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

[Brutus]

The ARL had a lot of say in the commissioners, i know you are on a "news limited control everything and we are fuc*ed" routine but lets use facts.

ARL and News choose the commissioners 50/50, if any one commissioner doesn't do his/her job, the other commissioners will get rid of that person. News Wanted Williamson but was stopped by the ARL.



.

What do you think "doing a good job" in News LTD's eyes would be?

Rorting rugby league again during the next broadcast deal? I think so.

That is their main aim.

 

[BDGS]

What do you think "doing a good job" in News LTD's eyes would be?

Rorting rugby league again during the next broadcast deal? I think so.

That is their main aim.

When did i say "doing a good job" in that post?

Are you bringing up an old argument, equip with new information or something?

 

[Brutus]

When did i say "doing a good job" in that post?

Are you bringing up an old argument, equip with new information or something?

What do you think News LTD would consider doing a good job on IC would be?

 

[BDGS]

What do you think News LTD would consider doing a good job on IC would be?

I don't know anyone up the ranks in News limited but i would think they want to serivce themselves.

However, the ARL has done a good job in getting the right people on board.

I'm guessing, but i would think News Limited would of been against Quayle, but the ARL did a great job in stopping Williamson getting on the IC and others that News wanted.

 

[TheRam]

New idea: lets get every NRL club and all the bid teams to sign a non-compete clause for 25 years.

If you want to be a franchise, you have to sign it.

It's pretty simple really, isn't it. Champion idea.

 

[TheRam]

Or signing all registered players to the NRL(ARL) exclusively if they choose to play RL in Australia.

 

[docbrown]

Or signing all registered players to the NRL(ARL) exclusively if they choose to play RL in Australia.

That too.

And when the salary cap goes up, the NRL should pay the increase to the players themselves rather than through the club - but withhold that payment until their retirement.

Anyone who switches codes or signs with a rebel comp would automatically lose that money and it would be given to grassroots.

 

[griff]

The ARL signed all the clubs to a 5 year loyalty agreement in 1994. That was ruled invalid as a breach of the trade practices act. That's how super league eventually was allowed to go ahead. Signing the clubs (two of which are owned by news, so wouldn't sign anyway) up to a 25 year loyalty agreement would have the same result.

 

[docbrown]

The ARL signed all the clubs to a 5 year loyalty agreement in 1994. That was ruled invalid as a breach of the trade practices act. That's how super league eventually was allowed to go ahead. Signing the clubs (two of which are owned by news, so wouldn't sign anyway) up to a 25 year loyalty agreement would have the same result.

I remember that but it's a whole new ball game now.

The difference being that the clubs are now in direct control of the actual governing body under the IC. Any club that breaks away from that agreement to form a rival competition that would hurt the other parties would be doing so using inside information - which also falls under the Trade Practices Act from my understanding.

They would in effect be responsible for any financial losses incurred to the existing body.

Edit: I should add I'm definitely not a lawyer but that's my understanding of the TPA - if there's someone on the site with some legal knowledge I'd be interested to know.

 

[Parra]

Any kind of proof, other than conspiracy theories? (That the IC is a bad thing)

No-one is saying that some sort of admin change is a bad thing. This implementation has been done for the wrong reasons and includes some unacceptable clauses which limit the sport for a lot longer than the original NRL deal.

 

[Parra]

The ARL had a lot of say in the commissioners, i know you are on a "news limited control everything and we are fuc*ed" routine but lets use facts.

ARL and News choose the commissioners 50/50, if any one commissioner doesn't do his/her job, the other commissioners will get rid of that person. News Wanted Williamson but was stopped by the ARL.



Good idea.

The squabbles over the names of the commissioners took all the attention off the demands that News Ltd have managed to include. The commissioners will come and go, but first and last TV rights, other clubs having to prop up Melbourne and the CEO are here to stay for set-times. In the case of the most important issue from a financial perspective - TV rights - News have extended their exclusive interests significantly. There is nothing independent about a commission that has to work with it's hands tied on these issues.

 

[Quidgybo]

The squabbles over the names of the commissioners took all the attention off the demands that News Ltd have managed to include. The commissioners will come and go, but first and last TV rights, other clubs having to prop up Melbourne and the CEO are here to stay for set-times.

In other words, those things will come and go too.

In the case of the most important issue from a financial perspective - TV rights - News have extended their exclusive interests significantly. There is nothing independent about a commission that has to work with it's hands tied on these issues.

So in five or six years when the Storm funding condition expires the Commission will be more independent, right? And more independent again when the first and last expire. Eventually we get there and in the meantime we don't have News sitting on our board. That's better than the status quo and zero progress for another six years and an arguably open ended period after that.

Leigh

 

[Parra]

In other words, those things will come and go too.


So in five or six years when the Storm funding condition expires the Commission will be more independent, right? And more independent again when the first and last expire. Eventually we get there and in the meantime we don't have News sitting on our board. That's better than the status quo and zero progress for another six years and an arguably open ended period after that.

Leigh

News Ltd have extended their influence with this deal. Which is good for people who enjoy that influence, but not so impressive for people who don't.

It is that simple.

 

[Quidgybo]

No-one is saying that some sort of admin change is a bad thing. This implementation has been done for the wrong reasons and includes some unacceptable clauses which limit the sport for a lot longer than the original NRL deal.

This 2018 nirvana where News just walk away is a total fantasy. We'll be in the exact same horse trade then (but six years poorer for it), because News simply don't have to walk until they've been paid back the money they put into the game post Super League (reportedly something like $200m). They'll simply argue that as they've taken $8m per year and sunk that straight back into propping up the Storm, they've actually been paid none of that back yet and so don't have to leave without a deal. Cue horse trade involving first and last and funding for the Storm, or massive legal battle between the NRL partners. All while the status quo remains in the game's administration.

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

This 2018 nirvana where News just walk away is a total fantasy. We'll be in the exact same horse trade then (but six years poorer for it), because News simply don't have to walk until they've been paid back the money they put into the game post Super League (reportedly something like $200m). They'll simply argue that as they've taken $8m per year and sunk that straight back into propping up the Storm, they've actually been paid none of that back yet and so don't have to leave without a deal. Cue horse trade involving first and last and funding for the Storm, or massive legal battle between the NRL partners. All while the status quo remains in the game's administration.

Leigh.

No horse trading. The NRL deal ends and News leave.


Hence the need for a new commission before that day arrives.

And they got it.

 

[Quidgybo]

Actually $130m according to Roy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/h...1173166982379.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

The key point of that article is that News have to leave at some time after the earlier of 2018 or when the $130m is repaid but the actual date is not defined and is open to argument...

Published accounts of "new investment" at the time of the peace treaty put the sum at $130 million and News Ltd has drawn $8m a year out of NRL profits most years, meaning the time frame for repayment will be approximately 20 years.

But if money paid by News Ltd to the North Queensland, Melbourne and Canberra clubs to keep them competitive is counted as "new investment", the 20-year withdrawal is expected to come sooner.

No finite term is attached to withdrawal from the partnership board in the clause "at some time after the earlier of those dates". ARL sources claim News Ltd is using this vagueness to remain in the NRL forever.

When the exit clause was put to Love, a lawyer, he said: "I was not involved in the negotiations at the time but I think any reasonable person would have to interpret the clause as meaning within a 'reasonable' time after the earlier of the two dates, otherwise the clause would be meaningless and/or illusory."

Cue lawyers at 30 paces and the beginnings of the horse trading to cut a deal. Whether it's now or 2018, there is simply no way News walk away with no kind of exit deal that somehow advantages them. It's a fantasy, stop living it.

We have on the table right now an agreement that leads to an immediate exit for News from the game's boardroom and a progressive expiry of all further conditions on definite dates. The alternative is another six years or more of the status quo followed by some sort of deal anyway.

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

2007 :A News Ltd spokesman said in answer to a series of Herald questions: "News has no plans to exit the NRL. We are working to make rugby league as popular and prosperous as ever."

Only four years later:

2011: exit strategy almost complete. With strings attached. All interest, no responsibility.




Well if the people who touted this have the sport's interests at heart it will be good to see the clauses that guarantee junior funding and expansion and provide the framework for getting the CRL back to where it was before super league came along and nearly killed it.

These details must exist - if News Ltd could not trust the IC to get it right without iron-clad clauses then whey should junior leagues or country footy extend such trust?

 

[Quidgybo]

Way to change the subject. Can I assume we've now put the "all we have to do is wait for News to just walk with no strings in 2018" argument to rest?

Leigh

 

[griff]

Way to change the subject. Can I assume we've now put the "all we have to do is wait for News just walk with no strings in 2018" argument to rest?

Leigh

Not really, it was at the earlier of 20 years or the repayment of the "investment" whichever comes first.

Obviously after Roy asked news those questions they got advice that they couldn't walk away from that commitment and therefore went to plan b, the independent commission.

 

[Quidgybo]

Not really, it was at the earlier of 20 years or the repayment of the "investment" whichever comes first.

No, it's an unspecified time after the earlier of those two.

There is no definite date when they have to leave, that's the problem. We now have a proposal with definite dates on the table. News exit the boardroom immediately with the guarantee of Storm funding lasting another five or six years, and first and last expiring on a set date after that. Yes, it's a compromise but it's a delusion to think there won't have to be some sort of deal to bring this situation to a close.

The News leopard won't change its spots just because it's 2018. If we learnt nothing more from Super League, we learnt how much weight News put in contracts and legal agreements. They won't suddenly turn Mr Nice Guy just because a peice of paper suggests they should and they certainly won't leave without getting some final advantage for News out of the exit agreement. They'll happily stretch it out for years in the court room until they get the settlement they want.

All waiting will do is keep News in the game's corridors of power for another six or more years, with much the same horse trade occurring there after. In the meantime, News keep pulling the strings directly for their own benefit, screwing us out of much needed funding for yet another TV cycle and probably the one after that too.

Leigh