RLEF funding boost

[The Great Dane]

I think the fear is that if other nations get stronger in League, they will develop their own professional competitions which will grow larger than the NRL. Meaning the NRL is no longer the premiere Rugby League competition it is. Which is a fair fear. If the USA got a professional Rugby League competition, it wouldn't take very much for that competition to be bigger than the NRL. Due to the economic power of the US compared to Australia.

I get the feeling that a majority of League fans want us to have the same international footprint as Union. Similar competitiveness. Which would be good. But I think the majority of NRL fans fear that the NRL will become something along the lines of Super Rugby. Which just won't happen. Super Rugby is weak because of the NRL exists.

The NRL is currently the biggest and richest domestic Rugby competition in the world. If all of Union died and became League, that wouldn't change. They're already a competition for our players and sponsors and TV rights. We're winning by a huge margin.

I would like to see the NRL put in a certain sum of money to the RLIF or APRL, but I can also see why they don't. They are the AUSTRALIAN governing body. They could give a million to the APRL or to, for example, Western Australia NRL. It's pretty clear who their priority is. And fair enough too.

It's not Union that is the threat it is league it's self.

If the interest in the international game grows to quickly (to lets say roughly Origin levels in Australia) the value of the rights to broadcast internationals will balloon, if interest has grown in internationals then that means that SOO's appeal will be eroded (because it'll be seen as a less significant competition and there for less interesting to viewers) just like SOO eroded interest in CvsC catastrophically and to an extent they both eroded interest in the NRL.

When that happens, as the viewership for internationals goes up and the viewership for both SOO and the NRL starts to go down the value of internationals rights will go up and the value of SOO and NRL will drop, at which point the NRL will slowly lose it's current income from broadcasting rights, that money will have been shared between multiple RL boards across the world.

At that point the NRL will start to lose the capacity to fund the NRL to the standards that it did in the past and it will have to make cuts to it's spending to accommodate the smaller income, which will mean that the clubs get smaller grants and the salary cap will shrink (among many other funding cuts) and when that happens the clubs will not be able to pay the players as much as they once did.

When the clubs can't afford to pay the million dollar salaries that the players would now be used to the player will start to look else where to fund their lifestyles, which means that they'll look to french and Japanese RU and maybe other places like the NFL.

Maybe the NRL decides to do what the ARU does and tops up roughly 20-25 of the top players contracts to keep them playing for the Kangaroos, but they'll only do that for kangaroos players not Samoan, Kiwi, Fijian, Tongan, etc players and appart from maybe the Kiwis and English none of the other RL's will be able to make up the difference unless they found successful domestic competition of a similar value to the NRL and ESL (and even then the Kiwis would be a dodgy prospect considering that at the moment the ARLC basically funds their existence).

At that point the quality of international RL starts to drop because there simply isn't the talent to support all the teams in the game anymore, then interest in international RL either peaks out (Like union has) or starts to drop, who knows at that point there's no precedence (at least none that I know of), but I'd suggest that in Australia at least it would start to drop because it'd put a bunch of the best Australian rugby players suddenly within the ARUs financial reach again which would see them pick up a few more of the top rugby players every generation of players which would effect both the Wallabies and Kangaroos performances which would greatly effect interest in the codes in Australia as the success' of each team fluctuate.

 

[The Great Dane]

Because a stronger international scene will benefit the domestic scenes..

If we can get the usa upto a decent level can you imagine how much us tv would pay for NRL tv rights?...more than the give away price they get now!

Canada...south africa....the same

Its a long game...probably won't see the benefits for 10,15,20 years...but thats how we have to think.

More then they do now, but still f##k all in the grand scheme of things.

If RL suddenly took of in the Americas they'd be interested in local content and would produce their own content, not invest in content from the other side of the world.

Just like they did with soccer and are slowly starting to do with RU.

RL taking off in the USA would be huge for the sport of RL, but it wouldn't really benefit the ESL or the NRL.

 

[The Great Dane]

I pretty much answered you're first couple of paragraphs in a post to Last Week, so I cut them to save time and shorten the post.

Why do you think RU has the cash? Do you think they are able to constantly poach top RL players based on their pitiful domestic attendances and viewing figures, which are dwarfed by RL even in the UK?

At the moment no, I don't think they can compete with the NRL for players, not regularly anyway.

But once you bottom out the NRL's income they'll be able to on a much more regular basis.

Nobody is asking them to invest a billion dollars. For the third time, the 'game-changing' investment that the RLEF received is equivalent to 0.04% of the NRL's TV deal. They could invest 20x that amount and still not even reach 1% of their total TV revenue. So don't give me any bullshit about the NRL not being able to afford to help.

I see.

Have you ever left out food for a stray cat?

You do it once then it comes back every night looking for food, so you start leaving out more food to make sure it gets fed, then other cats start to follow it and eat the food you were leaving out for it as well, so you leave out more and more food so you can feed all the cats in the hopes of keeping them happy and healthy.

Then it starts to get out of hand and you can't afford to keep doing it, so you stop leaving the food out for the cats in the hopes that they'll go away, but they've become reliant on the food you were providing to survive so they start to starve and die because they can no longer look after themselves.

That's why you don't feed the stray cats.

I suggest that instead of feeding the strays that the NRL adopts them one by one as they can afford to do so, so that all the cats can live long and healthy lives. And that's what has been happening and it's working, slowly, but working none the less.

The NRL adopted the NZRL in the 90's and now it's bigger and stronger than it has ever been and doesn't need as much help as it once did, so the NRL can afford to adopt some more so they have started to adopt the PIs and their group of adopted children are slowly growing bigger and stronger then they ever have been.

If you want to use an analogy, what we have currently is a billionaire with a mansion in a town where everyone else is living in poverty in clay huts with no access to running water or electricity. And instead of doing anything to help the community or improve conditions, the billionaire is just sitting around in his mansion doing nothing and then wondering why nobody ever wants to come to visit.

But that's not what's happening is it!

The billionaire is sharing his resources with the poor, but he's only sharing as much as he can afford and he's not just giving handouts, he's helping get people up on their feet and off the streets.

Your problem is that you feel that he is doing it to slowly and that he isn't sharing with the people you would share with if you were in his shoes.

What you fail to understand is that his riches aren't as stable as you think they are, a bit of bad luck or a couple of mistakes and he could be out on the streets with everybody else and his big mansion is old and dilapidated and needs a lot of work done to it as well to stop it caving in on him. So he can't afford to just throw a million here and a million there willy nilly and with no hopes of a return for his investment.

 

[deal.with.it]

Tas Batieri's xmas message says a lot about what the nrl is doing in the pacific.
It's a sustainable approach: open offices in each nation, employ development staff, start working in the schools, get gov funding, support the NGB.

If the NRL gave the RLIF a heap of money, we'd probably see bog Nige appoint Ukraine as hosts of the next WC and watch the money disappear without a trace.

In all honesty, I'm not sure the best method.

 

[Last Week]

It's not Union that is the threat it is league it's self.

If the interest in the international game grows to quickly (to lets say roughly Origin levels in Australia) the value of the rights to broadcast internationals will balloon, if interest has grown in internationals then that means that SOO's appeal will be eroded (because it'll be seen as a less significant competition and there for less interesting to viewers) just like SOO eroded interest in CvsC catastrophically and to an extent they both eroded interest in the NRL.

When that happens, as the viewership for internationals goes up and the viewership for both SOO and the NRL starts to go down the value of internationals rights will go up and the value of SOO and NRL will drop, at which point the NRL will slowly lose it's current income from broadcasting rights, that money will have been shared between multiple RL boards across the world.

At that point the NRL will start to lose the capacity to fund the NRL to the standards that it did in the past and it will have to make cuts to it's spending to accommodate the smaller income, which will mean that the clubs get smaller grants and the salary cap will shrink (among many other funding cuts) and when that happens the clubs will not be able to pay the players as much as they once did.

When the clubs can't afford to pay the million dollar salaries that the players would now be used to the player will start to look else where to fund their lifestyles, which means that they'll look to french and Japanese RU and maybe other places like the NFL.

Maybe the NRL decides to do what the ARU does and tops up roughly 20-25 of the top players contracts to keep them playing for the Kangaroos, but they'll only do that for kangaroos players not Samoan, Kiwi, Fijian, Tongan, etc players and appart from maybe the Kiwis and English none of the other RL's will be able to make up the difference unless they found successful domestic competition of a similar value to the NRL and ESL (and even then the Kiwis would be a dodgy prospect considering that at the moment the ARLC basically funds their existence).

At that point the quality of international RL starts to drop because there simply isn't the talent to support all the teams in the game anymore, then interest in international RL either peaks out (Like union has) or starts to drop, who knows at that point there's no precedence (at least none that I know of), but I'd suggest that in Australia at least it would start to drop because it'd put a bunch of the best Australian rugby players suddenly within the ARUs financial reach again which would see them pick up a few more of the top rugby players every generation of players which would effect both the Wallabies and Kangaroos performances which would greatly effect interest in the codes in Australia as the success' of each team fluctuate.

I mean this in the least offensive way possible. I apologise in advance.

But it's hard to take this post seriously as you have essentially typed a huge "what if" scenario.

But I'll say this again. The stronger our international game gets doesn't necessarily mean a weaker domestic comp here in Australia. My point proving that is that we are already competing against a strong international game in Rugby Union, and our domestic game is strong still.

If Union changed its rules to League rules, with all Union nations playing League, disbanded all Australian Union comps with all Union players now playing League, how would that possibly weaken the NRL?

The NRL is stronger than Japanese Rugby and French Rugby. It's still the premiere Rugby competition. Those comps suddenly changing to League rules wouldn't change the status of the NRL all that much. It would increase its global appeal in fact.

 

[The Great Dane]

I mean this in the least offensive way possible. I apologise in advance.

But it's hard to take this post seriously as you have essentially typed a huge "what if" scenario.

No I've "essentially typed" a realistic projection on what would happen to the sport of RL as a whole if the NRL's main source of income (broadcast rights) is spread across the world instead of all going to one place (currently the NRL) as it does now.

But I'll say this again. The stronger our international game gets doesn't necessarily mean a weaker domestic comp here in Australia. My point proving that is that we are already competing against a strong international game in Rugby Union, and our domestic game is strong still.

The difference (and your main misunderstanding of what I've been saying) is that at the moment the NRL can (and historically has been able to) afford to pay roughly the same average wage as the highest paying RU competitions' in the world (my examples of the current highest paying competitions being French and Japanese RU).

If the broadcasting money, the NRLs' main source of income and the reason why the clubs can afford to pay the players as much as they do, starts to drop then the clubs wont get grants as large as they once did and the salary cap will have to be dropped to stop the clubs spending more then they can afford.

If Kangaroos and other international RL content, content that the NRL doesn't completely own and which the NRL doesn't make all the profit from the sale of its rights, was to become as or more valuable then NRL and SOO content then that will cause the NRL's main source of income (the money from broadcasting rights) to be considerably reduced, which will mean cuts in spending in the NRL, which means a lower average wage which means that the highest paying RU competitions in the world become more attractive to the players then they already are and the NRL starts to bleed talent to RU more profusely then it once did, which as a knock on effect (and rather ironically) will effect the quality of international RL negatively which will effect the value of the rights for international RL.

If Union changed its rules to League rules, with all Union nations playing League, disbanded all Australian Union comps with all Union players now playing League, how would that possibly weaken the NRL?

In that scenario (which truly is a what if) it wouldn't matter if the NRL died on it's arse, because the players that the NRL would bleed to other higher paying competitions that aren't reliant on income from broadcasting rights to pay their players the wadges they do, would be playing RL and not RU, so the knock on effect of losing top talent to RU doesn't happen and the subsequent drop in the quality and value of international RL doesn't happen.

The NRL is stronger than Japanese Rugby and French Rugby. It's still the premiere Rugby competition.

At the moment, but that can change very quickly, especially if the main reason that the NRL is a "stronger" competition, the players, start to leave.

Those comps suddenly changing to League rules wouldn't change the status of the NRL all that much. It would increase its global appeal in fact.

At the end of the day I really don't care about this (extremely) unlikely hypothetical situation where all RU jumps ship and becomes RL as it misses the point.

The point isn't that growth in international RL in of itself will kill domestic RL, the point is that if you suddenly split the 1-2 billion that the NRL now makes every time it sells it's rights between roughly 4-12+ different RL's across the world, of which only two of those RL's maintain domestic competitions that pay wadges competitive with larger professional RU competitions and only 1s wadges (the NRLs') can compete with the average wadges of the highest paying RU competitions and that competition is reliant on the original billions to be able to do that, then RL as a whole is going to lose the ability to maintain the standards of play that it sets at the international level at the moment and that would cause a drop in interest which would cause the value of the rights to drop which would royally screw the game internationally.

 

[Last Week]

No one is suggesting that the NRL give up a big chunk of its income to other leagues across the world. As Evil Homer has said, the sum that Europe has just received isn't even half a percent of our TV rights income. We have other income aswell. The same amount to the Pacific would do wonders. That's all anyone is suggesting.

As for your consistent point that the NRL would be weakened if the international game became stronger. The TV rights would actually increase in value. I put it that, here in Australia, the ones that would feel a decrease in value most by a strengthened Kangaroos would be the Wallabies. Their TV rights would shrink and we'd pick up a fair bit of what they lost.

And if the game around the world got strong enough, the NRL wouldn't need to be putting it's money into other nations. The RLIF would be strong enough to do that.

 

[The Great Dane]

No one is suggesting that the NRL give up a big chunk of its income to other leagues across the world. As Evil Homer has said, the sum that Europe has just received isn't even half a percent of our TV rights income. We have other income aswell. The same amount to the Pacific would do wonders. That's all anyone is suggesting.

As for your consistent point that the NRL would be weakened if the international game became stronger. The TV rights would actually increase in value. I put it that, here in Australia, the ones that would feel a decrease in value most by a strengthened Kangaroos would be the Wallabies. Their TV rights would shrink and we'd pick up a fair bit of what they lost.

And if the game around the world got strong enough, the NRL wouldn't need to be putting it's money into other nations. The RLIF would be strong enough to do that.

Jesus Christ, it's got nothing to do with the NRL willingly giving up chunks of it's income.

When the rights for a game between the Kangaroos and England is sold the income from that sale is split between the groups involved in organising that event, lets just assume that it's split 50/50 between the NRL and RFL (realistically it wouldn't be split 50/50 it'd be split according to multiple variables such as who invested more in producing the event, to cover travel costs, who hosted, etc, and the RLIF probably takes a cut as well), and lets say that the rights are sold for 1 million that means that the NRL gets 500 thousand of the rights and the RFL gets 500 thousand, as opposed to when the NRL sells the rights to the NRL premiership the NRL gets all the money from the sale.

Now considering that in our future scenario that international RL is the most popular highest rating RL content on the market, similar to how internationals in Soccer and union are more valuable then their lower domestic and state leagues, and that as such interest and ratings for both the NRL and SOO have significantly dropped because they aren't seen as competitions as important or interesting as internationals to the general public anymore (just like when SOO is on there're significant drops in interest, ratings and attendance for the NRL), the value for the NRL and SOO rights will drop because the TV networks will no longer be able to get a return for a multi-billion dollar investment in them, and now make a larger return on international products so spend more on them.

Now lets say that over all, the TV networks spend one billion on internationals over the course of a TV rights contract (so five or so years) and only 500 million for both the NRL and SOO.
Now split that billion on internationals between all the groups involved in said internationals (and again we are going to simplify the shares to even shares for this example) to lets say 100 million each for 9 nations and the RLIF, and the NRL comes away with 600 million over the period of a broadcasting rights contract instead of the billions that we are getting at the moment and the shit hits the fan.

Now obviously the numbers I threw up are only examples and are in no means meant to represent exact or approximate numbers that the NRL could expect, for one thing there's noway that TV networks are going to spend a billion on a couple dozen international RL games over 5 or so years in my lifetime, but now you get the basic idea I hope.

 

[siv]

The ARLC needs to keep the ARL competitions strong

But ongoing competition strength requires ongoing development

The problem the NRL has is that is has been neglecting Australian RL development for 20 years. Thats one of the reasons 40% of NRL players come from islander nations

So they now find themselves with a delima

Develop the Pacific regions or repair Australian geassroots

In.Europe Americas and Asia they need to continue as if Australia or England doesnt exist

Do they need money from the ARLC probably. But the way to do it would be for the ARLC should pay a fee to have a nation play against them.

But establishing regular APRLF series will create another TV revenue stream, improve pacific junior and domestic development

 

[langpark]

The ARLC needs to keep the ARL competitions strong

But ongoing competition strength requires ongoing development

The problem the NRL has is that is has been neglecting Australian RL development for 20 years. Thats one of the reasons 40% of NRL players come from islander nations

So they now find themselves with a delima

Develop the Pacific regions or repair Australian geassroots

In.Europe Americas and Asia they need to continue as if Australia or England doesnt exist

Do they need money from the ARLC probably. But the way to do it would be for the ARLC should pay a fee to have a nation play against them.

But establishing regular APRLF series will create another TV revenue stream, improve pacific junior and domestic development

I'm curious as to where you got that stat, as I'm sure it's not true.

Also, when talking about development, people talk the pacific up as though it's such a lucrative market, when in fact, it's the biggest dead-end on earth. I know this might hurt some people and I know a lot of players have come from there, but seriously, they are such tiny places in the grand scheme of things that you can really only take them so far before they reach their 'ceiling' of potential. Whereas in North America and Europe, where the amateur scene has flourished over the last decade, the sky is the limit.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

They all more or less come from West Sydney, why all the horseshit?

We all know the majority of players in any sport involving Pac Island players are all from WS or Auckland, each sport is exactly the same be it male or female be it League Union Netball or Soccer..

The NRL/ARLC should put money in without being asked as they play the game of Rugby League and the NRL has made it their point to lead the code whilst they have the money in this neck of the woods.

Most here over the last decade have always called for the richer nations with tv contracts to help in regards to the IRL development, no one has ever asked for a ridiculous price or percentage to be paid, just something that helps get things started and increases as the game and the contracts grow.

Not bloody hard.

 

[siv]

That stat came from NRL media reports

The islander influence has become signifucant over the last 19-15 years

Especially in junior leagues

 

[BODISGOD]

Why do you think RU has the cash? Do you think they are able to constantly poach top RL players based on their pitiful domestic attendances and viewing figures, which are dwarfed by RL even in the UK?
.

Last year's Super League average attendance was 8,365, the Union Premiership was 13,354. In non international Windows for Union, the club games rate just as well as Super League games. Some weeks one is higher, the other another one is. Then we get to the fact that in the rest of the U.K., there are 7 other fully pro teams in the Celtic countries. Maybe the Challenge Cup ratings 'dwarf' club Union games as they are on the BBC but it is not a realistic comparison. It is the sole arena though where your statement has any basis in fact, maybe 10 years ago it was but not anymore.

 

[BODISGOD]

Horse Sh!t!

If international RL grows at the NRLs expense too quickly for the NRL to keep up (and BTW I'd like to see it grow, just not the way you'd like to see it grow) interest in the NRL and SOO inevitably shrinks, at which point the only money that the NRL sees is their share of from internationals involving the Kangaroos, at which point they follow the same path that the ARU has been forced down, and that path doesn't end in riches for the NRL and the money for all the nations that have come to rely on from the NRL runs out.

And BTW at the moment the NRL is effectively developing all the NZRLs, FIJI RLs, Samoan RLs, Tongan RLs players and English internationals to a competitive international standard and trying to do the same in more of the Pacific.

It is also effectively bankrolling the NZRL as a way to tap into the NZ market at an NRL level (which it is likely to expand on in the next 10-20 years, which means more money invested in NZ) and is starting a much more concerted effort to help fund and grow RL in the other Pacific Island (though that was happening naturally anyway as the needs for talent grew to support the needs of the NRL).

So what happens when they can't afford to invest anything significant into these areas anymore?

The first thing that will happen is that the best players will start to look to RU for the cash that the NRL can no longer afford to pay them and then the interest that they created for RL in their home countries will follow them to RU and RL will likely be in a similar place as it was in 2000. In other words we'll peak then crash and be back where we started.



It's not the attitude that is different, it's the approach!

We both want the same thing, the difference is that you want the rich (NRL) to spread it's funds all over the world to give everywhere somewhat of a financial base to build off and grow from, which is fine until the rich has spread it's resources to thin and is no longer rich and can no longer afford to support it's self let alone all the poor and everything collapses. What you're doing is taking the bricks from a mansion to build a lot of little houses.

What I want to do is spread that money much more slowly and more directly at a pace that the NRL grows and slowly add more and more international talent into the NRL's system (which will ocure naturally as the need for talent to supply the NRL grows) to create competitiveness at the international level at which point interest grows and nations start to fund themselves (see Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and to a lesser extent NZ).
I say extend the mansion to fit everybody into one big rich family.

Sure it means that for a long time a lot of countries will be reliant on the NRL and Australia to exist (as many already are), but we wont out grow our financial base this way and it's proven to work as NZ and the PIs show and other sports all over the world have shown in the past.

The above is not going to happen with half a million euro grants a year. It's a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of the NRL's revenue and as the leading nation in the sport, it's absolutely correct to help out other countries.

 

[Knownothing]

Why do you think RU has the cash? Do you think they are able to constantly poach top RL players based on their pitiful domestic attendances and viewing figures, which are dwarfed by RL even in the UK?

Okay, I'll bite. Why does rugby union have the cash?

 

[langpark]

The above is not going to happen with half a million euro grants a year. It's a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of the NRL's revenue and as the leading nation in the sport, it's absolutely correct to help out other countries.

It's actually half a million across 3 years. I do agree with you, but this is by far the biggest sum ever received so far, so things are definitely moving in the right direction.

 

[Bombay Devils RLFC]

That stat came from NRL media reports

The islander influence has become signifucant over the last 19-15 years

Especially in junior leagues

I think you will find this relates to players of Islander descent not actually coming from these areas directly.