Should the NRL commission include NZ?

[Fonzie]

Like most posters on this board, I'm really optimistic about the proposed NRL Commission and hope that it will take the game in Australia forward. However, I think there needs to be debate about whether the Commission's mandate should include NZ to avoid NZ getting left behind.

Imagine if the Commission is assessing bids from the Central Coast and Wellington for inclusion in the NRL in 2013. Obviously a Wellington NRL team would provide some benefit for Australian rugby league (eg more TV money, stronger internationals etc), but the NZRL would reap most of the direct benefit. If the mandate of the Commission is to 'grow the game in Australia', you would expect the Central Coast to get the nod, even if the overall benefit for rugby league in the Australia-NZ region is lower.

Personally, I think that there are enough similarities and linkages between the Australian and New Zealand markets to justify joint governance, and I think it might lead to better decisions for the game overall.

Thoughts?

 

[flippikat]

Imagine if the Commission is assessing bids from the Central Coast and Wellington for inclusion in the NRL in 2013. Obviously a Wellington NRL team would provide some benefit for Australian rugby league (eg more TV money, stronger internationals etc), but the NZRL would reap most of the direct benefit. If the mandate of the Commission is to 'grow the game in Australia', you would expect the Central Coast to get the nod, even if the overall benefit for rugby league in the Australia-NZ region is lower.

Personally, I think that there are enough similarities and linkages between the Australian and New Zealand markets to justify joint governance, and I think it might lead to better decisions for the game overall.

Thoughts?

An interesting idea.. as a New Zealander, the first reaction is that I'm naturally a bit 'iify' about an Australian-based organisation administering our game.

HOWEVER as a league fan, I realise that there may be some merit here.. especially if the mandate is to grow the game throughout AUSTRALISIA (Aus & NZ initially.. but potentially the islands as well)

One arguement is that NZ RL administration has historically been so bad, they couldn't organise their way out of a paper bag, although there have always been some factors working against RL (as a code) in NZ...

* PERCIEVED lack of support from Australian & English RL administration in the past.
I don't want to rake-over the history here - and I don't want to start a flame-war, but there's a feeling that ARL/English RL have done their darndest to protect their own interest to the gross detriment of NZ RL.

* Lack of a strong, consistant provincial competition (compare the endless parade of Lion Red Cup, BarterCard Cup, etc etc against the Rugby Union NPC)

* Best players going overseas. Hard to do anything here, unless the NRL start putting some additional teams in NZ. Not going to happen overnight.



Now, a joint management of the game throughout Australia/NZ, with a progressive CEO/commisioner COULD work well towards fixing some of these problems.



* To strengthen NZ RL, clear the NRL window so that NZ can stage it's own version of the Origin series, at the same time as the Aussie version (what about Auckland Origin v Rest of NZ Origin?).. require NRL & Superleague clubs to release players for internationals, and formulate a timetable for NRL expansion, inviting bids from NZ as well as Australia. Gaining the trust of the Kiwi league fraternity is a big thing.

* Strengthening the provincial scene is a tough one - eventually with maybe 4 or 5 NZ teams in the NRL, the NRL will become the RL equivalent of Super-14 (a Southern Hemisphere regional championship), but by raising coaching and administration standards we could see more outposts for RL in NZ develop - like Otago, or Manawatu (maybe take an NRL game out to these places once in a while?)

* As for best players playing overseas, well this changes once you have more NZ teams in the NRL (a long term goal but it should be a goal nonetheless.) What distinguishes the NRL from AFL is that it is not alien to New Zealand - the people know this game! Even though it's only 4 million people.. that's still 4 million more than what AFL can hope to reach.

Sure, there's plenty to be done in Australis around reforming the game's administration.. but the idea that New Zealand could someday be a part of it's mandate might just be the springboard the game needs to really grow outside Australia's borders.

 

[Fonzie]

Agree with most of that Flippikat. As it stands the NZRL is up against it because:
- the only way forward for professional club league in NZ is to secure franchises in the NRL, which is Australia centric and gives the NZRL has no formal representation (or, as I understand it, financial dividend, other than the $4m grant to the Warriors). This leaves the NZRL with responsibility for internationals and domestic development, but no income from the professional club game;
- at the international level, the NZRL is hamstrung by the competing interests of the ARL (e.g. scheduling, venue allocation) and the NRL clubs (scheduling, releasing players). Neither the ARL or NRL are mandated to give 2 stuffs about the NZRL;
- partly as a result of the above, the NZRL is pretty much broke, and doesn't have the resources to plow into domestic development.
- they don't have the administrative infrastructure and money to properly market the code. The world cup win was an obvious opportunity to hit NZ hard with marketing and junior development campaigns, but the NZRL just didn't have the resources.

All of those problems could be fixed with a joint AUS/NZ commission. If the commission focuses on Australia only, they will probably get worse.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I dont think it will be too much of a problem and it will be better then what we have now, even if NZ dont have any formal representation on the commission. If the commissions constitution is to expand the game, New Zealand will already be apart of that.

 

[flippikat]

If the commissions constitution is to expand the game, New Zealand will already be apart of that.

This should be explicit, and enforced if the game has any chance.

And another thing.. I just hope they don't take "expand the game" to mean "put 100% of our effort into converting AFL fans".

That would be neglecting plenty of heartland league fans. (Basically QLD, NSW & NZ outside of the NRL team bases) - and it's THESE communities that will be the battleground in the near future.

 

[hutch]

An interesting idea.. as a New Zealander, the first reaction is that I'm naturally a bit 'iify' about an Australian-based organisation administering our game.

HOWEVER as a league fan, I realise that there may be some merit here.. especially if the mandate is to grow the game throughout AUSTRALISIA (Aus & NZ initially.. but potentially the islands as well)

One arguement is that NZ RL administration has historically been so bad, they couldn't organise their way out of a paper bag, although there have always been some factors working against RL (as a code) in NZ...

* PERCIEVED lack of support from Australian & English RL administration in the past.
I don't want to rake-over the history here - and I don't want to start a flame-war, but there's a feeling that ARL/English RL have done their darndest to protect their own interest to the gross detriment of NZ RL.

* Lack of a strong, consistant provincial competition (compare the endless parade of Lion Red Cup, BarterCard Cup, etc etc against the Rugby Union NPC)

* Best players going overseas. Hard to do anything here, unless the NRL start putting some additional teams in NZ. Not going to happen overnight.



Now, a joint management of the game throughout Australia/NZ, with a progressive CEO/commisioner COULD work well towards fixing some of these problems.



* To strengthen NZ RL, clear the NRL window so that NZ can stage it's own version of the Origin series, at the same time as the Aussie version (what about Auckland Origin v Rest of NZ Origin?).. require NRL & Superleague clubs to release players for internationals, and formulate a timetable for NRL expansion, inviting bids from NZ as well as Australia. Gaining the trust of the Kiwi league fraternity is a big thing.

* Strengthening the provincial scene is a tough one - eventually with maybe 4 or 5 NZ teams in the NRL, the NRL will become the RL equivalent of Super-14 (a Southern Hemisphere regional championship), but by raising coaching and administration standards we could see more outposts for RL in NZ develop - like Otago, or Manawatu (maybe take an NRL game out to these places once in a while?)

* As for best players playing overseas, well this changes once you have more NZ teams in the NRL (a long term goal but it should be a goal nonetheless.) What distinguishes the NRL from AFL is that it is not alien to New Zealand - the people know this game! Even though it's only 4 million people.. that's still 4 million more than what AFL can hope to reach.

Sure, there's plenty to be done in Australis around reforming the game's administration.. but the idea that New Zealand could someday be a part of it's mandate might just be the springboard the game needs to really grow outside Australia's borders.

great post. rugby league has had a terrible history in trying to grow and expand the game, and current australian admins dont seem to care about the game outside of nsw and qld, let alone rugby league places such as nz and png. it is in our best interests try and grow the game in nz, and a second nrl club in the south, mid year rep games such as 'kiwi roots' and a semi pro national comp are the way forward.

 

[Bluebags1908]

I think the key here is the introduction of a 2nd NZ team. At the moment the NRL is looked upon as an Australian comp that just so happens to have a Kiwi team in it. Having 2 Kiwi teams and all of a sudden it will have the feel of a true Australiasian comp. And if PNG enter one day then even better as it becomes a South Pacific comp.

THe Kiwis will get some clout once a 2nd team joins the NRL.

 

[Fonzie]

Bluebags, definitely agree that a 2nd NZ team in the NRL would have a big impact in the way administrators and the public think about the game in the region. And it might happen eventually under the current structures, so my comment in an earlier post about things only getting worse is probably a bit pessimistic.

But I would like to see us get on the front foot now in our thinking about the NZ market. Going back to my original example, what criteria should we be using to assess whether a 2nd NZ team is the best option in 2013 and beyond? Is growing the game in Wellington and the South Island more important than maximising short term TV revenue for the existing (Australian) clubs? Do we want to be an Australasian competition operating in a combined market of 25 million, or is it appopriate to have an 'Australia first' mandate?

The proposed independent commission gives us a great opportunity to reevaluate these issues and modernise our approach (and formalise it in the Commission charter/mandate). I'd hate to see it wasted.

 

[flippikat]

Is growing the game in Wellington and the South Island more important than maximising short term TV revenue for the existing (Australian) clubs?

When you talk about TV revenue, you can look at it in terms of adding a new time-zone (Perth) or consolidating existing ones (Qld, NSW or NZ).

On balance, Perth is the best bet out of all the AFL territories because it opend up an additional time-zone. I remember reading somewhere that Perth has a reasonable junior base too (anyone have the details?).

But besides the TV revenue, there's other considerations - what about merchandising & gate-takings?

Don't kid yourself that NZ is too RU-obsessed for this to work. In the big cities , Rugby Union crowds are shrinking!
At the moment, we're going into the grand final of the NPC rugby and they say that the host union (Canterbury) might not break-even on the night!!

Plus there's quite a market in supporters gear for Super-14.. I think that if non-Aucklanders had their own NRL team the gear would sell rather well

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Like most posters on this board, I'm really optimistic about the proposed NRL Commission and hope that it will take the game in Australia forward. However, I think there needs to be debate about whether the Commission's mandate should include NZ to avoid NZ getting left behind.

Imagine if the Commission is assessing bids from the Central Coast and Wellington for inclusion in the NRL in 2013. Obviously a Wellington NRL team would provide some benefit for Australian rugby league (eg more TV money, stronger internationals etc), but the NZRL would reap most of the direct benefit. If the mandate of the Commission is to 'grow the game in Australia', you would expect the Central Coast to get the nod, even if the overall benefit for rugby league in the Australia-NZ region is lower.

Personally, I think that there are enough similarities and linkages between the Australian and New Zealand markets to justify joint governance, and I think it might lead to better decisions for the game overall.

Thoughts?

How about a specialized NZ sub-commitee?

 

[adamkungl]

Hm, never occured to me that the NZRL gets no financial benefit whatsoever out of the NRL. This is definitely a problem.

 

[Bluebags1908]

Bluebags, definitely agree that a 2nd NZ team in the NRL would have a big impact in the way administrators and the public think about the game in the region. And it might happen eventually under the current structures, so my comment in an earlier post about things only getting worse is probably a bit pessimistic.

But I would like to see us get on the front foot now in our thinking about the NZ market. Going back to my original example, what criteria should we be using to assess whether a 2nd NZ team is the best option in 2013 and beyond? Is growing the game in Wellington and the South Island more important than maximising short term TV revenue for the existing (Australian) clubs? Do we want to be an Australasian competition operating in a combined market of 25 million, or is it appopriate to have an 'Australia first' mandate?

The proposed independent commission gives us a great opportunity to reevaluate these issues and modernise our approach (and formalise it in the Commission charter/mandate). I'd hate to see it wasted.

Fonzie, a Wellington team and any other Australian team bidding will get in first on their own merits. If it is in the best interests of the NRL competition - and therefore as a result also in the best interests of existing Australian clubs, i.e. more money coming into the game - then a 2nd NZ team will get in over an Australian team also bidding.

The NRL will weigh up the pros and cons - it all depends on the strength of the opposition Australian bids and also the 'needs' of the NRL and the game as a whole at the time the decision is made.

If additional NZ TV money is to come into the game as a result of a 2nd NZ team, and if this outweighs the benefits of other Australian teams bidding then there shouldn't be a problem with a perceived 'Australia first' mandate.

 

[Goddo]

I don't think we need the NRL restructuring to take over NZ. What is needed though is coordination between the new NRL structure with the commission, and the restructuring going on in NZ at the moment. They need to work together more, but can still be seperate bodies.

 

[Quidgybo]

Hm, never occured to me that the NZRL gets no financial benefit whatsoever out of the NRL. This is definitely a problem.

It's a huge problem.

Essentially the NRL has a mandate to run a first class professional club competition that exploits the territory of the ARL and NZRL (and perhaps in the future the PNGRL). But as it currently stands, only the ARL (and News Ltd) get any dividend back from the profits that this competition makes from exploiting these territories. This dividend then goes back into funding development of the game in Australia, both in the heartlands and in frontier areas. The return of funds to grassroots development is what secures the long term future of our game. But the money made in New Zealand isn't returned to secure the grassroots there but instead flows to Australia.

The NRL draw anywhere up to a quarter of their television revenue from NZ (in 2001 they made $8m per year from NZ television, compared to $36m from Australia). This is not an insignificant amount. Especially when you consider that NZ currently provides only 1/16th of the teams. It is not inconceivable to think this could substantially increase with the introduction of a 2nd and perhaps even a 3rd NZ based team guaranteeing two or three games each week with a New Zealand team and two or more domestic blockbusters each season. New Zealand is a very valuable source of support, players and money for the NRL.

But the rub is it isn't anywhere near as valuable if taken outside of the NRL. Take the Warriors and the potential 2nd and 3rd NZ teams out of the NRL and you haven't got a New Zealand professional comp to rival the NRL. You've got the Queensland Cup if you're lucky. New Zealand can provide 2 or 3 NRL class professional teams, but the market just isn't there to support the eight or so NRL standard teams needed to have a true first class professional league of its own. New Zealand needs the NRL.

So NZ needs the NRL and NZ is very valuable to the NRL. Which brings us back to the problem that the NRL is the top level professional club competition for New Zealand yet provides no dividend back for development of the game in that country. In my opinion the answer to this is quiet simple. When News Ltd exit the NRL, take the 50% share that company owns and split it three ways - between the NRL clubs, the NRL Players Association and the NZRL. That would allow the ARL to continue drawing their annual $8m dividend for development of the game in Australia, and provide a dividend of $2.7m to the NZRL for development of the game in New Zealand.

This doesn't preclude the introduction of an independent commission for running the game in Australia (essentially a combined ARL, NSWRL, QRL, CRL), which would have substantial influence in the direction of the NRL as the largest of the four stakeholders. The Australian Commission would, by virtue of its 50% stake, have veto power over any NRL decision (eg. new teams, television rights, competition structure) and the ability to pass any decision with the support of either just the NZRL (by-passing the clubs and players) or just the clubs or just the players.

In fact the only time the Australian Commission wouldn't get its way was it all three of the clubs, players and NZRL banded together to block it. Given the very diverse constituencies of these three parties it would have to be a very controversial proposal that brought them together to block the Commission. In the long run this might be precisely the safety mechanism the game needs to keep the Commission in check and prevent the excesses of absolute power. If the players won't buy into a proposal and the clubs won't buy into it and another governing body won't buy into it then it's likely that the proposal has some fundamental flaw to start with.

Leigh

 

[Quidgybo]

I don't think we need the NRL restructuring to take over NZ. What is needed though is coordination between the new NRL structure with the commission, and the restructuring going on in NZ at the moment. They need to work together more, but can still be seperate bodies.

Which still leaves the problem that nearly all the money made from the top level of the game in New Zealand goes back to Australia. There needs to be a formal mechanism for feeding some of those profits back to the NZRL for developing the grassroots in that country.

Leigh.

 

[ozbash]

I would prefer the NRL kept its nose out of NZRL bussiness.

 

[shiznit]

can the commission take over the NZRFU also... f**king monkeys...

 

[Fonzie]

In my opinion the answer to this is quiet simple. When News Ltd exit the NRL, take the 50% share that company owns and split it three ways - between the NRL clubs, the NRL Players Association and the NZRL. That would allow the ARL to continue drawing their annual $8m dividend for development of the game in Australia, and provide a dividend of $2.7m to the NZRL for development of the game in New Zealand.

This doesn't preclude the introduction of an independent commission for running the game in Australia (essentially a combined ARL, NSWRL, QRL, CRL), which would have substantial influence in the direction of the NRL as the largest of the four stakeholders. The Australian Commission would, by virtue of its 50% stake, have veto power over any NRL decision (eg. new teams, television rights, competition structure) and the ability to pass any decision with the support of either just the NZRL (by-passing the clubs and players) or just the clubs or just the players.

In fact the only time the Australian Commission wouldn't get its way was it all three of the clubs, players and NZRL banded together to block it. Given the very diverse constituencies of these three parties it would have to be a very controversial proposal that brought them together to block the Commission. In the long run this might be precisely the safety mechanism the game needs to keep the Commission in check and prevent the excesses of absolute power. If the players won't buy into a proposal and the clubs won't buy into it and another governing body won't buy into it then it's likely that the proposal has some fundamental flaw to start with.

You state the problem perfectly Quidgybo, but I'm not sure I agree with your suggested answer. If the Australian Commission can get its way without the support of the NZRL, what stops the Australian Commission diverting funds away from NZ development and into Australian rugby league (as happens now)? Presumably the Commission would be under pressure from its Australian stakeholders to do exactly that. Which brings me back to the idea that the Commission has to be mandated in some way to take the interests of new zealand rugby league into account.

There are a number of ways to skin that cat. One would be to say that a fixed percentage of NRL profits have to be diverted by the Commission to the NZRL each year. A second would be to take development of the game in NZ away from the NZRL and make it part of the function and constitution of the Commission (which would act in NZ through local development bodies, which could include the infrastructure used by the existing NZRL).

I prefer the second model because it allows development to be approached startegically across both Australia and NZ. For example, following the 2008 World Cup win, it may be that in 2009 rugby league could have got more bang for its buck by investing in NZ development than Australian development. A commission operating across both countries could have diverted some Aussie development funds to NZ to captialise on that (and vice versa in different circumstances).

 

[Quidgybo]

You state the problem perfectly Quidgybo, but I'm not sure I agree with your suggested answer. If the Australian Commission can get its way without the support of the NZRL, what stops the Australian Commission diverting funds away from NZ development and into Australian rugby league (as happens now)?

What prevents that is that the NZRL would be getting a dividend, not a grant. As one sixth owner of the NRL, the NZRL dividend would be legally tied to the dividend the ARL takes as one half owner (ie. it would always be one third of what the ARL gets). The only way their dividend could be decreased was if the ARL dividend was cut proportionately. If all shares are classed equally then by law the NRL as a company simply couldn't pay out to some shareholders and not others or pay less on some shares than on others. It would be their ownership stake that protects the minor players like the NZRL from being cut out of the profits.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Duplicate