What does it mean when people say News Ltd owns the game??

[Frailty]

And at the moment the ARL is like a dog with a tail between it's legs because it knows if war broke out again they would crumble. They need to grow some balls and stir some discussion in the NRL.

I would love to have a new structure with NRL at top (with no News Ltd.) which would look after the national games - First Grade, Toyota Cup, Reserve Grade, and then the respective state boards NSWRL, QRL, WARL, looking after the state comps such as Harold Matthews, SG Ball, etc.

I'm just thinking when News is out of the game, imagine the stuff they will write to try and show they were saving league.

 

[Perth Red]

Does the NRL CEO have a voting position on the board?

 

[CharlieF]

If we want to blame anyone for the mess, then facts are that if the Dogs and Sharks did not go over to SL, then there would be no SL.

News LTD have all the power. Nobody should be so delusional as to think that the ARL has any say on anything important. They didn't have it at the beginning and they don't have any real say now.

 

[Chapsta]

Exactly (whooosh you missed my point!)!

News are making the decisions that are negatively effecting RL because it has a financial benefit to them. Now to get these decisions through, the ARL is voting with them. If the ARL are there for the good of RL why the frick are they voting with News on these issues and doing little to push through an alternative strategy?

If there were no agreements on the board, League would be farked. Instead, they (News & the ARL) settle for a mediocre compromise.

 

[baddog]

Listen I don't know anyone who says News is good for the game. But the suggestion was the ARL aren't as angelic as some talk about here. They made sh*t decisions too, and let's not forget the louzy tv deal they made prior to super league, or the decision to not give clubs guaranteed contracts.

that old chestnut eh. listen there was no lousy tv deal pre super league. packer got the league at the price he did and the length of contract because there were no other bidders. considering 7 and 10 were near bankruptcy at the time the deal was pretty good for the league. it was good enough to finance the expansion of the comp to 20 teams remember.

plenty of things stink about the arl both before and after super league, but they did the best possible deal and then stuck to it as they were legally required to do after murdoch came calling. sure if packer had done a deal with murdoch all of the pain could have been avoided, but he had legal rights, why should he give up his rights just because rupert wanted a piece of the action.

 

[Perth Red]

The board is 50-50 and Gallop doesn't have voting rights so the ARL are EQUALLY to blame for the decisions that are being made.

 

[CharlieF]

The board is 50-50 and Gallop doesn't have voting rights so the ARL are EQUALLY to blame for the decisions that are being made.

When it comes to Broadcast rights its News LTD 100-0. Forget about any other matters pertaining to the partnership. This trumps all and all decisions made must take this into consideration.

 

[dallymessenger]

wow, what a dumb thread.

it takes me back to 1998 when i used to get happy when the SL clubs got such bad crowds after coming back with arl clubs

what has news ltd done for RL vs what has the nswrl / arl done for it you merkins

 

[dallymessenger]

The board is 50-50 and Gallop doesn't have voting rights so the ARL are EQUALLY to blame for the decisions that are being made.

why is a news ltd man in charge of the nrl?

 

[bartman]

what has news ltd done for RL vs what has the nswrl / arl done for it you merkins

Um... without them, we wouldn't have a game for News Ltd/Super League to have come and plundered for pay TV profits in the first place (dressed up in John Ribot's wonderful "vision" of course :lol, and we wouldn't be celebrating 200 years of league in Australia this year.
We don't need a media organisation to half own our game, when they provide such a disincentive for other investment with their controlling conflict of interest.

 

[dallymessenger]

Um... without them, we wouldn't have a game for News Ltd/Super League to have come and plundered for pay TV profits in the first place (dressed up in John Ribot's wonderful "vision" of course :lol, and we wouldn't be celebrating 200 years of league in Australia this year.
We don't need a media organisation to half own our game, when they provide such a disincentive for other investment with their controlling conflict of interest.

in england the game is controlled by the same body that created it in 1895, the RFL. they look at running the game the best way they know how and recently expanded to wales and manchester.

our game is partly owned by a media company who couldnt give a s**t if we expand into perth or PNG. they wanted the best ratings sport to make their Pay TV station work.

if RL wants to expand properly, it needs some chemotherapy on the cancer in our game.