'Reverse Super League' on the cards

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
The poll on the SMH site of "Do you think clubs should break away from the NRL if they don't receive more money?" has 77% wanting the clubs to dump the NRL.

----
NRL clubs have backed away from claims they could start a breakaway competition if they did not receive a hefty increase in funds from the game's governing body.

Speaking on behalf of the 16 disgruntled clubs - 14 of which are running at a loss - Wests Tigers' chairman Dave Trodden denied reports the NRL and the incoming commission had been issued with a threat.

Rather, Trodden says the clubs were simply reacting to an offer from the NRL, in which they state the $3.65 million they will receive in 2012 is well short of the mark.

In an email sent to NRL powerbrokers yesterday, the clubs said they needed $6 million a year to keep their heads above water.

"There is no threat," Trodden said of the possibility of a breakaway competition.

"Our position has really been mis-represented."

As part of the paperwork ahead of the formation of the independent commission - the formation of which is again expected to be delayed from its November 1 start date - clubs were given two agreements to sign to confirm their participation in the competition.

One is a member agreement, while the other is a licence agreement, which clubs have been signing on a rolling basis since the NRL began.

The licence agreement contains the amount of money the clubs would be scheduled to receive over the next six years.

"The clubs were asked to comment on it and all that the clubs did was to comment on it," Trodden said.

"(We are) saying 'the amount of money that you put in that document is insufficient for clubs to be financially sustainable, and if you want to know how much it's going to cost for clubs to be financially sustainable, this is the figure'."

The bid would represent an injection of more than $34 million for the clubs, but the NRL has only $18 million in cash reserves.

The NRL, which is refusing to comment, is anticipating a big pay-day as part of a new broadcast deal, which is due to be sorted out next year and take effect in 2013.

AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-clubs-reject-breakaway-talk-20111012-1lkj9.html#ixzz1aXtEGrrw
 
First year increase the handout but not the Cap, this is so all teams can get their house in order then 2nd year start to increase the cap.
 
The longer the farce of the independent commission start delays, the more proof News Ltd is disingenuous about leaving the game. Ever.

We are still playing SuperLeague. We are still playing in a breakaway competition that is seriously stifling the game, sucking out profits, and crippling the game's chances of a fair TV rights deal. A refusal to continue playing News Ltd's game is looking more and more to be the best path forward.
 
NRL clubs' pay grab puts season in doubt
Brad Walter
October 13, 2011
THE NRL is weeks away from having no clubs or players for next season unless a stand-off over funding between the clubs and the game's outgoing owners, News Ltd and the ARL, can be resolved by November 1.

The 16 clubs are refusing to sign new, six-year licensing and membership agreements without an increase in the annual club grant from $3.85 million to $6 million next season, while the collective bargaining agreement between the NRL and the Rugby League Players' Association is also due to expire on October 31.

Without the commitment from the clubs to play in the competition, News Ltd and the ARL say they cannot hand over control of the game to the independent commission.

The clubs argue that they need the increase to ensure their ongoing viability. Fourteen of the 16 clubs recorded a loss this season.

It has even been suggested that Cronulla could struggle to survive beyond March 31 if a proposed property development doesn't get local government approval.

However, News Ltd and the ARL, insist that the game cannot afford the 56 per cent increase before a new television deal is negotiated for the 2013 season and beyond.

Unless the clubs sign the separate licensing agreements by the end of the month, they risk forfeiting their monthly grant, worth $320,833.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-clubs-pay-grab-puts-season-in-doubt-20111013-1lliy.html#ixzz1aatldJmL

League protest just plea for cash
Steve Jancetic
October 13, 2011
NRL clubs have backed away from claims they could start a breakaway competition if they did not receive a hefty increase in funds from the game's governing body.

On behalf of the 16 disgruntled clubs - 14 of which are running at a loss - Wests Tigers chairman Dave Trodden denied reports the NRL and the incoming Independent Commission had been issued with a threat.

Rather, Trodden said the clubs were reacting to an offer from the NRL, in which they stated the $3.65 million they will receive next year in grants is short of the mark.

In an email sent to NRL powerbrokers on Tuesday, the clubs said they needed $6 million a year to keep their heads above water.

''There is no threat,'' Trodden said of the possibility of a breakaway competition. ''Our position has really been misrepresented.''

As part of the paperwork before the formation of the commission - again expected to be delayed from its November 1 start date - clubs were given two agreements to sign to confirm their participation in the competition.

One is a member agreement and the other a licence agreement, which clubs have been signing on a rolling basis since the NRL began. The licence agreement contains the amount clubs are scheduled to receive over the next six years.

''The clubs were asked to comment on it and all that the clubs did was to comment on it,'' Trodden said.

''[We are] saying, 'The amount of money that you put in that document is insufficient for clubs to be financially sustainable, and if you want to know how much it's going to cost for clubs to be financially sustainable, this is the figure'.''

The bid would represent an injection of more than $34 million for the clubs, but the NRL has only $18 million in cash reserves.

The NRL is anticipating a big pay-day as part of a new broadcast deal, which is due to be sorted out next year and take effect in 2013.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/league-protest-just-plea-for-cash-20111012-1ll0m.html#ixzz1aatyrS9V
 
NRL cash row: why clubs want bigger slice of the $140m pie

Cash-strapped NRL clubs are responsible for 95 per cent of the $140 million in revenue generated by the game, but say they receive less than half that amount.

It is one of the main reasons the clubs have been pushing so hard for an independent commission to take over the running of the code from News Ltd and the ARL and officials are fuming at claims in today's News Ltd's papers that they are the ones preventing the new body from starting on November 1.

Rugby league clubs are responsible for 95 per cent of the $140 million in revenue generated by the game, but say they receive less than half that amount. Photo: Illustration by Karl Hilzinger

"We wanted the Independent Commission in place on November 1 last year, not this year, so to try and blame us is a joke," one NRL club chairman told the Herald.

Fed up by the pace of change, and with even premiers Manly struggling financially, the clubs are refusing to renew membership agreements to play in next year's competition unless they receive a significant increase in their annual club grant from $3.85 million to $6 million.

News Ltd and the ARL, who between them have taken more than $224 million from the game in the 14-year existence of the NRL, won't hand over control to the independent commission until the clubs have signed the new contracts, agreeing to a specified amount for each year's grant.

As a last resort, the clubs may break away and start their own competition - a type of "reverse Super League", with the clubs breaking away from News Ltd.

It is an option that has been talked about for two years, with the Herald running a front page story on December 12, 2009 revealing that club officials were considering it as a possibility if the commission didn't come to fruition.

At the time, the clubs were hamstrung by their membership agreements that committed them to the NRL until the end of the 2011season.

Now those agreements have expired and even the News Ltd-owned Broncos and Storm are said to be united with the other 14 clubs - although the last time Melbourne directors went against the media company and challenged the penalties imposed for salary cap breaches they were sacked from the board.

The clubs believe that the game is being held back financially under the current ownership structure and the profits generated by the new body will rival AFL.

But even without making an extra cent, the game will immediately be better off as News and the ARL won't automatically be entitled to take out $8 million each every year.

The ARL's share is to pay for grass roots development and representative football and in recent seasons it has been taking $24 million per year out of the NRL kitty.

However, under the Independent Commission, there will be no ARL - just state bodies - and the streamlining of league's mutitple administrations should also result in massive savings.

The clubs, who collectively stand to lose $30 million for the season just finished without cash injections from leagues clubs and private owners, say they are entitled to that additional money.

After all, they argue, it is the clubs who pay the players and are responsible for all the associated expenses involved with putting a competitive NRL team on the field each week that now costs up to $25 million per year for the wealthiest clubs.

Clubs were told at the NRL's conference in July of plans to increase the annual grant to $7.2 million per year when the new television deal, which officials hope will be worth up to $1.4 billion over five years is finalised for the 2013 season.

But the clubs believe the annual grant needs to be significantly increased before then, and they say that all they have done is seek a funding increase in the same manner as the NSWRL or QRL would do.

There are a number of other issues to be resolved in the days before the independent commission is due to commence but the fact that an email sent by South Sydney chairman Nicholas Pappas on behalf of the clubs to News Ltd's Ian Phillip, ARL chief executive Geoff Carr, NRL chief executive David Gallop, QRL director Terry Mackenroth and chairman elect of the independent commission, John Grant found its way to News Ltd papers within hours and was described as a "ransom note" suggests yet another deadline is unlikely to be met.

Brad Walter
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-cash-row-why-clubs-want-bigger-slice-of-the-140m-pie-20111012-1lk85.html#ixzz1abKeOV13
---------------------

NRL ready to stop funding disgruntled clubs unless peace declared

CLUBS have 17 days to call off their $34 million pay demand and strike agreement with the NRL or face having their funding cut off.

And The Daily Telegraph can reveal four of those clubs are sweating on advance payments of $320,000 from their annual grant to avoid financial collapse - Cronulla, Gold Coast, St George Illawarra and premiers Manly.

The revelation comes less than 24 hours after South Sydney chairman Nick Pappas had told News Ltd and the ARL that the 16 clubs would not sign agreements to play next season unless they received a whopping 55 per cent increase in funding.

In another day of anger and uncertainty about the game's future, it also emerged:

SEVERAL club chairmen did not know the Rabbitohs chairman was going to demand a hefty $2.15 million increase in the annual grant for each club;

THERE are fears some of the eight commissioners-elect will walk away in frustration if a new governing body isn't formed soon;

REPORTS in the Fairfax press of clubs organising a "reverse Super League" were way off the mark with Kangaroos captain Darren Lockyer weighing in to say: "A breakaway competition? We did that 15 years ago and it was a debacle. I don't think we'll go down that path."

As revealed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, Pappas notified rugby league powerbrokers via email on Tuesday the clubs wanted an increase in their annual grants from $3.85 million to $6 million from next year - or they would not be signing agreements to join the NRL next season.

Those deals expire at the end of this month, with the NRL expecting new ones to be signed on November 1, and if they are not it is understood News Limited and the ARL will turn off funding immediately.

That looms as a disaster in particular for the Sharks, Dragons, Titans and Sea Eagles, who have asked for an early advance on their grant payment of $320,000.

Last night, NRL partners News Limited - publishers of The Daily Telegraph - and the ARL released a joint statement condemning the cash grab from the clubs.

"It would be completely unrealistic to saddle the commission with club grants of $6 million that simply can't be funded at this stage," the statement said. "Ultimately, the club agreements underpin stability in the game and the funding for the clubs themselves. It is important that these are finalised before the commission is put in place.

"The clubs have been supportive of the commission to replace the present partnership and it is important that they move forward in a manner that empowers the commission as soon as possible."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-ready-to-stop-funding-disgruntled-clubs-unless-peace-declared/story-e6frexnr-1226165305210
 
NRL ready to stop funding disgruntled clubs unless peace declared

CLUBS have 17 days to call off their $34 million pay demand and strike agreement with the NRL or face having their funding cut off.


Ummm, if they strike and he clubs don't sign, doesn't that mean the NRL don't have any teams to fund?
 
The effects of Superleague continue all these years later. The game has been an embarrassment since 1996. AFL fans must continually LOL at the way Rugby League is run, the crowd figures Rugby League matches attract, the constant rule changes, the inept onfield officialdom and the way it generally stumbles from one disaster to the next. If Manly weren't involved I wouldn't even watch it at all. It's nowhere near as good as it was in the 80s or early 90s. To be honest if the whole game died I would not be bothered. But while it exists and Manly are playing I'll have an interest. Bring back Arko and Quayle to get it back to where it was in the 80s and 90s. Then watch the crowds soar.
 
In principle I'm backing the clubs in this dispute. Without the clubs there would be no rugby league. The NRL is there to administer the game, and replacing this structure would be possible. In fact, updating it would be a good thing, including getting rid of Gallop and the News Ltd influence.
The clubs' ambit claim for higher grants is far too high at this stage, but it is a timely warning to the NRL that they want more money and a greater say in running the sport.
I believe the clubs have the whip hand in this issue. What is the NRL without the clubs? Nothing but a useless shell.
 
Like everyone anyway we could rid ourselves of that DH Gallop and his crap team I would support although I'm not going to hold me breath the bastard seems hell bent on being around for a while yet, despite public and offical opinion of the jerk!

But it does bring up one thing and that is, under the News ownership the game would be making buckets, otherwise they would have dumped the game years ago, Rupert doesn't do anything unless there is a buck in it, so stands to reason that they have made heaps through paying way less for the TV rights etc, thanks to an inside deal (Gallop), hense whatever they post from revenue is clear profit, they say its only $18 mil, I say the clubs know its way more and are holding out for a fairer share. They wouldn't want to hand current profits over to the clubs so I say hold your nerve and let the bastards come crawling!
 
There have been several instances in the US where the players and owners have been in dispute and the season has been abandoned or curtailed. Currently it is happening in basketball. They have private ownership there (I understand) so it is a different set up to the majority of clubs in the NRL.
However, a stand-off could occur between the 16 clubs and the NRL and the 2012 season may have to be shortened. Frankly, I'd like to see the current NRL overhauled. I believe there is a great deal of money wasted on things such as two referees and video refs, and obviously the high salary of that pea-brain Gallop.
 
The NRL are tipping $6.4M into its super duper headquarters for the fat cats and obtained another $11m from the governments for the project. This could have been used for all sorts of things. The clubs want the IC and I back them also.
 
I note statements in the Telegraph that a 'reverse Super League' couldn't work because the Broncos and Storm would not be prepared to be a part of it.

I say: So what? The remaining 14 clubs could still hold a terrific comp, and the clubs would be on a more even 'playing field', without the huge advantages that Brisbane and Melbourne have.

What would the Broncos and Storm do? Play each other every week?

I would like the 14 clubs to stick together and push their claims.
 
  • 👍
Reactions: Dan
No NO NO No No

The clubs are not imbeciles here and are privvy to some pretty good information about how the money from the game is distributed. Every year or every month a large proportion of these monies are allocated to NEWs (lts rumoured to be approx 8 million per year) the NRL, the Arl, the qrl etc etc etc

Every year or month or whatever the independent commission is delayed another payment to all of those concerned is made, dilluting any chance the NRL cold build a warchest or finance the clubs

While there is much talk about the formation of the IC we could be 5 years away from its forming if the parties continue to stall and there is nothing to suggest the parties have done anything but stall the process for there own gains. Eliminate these payments and the clubs could gain financially straight away without any further increase of revenue

I doubt the clubs would just pull and unjustifiable ammount out of the hat. Id presume they know exactly how much money is being siphoned to greedy deadwood and have requested an upgrade reflecting this amount

If the clubs have got the resources, the kahoonas and enough legalities on their side they should go for the throat. It may rock the NRL a few more years but it will allow the game to prosper by ridding themselves of the cancer once and for all
 
The Who said:
I note statements in the Telegraph that a 'reverse Super League' couldn't work because the Broncos and Storm would not be prepared to be a part of it.

I say: So what? The remaining 14 clubs could still hold a terrific comp, and the clubs would be on a more even 'playing field', without the huge advantages that Brisbane and Melbourne have.

What would the Broncos and Storm do? Play each other every week?

I would like the 14 clubs to stick together and push their claims.

I agree with you on the Storm and Broncos. They are not a roadblock to prevent this happening.

The biggest challenge is to negotiate a TV deal for the breakaway comp. The ACCC has allowed Fox to effectively have a monopoly over pay tv and they obviously won't get involved so the breakaway comp would have to rely on FTA coming up with a lot of cash. That FTA operator would also have to be ready to fight lawsuits from the NRL, News, the ARL, Foxtel and channel 9.

I would love nothing more than to see it happen, but unless a FTA operator with deep pockets and plenty of balls gets involved I can't see it being a realistic prospect.

If only Kerry Packer was still here it might have happened.
 
The Who said:
I note statements in the Telegraph that a 'reverse Super League' couldn't work because the Broncos and Storm would not be prepared to be a part of it.

I say: So what? The remaining 14 clubs could still hold a terrific comp, and the clubs would be on a more even 'playing field', without the huge advantages that Brisbane and Melbourne have.

What would the Broncos and Storm do? Play each other every week?

I would like the 14 clubs to stick together and push their claims.

There are a number of consortiums ready willing and able to fill the bronco void in a heartbeat in SE qld. Go ahead donkeys make my day, and take the financial sponge of all clubs, the storm with you
 
Of course News Ltd owners are against the idea. Of course they are. The NRL dump $8 Million into the Storm's laps each year and will for the next five as part of the separation deal. I'm not for throwing more money at the Storm, or for that matter the Sharks. The building of Gallop's edifice at Moore Park was just a ridiculous decision. As if the game rests in the Eastern suburbs. I'll support any move to get rid of that self-serving idiot.
 
MadMarcus said:
The Who said:
I note statements in the Telegraph that a 'reverse Super League' couldn't work because the Broncos and Storm would not be prepared to be a part of it.

I say: So what? The remaining 14 clubs could still hold a terrific comp, and the clubs would be on a more even 'playing field', without the huge advantages that Brisbane and Melbourne have.

What would the Broncos and Storm do? Play each other every week?

I would like the 14 clubs to stick together and push their claims.

I agree with you on the Storm and Broncos. They are not a roadblock to prevent this happening.

The biggest challenge is to negotiate a TV deal for the breakaway comp. The ACCC has allowed Fox to effectively have a monopoly over pay tv and they obviously won't get involved so the breakaway comp would have to rely on FTA coming up with a lot of cash. That FTA operator would also have to be ready to fight lawsuits from the NRL, News, the ARL, Foxtel and channel 9.

I would love nothing more than to see it happen, but unless a FTA operator with deep pockets and plenty of balls gets involved I can't see it being a realistic prospect.

If only Kerry Packer was still here it might have happened.

This is interesting, and i wonder how it works. Its my understanding the NRL have deals with the TV networks and the clubs have a deal with the NRL. The clubs deal expires on NOV 1. so unless they are contracted what obligation would they have. I dont know im just saying

They would get none of the cash, i appeciate that but as free agents i would consider they are free to do whatever the hell they want. And with numbers they have power

Could they also consider sitting out a season like players have

And could they also sign a one year deal to get things in order before taking up new options

Dont know, just wondering with a keyboard



In the end the players and the clubs are the rpoduct, everyone else has nothing

jbb/james said:
MadMarcus said:
The Who said:
I note statements in the Telegraph that a 'reverse Super League' couldn't work because the Broncos and Storm would not be prepared to be a part of it.

I say: So what? The remaining 14 clubs could still hold a terrific comp, and the clubs would be on a more even 'playing field', without the huge advantages that Brisbane and Melbourne have.

What would the Broncos and Storm do? Play each other every week?

I would like the 14 clubs to stick together and push their claims.

I agree with you on the Storm and Broncos. They are not a roadblock to prevent this happening.

The biggest challenge is to negotiate a TV deal for the breakaway comp. The ACCC has allowed Fox to effectively have a monopoly over pay tv and they obviously won't get involved so the breakaway comp would have to rely on FTA coming up with a lot of cash. That FTA operator would also have to be ready to fight lawsuits from the NRL, News, the ARL, Foxtel and channel 9.

I would love nothing more than to see it happen, but unless a FTA operator with deep pockets and plenty of balls gets involved I can't see it being a realistic prospect.

If only Kerry Packer was still here it might have happened.

This is interesting, and i wonder how it works. Its my understanding the NRL have deals with the TV networks and the clubs have a deal with the NRL. The clubs deal expires on NOV 1. so unless they are contracted what obligation would they have. I dont know im just saying

They would get none of the cash, i appeciate that but as free agents i would consider they are free to do whatever the hell they want. And with numbers they have power

Could they also consider sitting out a season like players have

And could they also sign a one year deal to get things in order before taking up new options

Dont know, just wondering with a keyboard



In the end the players and the clubs are the product, everyone else has nothing

 
jbb/james said:
MadMarcus said:
The Who said:
I note statements in the Telegraph that a 'reverse Super League' couldn't work because the Broncos and Storm would not be prepared to be a part of it.

I say: So what? The remaining 14 clubs could still hold a terrific comp, and the clubs would be on a more even 'playing field', without the huge advantages that Brisbane and Melbourne have.

What would the Broncos and Storm do? Play each other every week?

I would like the 14 clubs to stick together and push their claims.

I agree with you on the Storm and Broncos. They are not a roadblock to prevent this happening.

The biggest challenge is to negotiate a TV deal for the breakaway comp. The ACCC has allowed Fox to effectively have a monopoly over pay tv and they obviously won't get involved so the breakaway comp would have to rely on FTA coming up with a lot of cash. That FTA operator would also have to be ready to fight lawsuits from the NRL, News, the ARL, Foxtel and channel 9.

I would love nothing more than to see it happen, but unless a FTA operator with deep pockets and plenty of balls gets involved I can't see it being a realistic prospect.

If only Kerry Packer was still here it might have happened.

This is interesting, and i wonder how it works. Its my understanding the NRL have deals with the TV networks and the clubs have a deal with the NRL. The clubs deal expires on NOV 1. so unless they are contracted what obligation would they have. I dont know im just saying

They would get none of the cash, i appeciate that but as free agents i would consider they are free to do whatever the hell they want. And with numbers they have power

Could they also consider sitting out a season like players have

And could they also sign a one year deal to get things in order before taking up new options

Dont know, just wondering with a keyboard

I don't know exactly what the contractual arrangements are, but my understanding is similar to your understanding.

Whatever they are you can bet your bottom dollar that News etc will sue. There is likely to be some sort of argument they could put together.
 
Wasn't this the exact same situation that led to the formation of the English Premier League in 1992? Clubs wanting a greater share of profits from increased TV revenues. From Wikipedia:

Television money had also become much more important; the Football League received £6.3 million for a two-year agreement in 1986, but when that deal was renewed in 1988, the price rose to £44 million over four years. The 1988 negotiations were the first signs of a breakaway league; ten clubs threatened to leave and form a "super league", but were eventually persuaded to stay. As stadia improved and match attendance and revenues rose, the country's top teams again considered leaving the Football League in order to capitalise on the growing influx of money being pumped into the sport.

At the close of the 1991 season, a proposal for the establishment of a new league was tabled that would bring more money into the game overall. The Founder Members Agreement, signed on 17 July 1991 by the game's top-flight clubs, established the basic principles for setting up the FA Premier League.The newly formed top division would have commercial independence from the Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League license to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe.

In 1992 the First Division clubs resigned from the Football League en masse and on 27 May 1992 the FA Premier League was formed as a limited company working out of an office at the Football Association's then headquarters in Lancaster Gate.
 
This is great news.And it will happen.It was always planned to go this way.Why would you want to take orders from money sucking leeches like News Ltd and the ARL? When you know full well they dont give a **** about you.14 out of 16 clubs going broke while theyve profited over $200,000,000 and they say theve only got $18 mil in the kitty.The bull**** gets worse day by day from the pair of grubs.

And how the hell do you have Gallop the super league lawyer running the new show? Real independant that is.Gallop can continue where he left off when he was fighting for his masters News Ltd during the hijacking in court.Theyre full of corruption and deciet yet they want you to read the news that is sole truth according to them them.Just look at what happenned to their paper in the UK.News of the world.Theyre just an ongoing rort for almost 2 decades milking the game.Bush footy is dying.Just ask Ronny Gibbs.

So if the next deal is around $1,4 billion and the clubs get $6 mill each,where does the other $1.3billion go? Yeah thats right.Thats what News of the World are waitin for.The massive pay day.Its not on.Its time to give them back what they created and break away and get it back to the way it was pre News scum leeching era.If the IC comes in then it will surely be the end of the game.Thats as corrupt as it gets.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom