RL independence day arrives - NRL Independent Commission announced for November 1

[CC_Roosters]

The problem is that under the peace treaty from 1998, News Ltd own the game until 2018. If we wait until 2018 to get rid of News we won't be able to negotiate a broadcast deal without News Ltd's conflict of interest until a 2023-2027 deal. We'll be dudded until then.

News know this so they have offered to leave now but will try to screw us for all their worth on the way out.

Lol at peace treaty. More like cease fire

Seriously they could make a bloody good film out of the history of RL in this world, the amount of s**t the sport has put up with

 

[Parra]

The problem is that under the peace treaty from 1998, News Ltd own the game until 2018. If we wait until 2018 to get rid of News we won't be able to negotiate a broadcast deal without News Ltd's conflict of interest until a 2023-2027 deal. We'll be dudded until then.

News know this so they have offered to leave now but will try to screw us for all their worth on the way out.

If "we" wait until 2018 then that's it. News Ltd are gone. No deals, no first and last .

If the IC in it's current form gets going then News Ltd effectively extend their influence to 2027 with a first and last rights clause.

If News want out then let them out under the same terms that they must leave in 2018. Anything else is bullshit.

 

[adamkungl]

It's just a contractural term which means that before any other bidders can vie for a property (i.e. the rugby league rights) that the seller must first receive a bid from the previous owner (in this case 9/Foxtel) based on the original terms of agreement (i.e. 3 games per week + finals + reps)

After that other bidders can enter the auction. However - in the case of first & last rights, the original bidder reserves the right to match the highest bid of any of the other competing parties.

In the NRL's F2A clause though it states that these rights are negated if a competing bidder exceeds 20% above the terms of the first bid. So say if 9 open with say $300 million and 7 counter with $361 million, then the last rights are negated and the original terms of agreement are no longer applicable.

What's good about that is that at that point, the NRL would no longer be obliged to inform 9 of what the other parties are bidding and so they would be required to estimate what would be a competitive bid which is to the NRL's advantage.

The best thing that could happen is that 9 & Foxtel put in their bid for the 8 games - then 7 & 10 (if they can put their mutual animosity aside) immediately out bid the first & last rights for the entire package (which is why it's so important to know what the new F&L rights foxtel agreement with IC will be).

In that way they not only dwindle their competitors' cash reserves - but it allows the game to be broken up with the networks fighting for individual pieces. Then at that point the NRL/IC can bring in potential new timeslots, a 9th game and changes to lead-ins and ad breaks that complicate the negotiations further. Under that scenario 9 & Foxtel would have to pull something big out of their hats in order to keep their current domination.

So what is the big negative of someone (ie News) having last rights if they are forced to match the highest bid anyway?

 

[Quidgybo]

The QRL has every right to keep control of the game in Queensland. They have every reason to fear a Sydney-centric NRL taking over across the board. The QRL does a great job in its jurisdiction. It runs a very successful second tier league, administers grassroots competitions that are growing, runs senior leagues across geographical areas most would struggle to comprehend and has an elite state side that beats the shit out of its bigger and more wealthy opponent year on year. The QRL is not the problem. It has the interestes of RL in Qld at heart.

Fine the QRL can keep doing all that if it wishes. But that doesn't mean the game's interests depends on the QRL's continued existence as a separate body. And it certainly doesn't mean the QRL has the sovereign right to lock out of Queensland any official Rugby League body that wishes to fund and grow the game in that or any other area. Such as an organization that might want to better fund the second tier in Australia.

Leigh

 

[docbrown]

So what is the big negative of someone (ie News) having last rights if they are forced to match the highest bid anyway?

Because the NRL are obliged to inform them the full details of a competitor's bid. They only have to match it, not increase it.

But without last rights - both sides are competiting against each other more fairly as they have to guess what the others will bid and it naturally lends itself to creating more competitive tension forcing the networks to pay overs.

Hopefully in order to break up the monopoly of rights, 7 &/or 10 can counteroffer 9's first bid and that way it's a fair fight. That would be 7's aim as they want to pick and choose what they broadcast, same possibly with 10, whereas 9 want the lot.

 

[Paul J]

If "we" wait until 2018 then that's it. News Ltd are gone. No deals, no first and last .

If the IC in it's current form gets going then News Ltd effectively extend their influence to 2027 with a first and last rights clause.

If News want out then let them out under the same terms that they must leave in 2018. Anything else is bullshit.

I agree, but i don't see how we can get News to leave for free.

 

[Parra]

Easy. Just wait.

 

[Parra]

You don't pay someone if they break a deal.

They should pay a penalty to get out early.

Instead, we have idiots advocating rewarding them.

 

[docbrown]

You don't pay someone if they break a deal.

Break a deal, spin the wheel...

 

[Quidgybo]

Easy. Just wait.

So you'd have another six years of the status quo. Same administration and leadership (Gallop, 50/50 News+ARL board), same conflicts of interest, same diverging priorities, same paralysis in decision making, same under selling, same slipping behind the competition financially. But supporting the status quo is fine. Just don't whinge about what we've got now if that's the situation you want the game to live with for the next six years.

Leigh

 

[applesauce]

Hey doc, what's the go if say 7 got the whole rights this time around. Do News still get first and last on the 2018+ deals if the 2027 F&L is actually still in play?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Fine the QRL can keep doing all that if it wishes. But that doesn't mean the game's interests depends on the QRL's continued existence as a separate body. And it certainly doesn't mean the QRL has the sovereign right to lock out of Queensland any official Rugby League body that wishes to fund and grow the game in that or any other area. Such as an organization that might want to better fund the second tier in Australia.

Leigh

Such an organisation doesn't exist. And won't ever exist. The QRL IS the governing body of RL in Qld and has always been so. The Sydney-based NRL cannot and will not do a better job at running the game in Qld. And as for the second tier, Qld has a good second tier. It's NSW that can't get its shit together. Killing off the QRL is only going to jeopardise the strength of the second tier comp there, not better it. Not that the second tier even rates as a significant issue compared to the top tier and its TV rights, grassroots football or interbational football.

 

[docbrown]

Hey doc, what's the go if say 7 got the whole rights this time around. Do News still get first and last on the 2018+ deals if the 2027 F&L is actually still in play?

It's hard to say because I don't know if that F&L rights deal to 2027 would be worded to precede any other deal that comes after it. My suspicion is that is precisely News Limited's intent.

For example -

The IC is formed. Foxtel get F&L rights through to 2027.

Then the auction happens. Say F2A gets all the games (not saying that's going to happen).

Then in 2017 - Foxtel get to put in the first bid again for subscription games and get to match any rival offer again.

That would be their intent.

First and last rights are a bad idea and giving them to News Limited for effectively the next 4 television deals is one of those BIG MISTAKES that years from now we'll be complaining about.

It must not happen.

 

[Parra]

So you'd have another six years of the status quo. Same administration and leadership (Gallop, 50/50 News+ARL board), same conflicts of interest, same diverging priorities, same paralysis in decision making, same under selling, same slipping behind the competition financially. But supporting the status quo is fine. Just don't whinge about what we've got now if that's the situation you want the game to live with for the next six years.

Leigh

Well Leigh it seems you are supporting all of the above plus an extra decade of News Ltd influence.

There is no slipping behind anything, no paralysis - that is just rhetorical crap. The only problem with RL is it's failure to reach it's true potential. Nothing else. And the IC as is being proposed will only extend that failure. And it is not a major failure at all.

 

[Quidgybo]

Such an organisation doesn't exist

Wait around a few more weeks.

The QRL IS the governing body of RL in Qld and has always been so.

The "it's always been this way so that's why it should always be this way" argument. Still doesn't change the fact the QRL has no sovereign right to lock out any official Rugby League body that might want to do something positive for the game in Queensland. That's self interest getting in the way of the interests of the game.

The Sydney-based NRL cannot and will not do a better job at running the game in Qld.

Rugby League in Cairns or Rockhampton can just as effectively be over seen from Sydney as Brisbane. Either way, it's just a video conference or short plane ride away to meet with the local volunteers and officers on the ground. The location of HQ is largely irrelevant in comparison to the quality of the people we have making the big decisions and the resources they have at their disposal. I'd have no problems with the ARLC being based in Brisbane instead of Sydney. This isn't a state vs state thing for me, it's about finding the most efficient and effective structure for Rugby League in Australia across the board.

Killing off the QRL is only going to jeopardise the strength of the second tier comp there, not better it.

The QRL doesn't have to be killed off if it doesn't want to (I still think it is an unnecessary duplication of executive and senior management). But it doesn't have the sovereign right to stop the Queensland second tier clubs or any other part of the game in Queensland dealing direct with the ARLC if they can get a better funding deal. Why would the QRL want the right to stop the second tier of Rugby League in Queensland from taking a better deal if one were offered? Simply because they might not control it.

The preservation of the QRL and more specifically the power positions in the QRL could be put ahead of the game's interests. That's the problem I have with enshrining their sovereignty over the game in Queensland. Even if they are the best structure for the game today, they might not be tomorrow or in 20 years. If the continuance of the QRL does provide the best structure then it will survive, if it doesn't then it shouldn't have its position in the structure artificially preserved.

Leigh

 

[Quidgybo]

The only problem with RL is it's failure to reach it's true potential.

And so you believe that six more years of the status quo with News Ltd continuing to own half the game is the best course for RL to reach its true potential.

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

As opposed to the option that you are supporting? Absolutely.

Allowing News Ltd to appoint any board members at all while they are not a stakeholder is unacceptable. Allowing News Ltd first and last bidding rights is unacceptable. Allowing David Gallop to hold any position at all when News Ltd is gone is unacceptable.

Why give this company control when they divest themselves of all interest and risk?

 

[Quidgybo]

As opposed to the option that you are supporting? Absolutely.

I didn't say anything about the option(s) I support. I said you believe the status quo with News continuing to own half the game is the best course for the game for the next six years. As such I don't expect to hear too many complaints from you about how the game is currently run nor about how it continues to be run if nothing changes. Because that's exactly what you want.

Leigh

 

[Parra]

No Leigh.

I would be happier if they left now.

But there is no way any concessions should be granted.


Bottom line is that the Eels need to go well. That is exactly what I want.


Now you can go back to putting words in your own mouth and not mine.

 

[Brutus]

As opposed to the option that you are supporting? Absolutely.

Allowing News Ltd to appoint any board members at all while they are not a stakeholder is unacceptable. Allowing News Ltd first and last bidding rights is unacceptable. Allowing David Gallop to hold any position at all when News Ltd is gone is unacceptable.

Why give this company control when they divest themselves of all interest and risk?

I agree with absolutely everything you say there.

How times have changed.