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

[Raiderdave]

Call me naive but surely the clubs wouldn't put the IC & TV rights in jeopardy by these games. Yes I agree the clubs could do with more funding but why cut off your nose to spite your face? We have all seen what SL did for AFL/Super 10. Do they want to give a huge boost for this new Western Sydney team? And why do I constantly have this overriding sense of anxiety about the greatgest game of all? Feck!

they're not

they are sick n tired .... as we all are , that the IC is to be delayed again
News Ltd continue to play games & the clubs are taking drastic action to ensure further delays are minimal at best.

they have not signed any agreement to play in the 2012 comp & are not contractually bound to the NRL as a result
they may say
we'll only sign a new contract with the new IC.... not the NRL

 

[LeagueXIII]

True, it amazes me how people fall for the News Ltd lines against the clubs and ARL.

News has been screwing league since the 90's.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t-8m-club-demand/story-e6frg7mf-1226171119752

NRL partners reject $8m club demand

by: Stuart Honeysett
From: The Australian
October 20, 2011 12:00AM

THE game will have to come up with yet another date for the independent commission to take over, with the NRL partnership committee planning to meet clubs on November 1 to resolve a funding impasse - the same day the new governing body was meant to be sworn into power.

The partnership committee - which controls the financial arm of the game - met yesterday to discuss a demand from the clubs to prop up their own coffers by asking the NRL to go into debt by $8 million before flatly refusing them.

That means another date will come and go for the formation of the commission - it had been forecast the game's new administration would be up and running last year.

The clubs last week asked for a sustainability grant of $2.15m to complement their existing grant of $3.85m and have baulked at signing agreements to play in the competition until the funding issue is resolved.

They met again on Monday and proposed the NRL could meet their demands if they gave them each a $500,000 special purpose grant - which would require the game to take out a $8m loan - and $1.6m media rights bonus to be paid at the end of next year when the next broadcast deal is done.

Until the independent commission assumes power, financial decisions about the game must be made by the game's current owner the Australian Rugby League and News Limited (publisher of The Australian).

The partnership committee consists of three directors from the ARL - John Chalk, John McDonald and Colin Love - and three from News - Peter Macourt, Ian Philip and Stephen Loosley.

It is understood the decision not to plunge the game into debt to service the clubs' financial problems was unanimous.

The six men were unwilling to lumber the commission with any pre-existing deal to give the clubs a bonus once the media rights deal is negotiated. It is estimated the next deal could net the code up to $1.4 billion.

"The partnership committee made a unanimous decision today that it would not be prepared to borrow money to fund increased grants to the clubs, nor would the partnership committee entertain a commitment to make a pre-payment of television revenue that is yet to be negotiated," a statement said.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-idea-to-raise-club-funds-20111019-1m876.html

NRL rejects loan idea to raise club funds
Greg Prichard
October 20, 2011

THE battle between the NRL and the clubs over funding will come to a head next week, after a meeting of the league's partnership committee yesterday rejected calls for a massive increase to the grant for next year.

A media release issued on behalf of the committee by the NRL made it clear that finding just an extra $200,000 for each of the 16 clubs to lift the grant to $3.85 million for next year was a difficult rather than straightforward process.

The clubs were looking for an increase from $3.85 million to $6 million, or, alternatively, they wanted the league to take out a bank loan of $8 million and give the clubs $500,000 each. But it is clear the committee has no intention of authorising anything like that.

''As a first step, the partnership committee examined the draft operating budget for the game in 2012 and has asked the NRL to revise the budget so that the current proposed increase of $200,000 per club can be accommodated to allow a grant of $3.85 million,'' the release read.

''The partnership committee made a unanimous decision today that it would not be prepared to borrow money to fund increased grants to the clubs, nor would the partnership committee entertain a commitment to make a pre-payment of television revenue that is yet to be negotiated.''

When asked by the Herald if he could elaborate on the meeting, John Chalk, an ARL representative on the committee, replied: ''Read the press release, it's all in there. I haven't got any further comment to make.''

Said Wests Tigers chairman Dave Trodden: ''The press release needs proper consideration before we respond.''

The clubs are likely to say more today, but, obviously, they would be angry with the decision. Club chairmen and chief executives will meet on Monday, and the release said the partnership committee would call a meeting with clubs for Tuesday.

 

[rednblack]

The IC has to have total authority otherwise it simply will not work.... yet now we hear the Chairmen of the clubs are setting up another body 'to represent the clubs' .. when thats exactly what the IC is meant to be for. Its utter madness!

The IC is not meant "to represent the clubs" as you claim. The IC's role will be to administer the game itself, FOR (not on BEHALF OF) any and all parties involved (including the clubs, but also the players, sponsors, stadia and media interests). They will be the central body, dealing with all these satellite bodies.

The players are represented by the RLPA. I see no valid reason why the clubs shouldn't have their own lobby group to campaign the IC on the issues directly affecting the clubs themselves, so long as the IC still retain overall control.

 

[Perth Red]

The IC needs to be for the good of the GAME, not just the NRL clubs. How will the other bodies operate ie NSWRL,QRL,WARL etc. Will they continue as is with just the funding changing to be from the IC instead of the ARL or will they change their structures/decision making to fit a national IC strategy for the game I wonder?

 

[Quidgybo]

Those bodies will be able to apply to the ARLC for grants (just as each club gets a grant). The Commission will be able to fund the proposals they see as best for the game to whatever level they see fit (within their means). And they'll be able to attach any conditions they like to such grants to ensure they will be spent and administered as the ARLC thinks best for the game. Draw your own picture from there.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

Battle betwee the ARL and clubs is hotting up

RUGBY league's civil war reached boiling point last night with NRL clubs plotting a boycott of peace talks with News Limited and the ARL.

The Daily Telegraph last night obtained an email revealing the clubs' next step in an increasingly hostile battle for more funding from the NRL partnership committee.

Apart from shattering all hope of the Independent Commission forming any time soon, the immediate future of the NRL competition is now hazy at best.

As outlined in the email from Wests Tigers director Dave Trodden to club bosses, the clubs have declared they:

WILL steadfastly refuse to sign club agreements to play in any competition next season unless their demands for increased funding are met;

ARE "deeply concerned and disappointed by the conduct of the ARL" for failing to defend them in recent negotiations with News Limited;

WILL boycott a meeting set down for next Tuesday with News and the ARL to find a solution to the current stalemate.

News Limited chief operating officer Peter Macourt was expected to read the riot act to the clubs at that meeting for asking the NRL partnership to take out an $8 million bank loan next year, as well as a $1.6 million advance per club on the next television broadcast rights deal.

Trodden told The Daily Telegraph yesterday he did not want to speculate on what measures the clubs were prepared to take if they did not receive extra funding.

But his email to the other 15 club chairmen sent later in the day lifts the lid on how far they are prepared to dig in.

He says that "until funding for the 2012 season and beyond is at a level that assures the clubs' sustainability ... no new contractual arrangements should be entered into".

He adds that "if no tangible progress is made on the clubs' request, there is no purpose" in meeting with the NRL partnership next week.

The email also takes aim squarely at Colin Love, John Chalk and John McDonald - the ARL's representatives on the partnership committee - for failing to represent their best interests.

"The clubs remain deeply concerned and disappointed by the conduct of the ARL in its capacity in recent negotiations as representatives of the clubs on the NRL partnership," Trodden said in the email. "The clubs will be asked to consider all future options on their relationship with the ARL."

Privately, many club powerbrokers are baffled that the NRL will not take out a bank loan to give each club a $500,000 payment next year.

A $6 million bank loan was approved in May last year to help fund the game's new $19 million admin building at Moore Park, but the NRL ended up using money in cash reserves.

The clubs believe if the NRL had access to those funds then, why not now. Trodden said: "The NRL wanted to pay for the building out of cash surpluses that would otherwise be used to do other things - like fund clubs."

NRL boss David Gallop said that was a matter for News Limited and the ARL.

"The clubs will need to discuss with the partnership committee if they desire that unused bank facility be activated for the purpose of providing an uplift in the club grants," he said. "Clearly, the game expects a big increase in revenue in 2013 and certainly in my view the clubs will be major beneficiaries of that increase in revenue.

"If any club was seriously facing liquidation prior to the TV being done, then I'm sure the game's governing body, whether it's the partnership or the new commission, would look seriously at any funding request."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...bs-is-hotting-up/story-e6frexnr-1226172294417

One particular bit resonated with me;

ARE "deeply concerned and disappointed by the conduct of the ARL" for failing to defend them in recent negotiations with News Limited;

The ARL are a bunch of soft c**ks -the limp wristed organisation is responsible for News getting away with blue murder over the last 10 years. News are evil and the ARL is impotent. No wonder the clubs are taking matters into their own hands.

 

[Goddo]

More from the SMH. The clubs are right. Why should the financial model of the game leave them short changed? AFL clubs get between $8-11M from their TV deal depending on the extras they qualify for. They are being short changed, and have to make up the operating loss through pokies.

News Ltd are paying bargain basement prices for the game and have no right to be involved in the administration of a sport.
The ARL is weak and inefectual, so long as they get their juicy $8M cut each year. A lot of that ends up in the pockets of the rediculous number of administrators across the ARL/NSWRL/QRL. Some years they take a lot more than that, and they completely neglect the clubs, a part of the game they are ment to represent.

Both have to go asap, and the clubs need to be paid more.

NRL and clubs at impasse over funds

NRL clubs have called for the partnership committee to provide a funding alternative to ensure their survival after it rejected a proposal for the league to borrow money as well as paying forward television money to increase annual grants next season.

With News Ltd and the ARL saying the game cannot afford to lift the annual grant to each club from $3.85 million to $6 million, the clubs had suggested the NRL take out an $8 million bank loan and advance money from the next television deal.

However, the partnership committee ruled out either option at a meeting on Wednesday.

The 16 clubs will discuss the response at a gathering on Monday before a meeting with the partnership committee the following day but News Ltd representatives have already indicated, through the company's newspapers, that they are not keen to enter into negotiations.

Wests Tigers director David Trodden, who is the spokesman for the clubs, said something needed to be done to make the clubs financially sustainable after 15 of the 16 indicated they would make an operating loss this season.

''There has to be a recognition at some stage that the funding issue has to be addressed,'' Trodden said. ''It is not going to go away, and the clubs can't afford to let it go away because it goes to the very heart of their existence. If it goes to the very heart of their existence then it goes to the very heart of the existence of the game.''

Until the issue is resolved, the NRL clubs refuse to sign licence agreements to play next season.

It also threatens to hold up the formation of the independent commission as News Ltd and the ARL will not hand over control of the game on November 1 without the clubs committing to play in the competition.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-over-funds-20111020-1mafi.html#ixzz1bMEQlemx

 

[BuffaloRules]

Wests Tigers director David Trodden, who is the spokesman for the clubs, said something needed to be done to make the clubs financially sustainable after 15 of the 16 indicated they would make an operating loss this season.

''There has to be a recognition at some stage that the funding issue has to be addressed,'' Trodden said. ''It is not going to go away, and the clubs can't afford to let it go away because it goes to the very heart of their existence. If it goes to the very heart of their existence then it goes to the very heart of the existence of the game.''

Until the issue is resolved, the NRL clubs refuse to sign licence agreements to play next season.

Trodden told The Daily Telegraph yesterday he did not want to speculate on what measures the clubs were prepared to take if they did not receive extra funding.

Wests Tigers have just sent me my membership renewal for 2012...

Do you think I should wait until they sign the new agreement to ensure that they will be part of the competition next year?

 

[taipan]

That's the point.Why sign a membership renewal,if the clubs won't sign,and there is uncertianty for 2012.Some of these club officials need to smell the roses.They are going to look right royal dipsticks if fans won't renew due to uncertainty.:crazy:

 

[Ray Mosters]

In the 22nd hour of labour, we have complications that require emergency surgery.

 

[PB]

Maybe the clubs are trying to get what they can before the I.C. is in place,knowing full well they won't be able to dictate terms,once it is in operation.
The club CEOs and chairmen must have rocks in their collective heads,if they think the NRL partnership will agree to establishing debt,prior to the i.C ,running the game.
The clubs have operated so far under tight condtions for years,another 12 months is not going to send them to the wall.
All they are succeeding in doing is delaying the i.C start up.They can all well and truly get knotted.

They sure do, that is why the majority of them are incapable of running a sustainable business. They should be looking in their own backyards and sorting out their own business practices. Getting a handout is obviosuly a lot easier than developing your own business plans that is why these lazy CEO's are complaining...

If the clubs want to know how to make things more sustainable, it is culling some of them - particularly the Sydney clubs! But they won't want that either. I completly support the establishment on not bowing to the club CEO's.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...oubled-nrl-clubs/story-e6frg7mf-1226172277309

Help plan for troubled NRL clubs

by: Brent Read
From: The Australian
October 21, 2011 12:00AM

NRL chief executive David Gallop has provided the game's cash-strapped clubs with an assurance that the governing body will consider emergency funding for any team that strikes troubled waters in the next 12 months.

Representatives from the clubs will meet on Monday to discuss their next step after their demand for increased funding next season was rejected by the NRL partnership committee, made up of representatives from the game's co-owners News Limited and the Australian Rugby League.

A further meeting will be held on Tuesday with the partnership committee over the clubs' push for a sizeable increase in their grants next season --an additional $34 million in funding.

The NRL has insisted the money is simply not there, although the clubs reacted to that by tabling a proposal that would have resulted in the bulk of that money being provided once the game's next television deal was finalised.

Yesterday, the clubs dragged the NRL's new administrative headquarters -- due to be completed later this year -- into the bunfight. Clubs spokesman David Trodden, a director of Wests Tigers, pointed out the game had ploughed money into the NRL's future home, adjacent to the Sydney Football Stadium, when it could have been used to aid clubs.

The building cost $19 million, although the bulk of that money came from taxpayers.

The NRL chose to pay for the difference with its cash reserves, preferring to use its own money rather than take advantage of a pre-approved $6m bank loan.

Trodden suggested the NRL could have used the loan and instead directed the cash to the struggling clubs. Gallop rejected that notion yesterday but said his administration would consider helping any club that found itself in financial trouble next year.

"The building is primarily being funded with government money," Gallop said.

"The bank did approve a loan for the balance but ultimately we could afford to fund that balance without a loan. If the clubs wish to convince the partnership committee to reactivate that loan for the purpose of paying the clubs, then they will get the opportunity to do that at the meeting on Tuesday.

"We all know more money is going to come into the game for the 2013 season and the clubs and players will be major beneficiaries of that.

"In the meantime if any club is in serious trouble the game's governing body will look closely at their plight and consider emergency funding.

"At this stage no club has come to us in a dire position."

Trodden said the clubs were also disappointed the partnership committee had rejected their latest request for financial aid by issuing a press release.

He said the clubs would formulate their next step at the meeting on Monday, the same day the NSW Rugby League will hold a meeting which could have repercussions for the ARL.

 

[Perth Red]

Smacks of incompetence to me that you would have club agreements to play in a comp that are not in kilter with the length of the TV deal. Surely the clubs should have had to sign up till 2013 so that the TV contract could be honoured?

The answer seems simple to me, offer the clubs a guaranteed $6mill a year from 2013 onwards IF the deal reaches $1bill. Anything over the bill and they get a % cut of. If clubs need to borrow money in 2012 from banks or loan sharks then they can with the promise of the new income as collateral. If clubs can't be self sustaining with a $3.8mill grant against a $5mill salary cap then they should take a look in the mirror rather than be blaming the NRL, they knew what this TV deal was and what income they would get from it until 2013. If they haven;t been able to run their business within that then it is their own faults, stop employing 200 staff and make some savings!

 

[siv]

How can clubs sign up with the NRL when the ARLC will be up and running from Nov 1

 

[bobmar28]

The IC should be up and running by Nov 1. Isn't there some savings associated with that? If there is any cash available then give the clubs an advance payment. I wouldn't support borrowing money to give it to the clubs because in 2013 they will probably be getting a 6 million grant.

 

[BuffaloRules]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...game-in-long-run/story-e6frg7mf-1226173525835

NRL clubs funding feud 'hurting' game in long run

THE media consultant advising the code over the next broadcast deal has warned that the ongoing funding dispute between the clubs and the NRL could hurt the game in the long run.
LEK Consultancy senior adviser Colin Smith pleaded for the bickering to end yesterday as it emerged the impasse between the warring parties could continue with clubs planning to boycott a meeting on Tuesday with the game's owners, the Australian Rugby League and News Limited.
"I've been working now with the NRL, in terms of its media rights, for the last 2 1/2 years and there are things sometimes that the sport doesn't help itself on," Smith said.
"We need to get this process started sooner (rather) than later because in the next season we're into a new rights deal.
"There is really significant upside at the moment and there are a lot of exciting things happening out there -- it's probably the best season the NRL has ever had in terms of television audiences being up, attendance numbers are up and State of Origin is up. All of these things are really positive.
"But, frankly, the process is quite complex and one needs to get started sooner than later."
It is understood NRL chief executive David Gallop spoke to South Sydney chairman Nicholas Pappas yesterday -- who along with Wests Tigers David Trodden has been driving the clubs' agenda -- and encouraged him to make sure Tuesday's meeting is attended.
The clubs have been seeking a $2.15 million sustainability grant to complement their annual $3.85m grant -- a move which would effectively require the NRL to come up with an additional $34m a season -- and outlined a blueprint for the game to meet their demands this week.
They involve the NRL taking out an $8m loan to pay each club a $500,000 special-purpose grant as well as guaranteeing each club would get a $1.6m bonus at the end of next season when the next media rights deal is negotiated.
The NRL partnership committee, which controls the financial arm of the game, met on Wednesday and rejected both demands, refusing risk, putting the game into debt and not wanting to hand the game over to an independent commission with any pre-existing guarantees in place.
The commission was expected to take charge of the next TV rights contract but has been forced to sit in limbo while the dispute plays out and chairman-in-waiting John Grant has conceded the game's new governing body could miss the target date of November 1.
Smith admitted the clubs' demands were making his job to start the negotiations tough.
"The delay of the commission not being formed is not helpful because we've got a lot of work to do and it's not going to be a walk in the park," Smith said.
"We've got Christmas and New Year coming up soon and the country will take their summer holidays like you and I will.
"We could end up having 11 months to get this deal done and that is really short. I would like everyone to get this thing up and running, get the new commission started and let's get out there.
"We're ready to start moving."
While Smith was diplomatic, several other sources told The Weekend Australian the clubs' behaviour was making the code look desperate and amateurish to prospective media partners.

 

[Perth Red]

Out of interest why is the clubs demands delaying the IC? Surely the ARL and News can be signing on the dotted line and don't need the clubs to sign anything do they?

 

[bluesbreaker]

clubs should split away from both the arl and news limited. i'll still support the newcastle crusaders.