with Seven and Foxtel for seven more years until 2031.

www.afr.com

 

[Wb1234]

Phew no more super league for at least three years

 

[Wb1234]

 

[mongoose]

Ok, so 1 club out of 17 demands a bigger slice of the TV revenues. So what?! In all seriousness what administrator would say "sure, no problem here you go" and hand it over? The remaining 16 clubs would revolt over it and vote the commissioners out in a heart beat, or otherwise walk away and set up its own competition. Talk about a straw man argument - sheesh.

i don;t know what my argument was, I thought i was agreeing with you

 

[siv]

Looking at that the ARLC being formed really changed the fortunes of the game, Such a waste the early 00's were for the game

I actually would like to see how this looked from 1990 to 2000

And if the % variation existed before the SL War

 

[T-Boon]

every cent going to clubs above the salary cap amount is a total waste of money.

 

[RL The greatest game]

Phew no more super league for at least three years

Hopefully the players in their free time will coaching juniors for no money now they are on big money

 

[MugaB]

here we go again lol. Afl has stated $643mill of which the cash is $570mill a year. So what you’re speculating in those figures only has these options
1. Afl have massively over stated the cash component (incredibly unlikely and unprecedented)
or 2. Telstra are paying $155mill a year ($100millcash)(haha)
or 3. Those figures are nonsense (likely)

AFL signs $4.5b, seven year broadcast deal with Seven and Foxtel

The record deal keeps the AFL with Seven and Foxtel for seven more years until 2031.

www.afr.com

AFL lol

 

[Iamback]

I actually would like to see how this looked from 1990 to 2000

And if the % variation existed before the SL War

20 teams in 95
14 teams in 2000

That 5 year period would be a huge drop

 

[Iamback]

AFL lol

Hence the reason I said I will wait before saying how NRL did with their deal, Lots of unknowns

The link he posted stated Telstra aswell, That is the unknown

 

[Iamback]

every cent going to clubs above the salary cap amount is a total waste of money.

They do player development