PNG's back.

[Canard]

The payouts are set at different amounts based on time. Victoria cancelled the bid when they did because they risked paying more if they cancel closer to the event.

If a government cancels support after the PNG team starts playing and then the NRL can't meet its broadcast commitments, the government will be on the hook to make up the difference. It's that simple.

No they won't, and they won't agree to those terms.

The Comm Games issue is because Vic bid for them and signed a contract saying they would deliver them by 2026.

 

[BuffaloRules]

The payouts are set at different amounts based on time. Victoria cancelled the bid when they did because they risked paying more if they cancel closer to the event.

If a government cancels support after the PNG team starts playing and then the NRL can't meet its broadcast commitments, the government will be on the hook to make up the difference. It's that simple.

We don’t know what the contract looks like yet…the parties can agree to anything …

I know I mentioned the Comm games as an example of a Govt back flipping but that contract involves many more parties and would be much more complex then this one …

 

[docbrown]

Quite frankly, this is the biggest load of horseshit I've read on this topic so far.

The NRL is reliant on the government for funding, not the other way around, there broadcast agreements are not there issue.

The government can't, and won't sign a contract that has a $1B breach clause. This would be the most one sided contract in history.

You think Peter "Potato" Dutton cares about risking the ire of PNG?

If the government were to cancel it's contract after PNG start playing and the NRL can't meet its broadcast commitments then they will sue the government for a loss of earnings. It's pretty simple.

There's no way the NRL will get into this if it risks their main revenue stream without some kind of breach clause.

 

[docbrown]

No they won't, and they won't agree to those terms.

The Comm Games issue is because Vic bid for them and signed a contract saying they would deliver them by 2026.

If they don't sign a contract then there's likely no team. Breach clauses for a future loss of earnings are just a standard part of contract negotiation, regardless of what people on this forum think.

 

[Canard]

If the government were to cancel it's contract after PNG start playing and the NRL can't meet its broadcast commitments then they will sue the government for a loss of earnings. It's pretty simple.

There's no way the NRL will get into this if it risks their main revenue stream without some kind of breach clause.

It's laughable that you think the NRL holds all the cards in this situation.

What about the NSW stadium funding commitments?

You are beyond delusional

 

[docbrown]

We don’t know what the contract looks like yet…the parties can agree to anything …

I know I mentioned the Comm games as an example of a Govt back flipping but that contract involves many more parties and would be much more complex then this one …

There's no way this team gets made with government funding without a formal contract and that includes a breach clause for loss of future earnings. It's a standard business practice. I can't believe I have to explain this to people.

 

[Canard]

If they don't sign a contract then there's likely no team. Breach clauses for a future loss of earnings are just a standard part of contract negotiation, regardless of what people on this forum think.

There is no contract mate, none.

It's a government funding arrangement. It's totally one way.

Do you not understand how government grants and funding works?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Albo and co are pushing this to counter China. If the 2nd biggest economy in the world China turns around and gives the PNG government billions of dollars to fund a ping pong team where do you think PNG's alliances will go?

And where will the NRL be? Up shit creek without a paddle or a canoe.

 

[BuffaloRules]

There's no way this team gets made with government funding without a formal contract and that includes a breach clause for loss of future earnings. It's a standard business practice. I can't believe I have to explain this to people.

Im not arguing there wont be a contract,,,I’m arguing about what the wording and penalty provisions will be…. no one here knows that at this time

 

[BuffaloRules]

There is no contract mate, none.

It's a government funding arrangement. It's totally one way.

Do you not understand how government grants and funding works?

Ok… I guess the NRL says no deal then

 

[Canard]

People are off chops if they think the NRL can lock in future governments to an Albo brainfart.

 

[docbrown]

It's laughable that you think the NRL holds all the cards in this situation.

What about the NSW stadium funding commitments?

You are beyond delusional

That's because there was no signed contract with stadiums. Are you too stupid to understand the difference? It was just a government funding announcement and those are subject to change. This is entirely different. The NRL aren't going to do squat unless the government signs a contract and puts some money up front.

 

[Canard]

Ok… I guess the NRL says no deal then

And the Govt says "big f**king whoop"

 

[BuffaloRules]

And the Govt says "big f**king whoop"

But what about CHINA???????

 

[docbrown]

Ok… I guess the NRL says no deal then

Exactly. But you're arguing with people who think a government funding announcement is the same as a contract so you've got no hope of convincing them.

 

[docbrown]

And the Govt says "big f**king whoop"

It's the government's f**king idea you nitwit!

 

[Canard]

That's because there was no signed contract with stadiums. Are you too stupid to understand the difference? It was just a government funding announcement and those are subject to change. This is entirely different. The NRL aren't going to do squat unless the government signs a contract and puts some money up front.

So future generations of Australians will be locked into a funding a foreign sporting team for ever?

Good luck taking that one to the electorate.

Luckily for you, no Government will ever commit to such an arrangement.

 

[Canard]

Exactly. But you're arguing with people who think a government funding announcement is the same as a contract so you've got no hope of convincing them.

Where has it been discussed that this deal will be a contractual arrangement??

At best this would be short term funding with the mistaken belief that it will one day be sustainable.

If you think the funding is the least of its concerns, you're off your chops.

It's THE major concern

 

[BuffaloRules]

Where has it been discussed that this deal will be a contractual arrangement??

Why would the NRL agree otherwise ?

Im just pessimistic about how much they would get if the Govt cancels the deal mid term

 

[Canard]

Luckily for all of us, this idea is electoral poison and will be quietly dropped