New league commission really just more of the same
Roar Guru By Steve Kaless, 1 Dec 2009 Steve Kaless is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- ARL, Colin Love, David Gallop, NRL, Rugby League
174 Have your say
The next chapter in rugby league looks set to begin in 2010, and while the symbolism may be huge, in reality it may just mean another day at the office.
With News Ltd and the ARL set to make way for an independent commission to run rugby league, many supporters are praising the heavens that they finally lose the Super League baggage of News Ltd and the many layers of seemingly pointless bureaucracy that comes with the ARL.
But it must be remembered that the independent commission, which I have praised in the past, shouldn’t be seen as an automatic answer to every problem in the game.
Colin Love hasn’t been able to stop the “alcohol fuelled incidents” during his time in nearly every executive position in the game, so I can’t see every player giving up the drink on the basis that Love is now anointed as the new high priest.
The very fact that Love is set to run the inaugural board should be a sobering moment for anyone getting caught up in the hedonism of change.
The board was meant to be about new ideas, new direction and new leadership, and instead we end with someone who seems to have attended every junket since 1908 and has been a part of many of the game’s great disappointments as he has been its successes.
The game is also taking something of a financial gamble.
They may well feel that it is a smart move, but the fact is, from day one, they lose $16 million dollars in News Ltd funding and it is then up to them into increase the new revenue by more than that in order to financially justify the change.
Some argue that that will be easy with the fact that News Ltd will now no longer be sitting on both sides of the negotiating table.
But trying to avoid News Ltd in Australia is likely trying to avoid your own shadow.
Amongst other things, News Ltd also own a 50 per cent stake in Premier Media Group, which owns Fox Sports and negotiated the first and last right of refusal on any pay-television deal until 2022.
The whole Murdoch business model is about owning every step in the production process so for those looking for a complete break may as well stock up on baked beans and move to the mountains.
The new commission is largely about administration and just because a sport suddenly has the same style of administration as the AFL doesn’t mean they have the same success in their administration.
Anyone who argues that fails to recognise the hard work and talent by the individual members of the AFL commission.
Rugby league is certainly doing itself a few favours by freeing itself from some of the nasty shackles of the past but its future is still down to the hard work and correct decisions made by the men in charge.
Perhaps if they want to replicate the success of AFL, they also need to replicate the relationship between the clubs who all seem to share the same vision.
In league, while each club is often hell bent on ensuring no other team receives an advantage, the AFL clubs seem to have been happy to support all forms of salary cap concessions for the good of the game.
Either that, or the leadership was strong enough to force it upon them.
It’s an interesting comparison when you ask yourself whether rugby league clubs would be as supportive of a new club in Perth in the way AFL clubs are welcoming of a side in Western Sydney.
You also can’t help but feel that it is nothing but scare mongering by the QRL, who claim the move could be the death of State of Origin.
Surely not even rugby league administrators are stupid enough to botch up the brightest jewel in the crown.
So a new set of business cards and a new logo for the rugby league world, but the challenges remain the same and the past is, well, prologue.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ARL, Colin Love, David Gallop, NRL, Rugby League
December 1st 2009 @ 8:39am
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Richard Hinds has penned a good article on how it took the AFL Commission took several years to get the self interest of the individual clubs out of the decision making.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-the-afl-commission-broke-the-shackles-20091130-k18f.html
“Graeme Samuel, one of the powerbrokers behind the AFL’s spectacular rise over the past 25 years, says the benefits of an independent commission can flow only when clubs and other vested interests are willing to relinquish control and invest full faith in the game’s tribal counsel”.
“”The allocation of the Sydney Swans licence to Geoffrey Edelsten (for more than $6 million), that was not the preferred position of the commission,” says Samuel. ”[Also] we wanted the Brisbane team established in Brisbane. (It was originally set up on the Gold Coast under a private consortium controlled by Christopher Skase.) They are just two significant decisions that were taken out of our hands because we did not have the ultimate say.”
The decision making process will have Implications for the how the Melb Storm will be handled and expansion to non traditional areas like Perth. Unlike the Central Coast of course (right Col).
Redb
December 1st 2009 @ 10:55am
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
I reckon some NRL pundits have some unreal expectations of the time frame in which the benefits of an independant commission will clearly start to flow,
however, there DOES seem a willingness to go down this path, and there is a close neighbour with a well established ‘blue print’ – - so, perhaps the years it took for the AFL to win over the clubs may not be replicated or met with similar resistance.
Very, very interesting the bits about how the Commission was overruled by the clubs early days re Edelsten and Brisbane Bears on the Gold Coast.
Very interesting.
December 1st 2009 @ 11:27am
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I can tell you one thing, this is probably the worse peice of news that AFL has ever heard in your history, now you are going to be fighting a true golliath. Hey, you forced us into it, i told you not long ago we dont lay down lightly.
Besides, there is nothing like a little competition. Cheers M.C, put west sydney afl push to bed, enjoy your 30 year push.
December 1st 2009 @ 12:02pm
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
An Independent Commission will need to make unpopular decisions for the good of the game. Do you remember Superleague? Many facets of Superleague were good for the game but the insular types like Springs below who basicailly said stuff Cronulla will always plague league .
Whilst League is bedding down its IC, the AFL which would have already facted in RL’s move, and be ready to go to Stage 3.
Redb
December 1st 2009 @ 12:40pm
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Stage 3….? blimey, i was just thinking we had a victory, now you are telling me we have a stage 3, what happened to stage 2.
I really dont care what happens, as long as rugby league is healthy, is all that matters to me.
December 2nd 2009 @ 1:27am
NUFCMVFC said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:27am | Report comment
Seems that Football/Soccer generally would do wel for something of a centralised model. Although there are some issues as it is often restrictive amongst other things (poaching Jets Coach Van Egmond for example).
On the one hand the article is right, there is “no escaping News”, and it should be remembered that working with News brings some positives for Rugby League, coverage of their U20′s competition which wouldn’t get timeslots on FTA for example.
But it is better for them, because the Business reality is that Rugby League has TV value which is what seems to have started this Super League war in the first place, free from conflict of interest, they should be able to negotiate for much higher broadcast revenue returns, on the one hand the AFL perhaps did represent an avenue for new subscribers and hence new revenue, but I suppose the NRL can argue that they represent subscriber retention in economically tricky times and higher interests rates on higher mortgages etc.
Which is more important to Fox Sports in the upcoming era of FTA multi-channeling and digital TV? Channel 9 will get NRL, and have the avenue to present more of it as a product thanks to its second channel (while showing other prime time programs on first channel), meaning many people would be able to get their NRL fill via FTA perhaps? Guess the issue is a balance between FTA and Pay TV coverage/rates. Other sports face the same issue. I can see the NRL tempted to ensure they cover the weekend TV slots in order to strategically drown out any FTA Sydney viewership of any AFL game with respect to the new WS team?…This in turn compromises AFL’s ability to say their move into WS results in more customers/viewers for advertisers and impacts on their value to broadcasters and to negotiate higher revenue. Same can be said for other sports such as football/A League and Rugby Union/Super 15 when they also go through the next round of broadcast negotiations. These should be interesting to observe
One aspect that will be interesting is whether under digital rollout, regional viewers will be considered a lot more than they are now whereby they tend to just take into consideration viewership. For this reason I don’t think the “commission will struggle” because they should be in line to receive a cash influx of some kind from TV revenue, which in turn means money for them to hand out centrally and to fund “greater interest” initiatives, like subsidising Central Coast Bears or even counter marketing the AFL in terms of their push into WS, or in NRL sense trying to attract members who attend through the gates (for all teams) in place of Pokie Machine revenue
December 1st 2009 @ 9:02am
Paul J said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
RedB
“…even by the arch-enemy NRL.” Is that Roy Masters in reverse? Just kidding.
“…says the benefits of an independent commission can flow only when clubs and other vested interests are willing to relinquish control and invest full faith in the game’s tribal counsel”.
This is an important point in an excellent article and shows what an IC can do. The fact that all 16 NRL clubs were giving the IC idea full support is a good indication that RL has finally learned from the success of the IC in the AFL and realise it is the way of the future.
December 1st 2009 @ 9:26am
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I dont know about you guys, but every week i read somewhere in a post, supporters moaning about 2 major issues.
1/ News involvement in the game.
2/ they want a independent commission.
Now if this is anything to go by, i think not only will rugby league thrive, its going to hit massive ground swell support, never seen before in Australian sport. Last year was just a taste of whats to come. This is the 1st time in the history of the game that we have a real challenge on our hands, and i think we are going to take it head on, like one report said, ” The Gloves Are Off.”
December 1st 2009 @ 10:01am
dave said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
more of a question than a comment. Are clubs able to generate there own revenue, or will all revenue be centralised and re-distributed. So for example, Broncos match day revenue generated through average home crowds of 33k plus, re-allocated to clubs attracting average 12k plus? If that becomes the case, what is the incentive for individual clubs to invest and attract there own sponsorship, it puts a new spin on the argument between clubs who develop their own players and those who just buy.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:21am
Springs said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Centralised and re-distributed? The Communist Rugby League.
If Sharks are dying because they are onlyaveraging 10k why should the broncos help them out? The only re-allocating I would do is if a Broncos/Cowboys match got 50k, the Cowboys could see some of the revenue.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:28am
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Springs
each comp and sport can decide their own course – but people often refer to the highly regulated AFL framework (mostly pinched from the NFL), and that is what happens there more or less, with a bit of a twist.
Clubs keep all their membership fees, sponsorship, revenues from cotery groups, etc.
The AFL keeps all the TV revenue and and a large chunk of merchandising and gate receipts (those who pay on the day to attend matches).
At the end of the year, it does an equitable split of the profits as a dividend back to clubs.
The key is that the clubs share the TV revenue equally (which is one of the major sources of revenue).
The justification is that 16 teams means double or more the TV revenue of 8 teams, so big and small clubs contribute to that TV revenue being as large as it is.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:41am
Springs said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
That’s a fair enough system.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:47am
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Dave, i will give you a exaple of what probably will happen.
Here is a example for you by showing 20 million as a figure.
If a club earns 20 million, and it costs 20 million to run the club, no profit, now if a club earns 15 million then if they get equal share of lets say 5million from the commission,as a figure to allocate to clubs, they are running at no profit, so a cub who earns 20 million, with their allocation of 5 million, make 5 million profit.
Now lets say that club is the broncos, so their 5 million is profit, and they are a registered company on the stock exchange, so what they can do is invest in some sort of venture and increase their share holdings.
Now the other team, lets say the Sharke, they dont make any, or lose any money, so their aim is to increase their losses to move into profit.
So no, the money does not go back into the Commission, all clubs get equal amount, what they do with it is the question, if your club is losing money, then as a member i would want to know why. Cheers.
December 1st 2009 @ 11:32am
Jay said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
I dont think this will be the case. In the article in todays paper it said that the Melbourne Storm should be viable under an IC with the new stadium and attracting bigger crows. While this does not clearly state that gate taking are redistributed, it does suggest that ticket sales for home games will be kept by the clubs for season matches.
I think finals will be a different issue.
I would seem inequitable for Brisbane to subsidise the Shares. Brisbane is a listed company and its shareholder would be furious if this was the case. I dont think this will happen – all that will occur is that tv revenue, NRL merchandise sales, state of origin and internationals will form one big pot of cash. The IC will determine who needs funding on basis of merit. Grants equal to the salary cap will be paid to each club and the remainder will be distributed equally.
It will still be up to each club to run their own business. That is, their revenue will consist of leagues grants, poker machine revenues, club memnerships, sponsorships and ticket sales.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:47am
Tom Alexander. said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
If the slate was totally wiped clean (No Colin Love-No David Gallop) then we really would have a skip in our step. The ARL (who own the Kangaroos) were stupid enough to knock the Ashes on the head which was the International Jewel in our Crown. It was also reported the other day that the NSWRL are completely broke (which is why the QRL who have built up a nest egg of 7 million, aren’t happy about this new commission slush fund idea) . So Rugby League administrators can be just as inept as the next person. You just hope with the right board members, they will make enough of a positive difference to the running of our game. Hopefully there is light at the end of this long dark tunnel.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:48am
M1tch said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
I hope Finch isnt near the refs/rules again
December 1st 2009 @ 10:57am
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
December 1st 2009 @ 11:36am
Springs said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Well the pocket ref runs in and yells in the players ear to MOVE, so I think that is equally annoying.
December 1st 2009 @ 10:53am
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
What i like about the commission, so QLD are making money, and NSW are losing money, the commission will look at what QLD are doing right, and then transplant that to NSW and get it right their. The commission will also send just the right amount of funds needed for any one area, so we are not sitting on 7 million in the bank waiting to lose that 7 million.
With the big guns on the board, they will be able to use that 7 million, and turn the sucker into 20 million.
December 1st 2009 @ 11:10am
BigAl said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
This NRL Commission has come . . . in a rush and out of nowhere compared to the equivalent AFL & FFA bodies !
Makes you wonder just how much thought has been put into it.
December 1st 2009 @ 1:39pm
M1tch said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
not really its been in planning for 2 years and the overall process will take 2-3 years..
December 1st 2009 @ 11:12am
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Just to give you guys a idea of the untold riches involved, and what a commission can do for the game, Steve, you listening dude.
1/ For a start it saves the game up to 7 million straight off by not having news sit on 2 boards.
2/ with games now being bought and paid for by governments to play the game in their state, or country(NZ) , this income goes back into the game and is alloacated to the right people.
3/ the support now the people have their game back will increase.
4/ the game can be sold overseas with a commission doing deals, with plenty of clout and knowleadge of how to deal.
5/ salary cap will increase, higher profile, not only here, but also around the world
6/ we already are the biggest rugby comp in the world, that will just get bigger.
7/ with all the extra attention, it will invite cites to want to be part of the game, not having to pick and choose.
8/ the international game will go from strength to strength, and the players profiles will also increase.
9/ we can finally stop looking over our shoulder at what other codes are doing, and hopefully stop being attacked by other codes. Mind you, i might miss that part of the game.
December 1st 2009 @ 11:16am
Paul J said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Tom
There is a lot of light at the end of the tunnel.
Basically now we have the Broncos (my team) the Titans and say the Bulldogs having bigger crowds and more money. They keep their profits which for some clubs goes to private owners. They are not concerned about other clubs or junior development of the game nation wide.
As Pip said what an IC will do is take the profits from crowds and TV revenue from ALL the clubs. It then gives an equal share to ALL clubs to give them all the best chance of survival. It then keeps an amount it will use on the international game and then give grants to the NSWRL, QRL & CRL to look after junior development.
The IC decides who gets how much depending on who they feel needs it the most. It is the fairest system that will stop the club mentality of looking after no. 1 and will do what’s needed to grow the game as a whole.
December 1st 2009 @ 11:28am
dave said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
but how does this system provide an incentive for underperforming clubs to improve their own systems of generating revenue if they know they can depend on a guaranteed income, despite their own (lack of) effort. Surely everyone has to contribute equally if they expect an equal share of funding?? This is not a community where some individuals are clearly disadvantaged and need a leg up just to make ends meet. This is supposedly a professionally run sporting competition, where everyone involved has to contribute. Clubs that can’t cut it will bring down the comp, not enhance it.
December 1st 2009 @ 11:57am
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Dave -
A. clubs get compensated in situations like in the AFL with Anzac Day blockbuster being the domain of Ess and Coll. The AFL recognise this as maximising centralised broadcast revenue, and then ensuring the clubs who are excluded are able to ‘share the benefit’…….i.e. the total pie is maximised and it is shared more equitably.
B. incentive. IN the AFL , basically the salary cap (TPP – total player payments) is covered by the AFL distribution to clubs. It’s the monies atop this for which the clubs seek to generate to establish a winning edge,
at times, there’ve been AFL clubs who couldn’t afford to have rookies (i.e. not covered under the salary cap, only can play senior footy in place of a ‘long term injured’ player). This is a clear example of where clubs have missed out in the past because they were just scraping by or running at a loss compared to other clubs generating healthy profits.
(also, the capacity to take advantage ot salary cap ‘loopholes’ such as back ended contracts for older ‘stars’ who can go on the veterans list and have half their salary for that year sit outside of the salary cap…..if you’re club is broke, they can’t afford that $500K or whatever).
Off field as well – the size of the budget (let’s say a club operating on $40 mill vs one on $25 mill, well, $15 mill buys an awful lot of specialised coaching, talent identification/development, medical/sports science support, etc etc.
There’s plenty of incentive to perform well financially in the AFL structures…….one assumes there are similar avenues in the NRL or proposed NRL structures.