Fair points on CA transparency. But the players are trying to lock in future gains for the same effort. The future increased profits won’t be kept by CA execs but would build the game – and that’s a big difference between “keeping current arrangements”.

100% Wow, that must be well considered…

Yes – it’s their right. Don’t play. Unionise and stick together. Be prepared to ruin this summer for fans no matter what.

Yes, it’s their right. And they’ll probably win…

But that doesn’t mean they’re right or deserved. They got to the top, NOT due to their own labour, but on the back of millions of volunteer hours that nurtured them directly and built a model that provided their opportunity.

These are the people they are stabbing in the back. But, yes, it is their right…

Total ignorance. The players are hijacking the game’s money at the expense of everyone that enables their success.

The incumbemts have already made it. They don’t need nor deserve milliins of dollars – except the occasional legend that individually draws a crowd (once in 20 years players like Warne).

The money is the game’s money – for its future as a game and its future as a winning CA side.

When the incumbent players have finished playing, they can enjoy free beers for stories of glory days and get a job like the rest of us have to (if they didn’t save their overvalued six figure cricket pay).

CA “doing a terrible job at articulating why” – toyally agree and the reason why the players have any “public” support.

The players are pretending that they want grassroots funding but are trying to disassociate that bucket from administration. If people could only be explained how much administration it takes to run kids programs they wouldn’t accept the ACA players’ rhetoric.

The players want a quarter directly for themselves and a half for top tier support – pretending that they are the only tier needing admin support. That is the hook jagging the unsuspecting punter and letting the players scam the public.

Cricket Auatralia programs are significant and the envy of other codes. The players don’t care!

James, don’t be too harsh on the ARU, they’re still trying very hard to screw it up!

But seriously, you touched on a real comparison. The ARU model has transitioned from a bottom-up association model of representation to a top-focussed commercial model. The players are contracted at the high level by a game that no longer provides support to the grassroots.

So rather than ask why Cricket Australia is shying away from a profit sharing arrangement with players, maybe we should be asking why the ACA players are shying away from profit sharing with the grassroots. Or perhaps why should we support a bunch of players that aren’t that good earning salaries that most punters could only dream of earning…

Sorry, Bert. You’re way out on this one… But I do understand that most punters have no idea about grassroots cricket, its success, its challenges and the efforts made to overcome them.

The “top heavy bureaucracy” the ACA players despise is the machine that has created cricket’s success at all levels and which has created cricket’s revenues at the top.

Sometimes individual players can be a drawcard and build the game – but that is very rare. I’m thinking Warne… Merv… maybe Waugh… Ahh… Umm…

If a player has no individual appeal, why should they expect to make a lifelong career out of the game? Most of the past 30 players were easily replaceable so why are they automatically entitled to the salary of someone that isn’t?

The players didn’t create the revenue, Cricket Australia did.

Yes, and Cricket Australia is doing a better job year-on-year. The Milo and other kids’ cricket formats have improved immensely and has created fun pathways into the sport for all kids.

Their investment into IT has also improved access to the game and, most importantly, has taken a lot of pressure off the local clubs reducing duplication and increasing professionalism of the junior game.

Well done, Cricket Australia.

I agree – this should have been done earlier.

But better now then never and the NRL clubs are certainly never going to fund the bush, nor even their own backyards.

Very true, Ferret…

Hi The Barry, grassroots means the lower tiers of the sport and include all junior competitions and all senior amateur competitions (there’s a blurry line on payments as some low grades pay $50 a win to their players – but I won’t get into that…).

Grassroots would NOT include the defunct NYC, the second tier Queensland/NSW Cup, the third tier Sydney and Brisbane comps.

The term is used to highlight that the beautiful turf is only possible because of the parts you don’t see (i.e. the roots) and if the roots aren’t strong, the turf becomes patchy.

But as any yard dwelling male knows, nurturing the roots is hard work and it is often neglected while accepting a lesser quality turf.

I wish the ARL Commission had the independence to invest in and nurture the game’s roots rather than the lazy tenants at the NRL clubs wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

You avoided the issue – it isn’t about the population of the country, it is about PARTICIPATION in the sport.

So you can compare it to any MAINSTREAM sport in the USA and you will find that they dominate that sport. For example, their big three: baseball, basketball and of course NFL – and also ice hockey in the northern states.

Being mainstream means you get the bulk of the sporty kids participating and developing.

Rugby League is becoming LESS MAINSTREAM in Sydney. Talented sporty kids are playing other codes now so our “pool” of players these days do NOT include the best potentials.

We need to make RL mainstream. This year’s NRL ads “A different league – play junior league” are aimed at hitting the right buttons to make RL mainstream.

Well done to the ARLC/NRL for this year’s ad – I just wish there was $100M to get the ad off the internet and onto the television…

Here, here, John – if you are pro-expansion (‘spreading the seed’).

I agree [smart] expansion should be a priority. I also agree John Grant hasn’t been able to make that happen.

But, I don’t believe the lack of expansion is Grant’s fault. If he can’t even keep $100M for juniors without the clubs sacking him, how on Earth could he get expansion over the line?

No existing NRL club has ANY benefit from expansion – and no existing NRL club would ever support the ARLC doing it.

THIS IS THE POINT! The NRL Clubs control the ARL Commission through their ability to oust Independent Directors which makes the ARL Commission unable to make independent decisions for the greater good of the game.

Of course they can.

You’re right, Chris, the clubs are already running the show – because they can vote out any Independent Commissioner.

The ARLC constitution is a dud. The NRL clubs should not have this power over the national body responsible for the entire game.

You start with the premise that western Sydney is the heartland. Indeed it is a stronghold – and a well-funded one in some, but not all, Sydney junior districts as you obviously know. But the CRL divisions and the rest of the country are missing out on support and they don’t have the existing infrastructure to meet your proposal’s requirements.

I want stronger participation across all of Australia – yes, in Sydney as well.

I want the game of rugby league to thrive! That can’t happen if NRL clubs keep the money for themselves or even for grassroots in their own districts alone.

Hi Pomoz,

I was clearly saying that Grant isn’t proposing that the NRL clubs receive less money than previous years, but he is proposing to give less of an increase for season 2018 than what was previously verbally agreed. This does not contradict any statement from any club or from Grant.

I accept your point that Grant should not have let this expectation fester for a year.

I accept your point that the NRL clubs’ CEOs and Directors have an obligation to only look after their own club and not the rest of the rugby league world. In fact, that is an underpinning fact of my argument.

I don’t accept your point that budgets have been made – because the verbally agreed funding (even if clubs were stupid enough to set their budgets on verbal agreements) was only stated as 130% of the salary cap and as the salary cap has not been set, the clubs would not know how many dollars the 130% represents and therefore couldn’t have allocated the money in their budgets.

It is being two-faced to suggest Grant is managerially incompetent with his accounting because he retracted a verbal agreement before it was put in writing – but then defend NRL clubs for budgeting money that wasn’t committed in writing and was never defined in dollar terms.

Lastly, I don’t agree that 30% is “fair enough” simply because the game revenues have increased. NRL clubs have all their player payments covered by the NRL (the 100%) and receive revenues from sponsors, gate takings, $6 meat pies and jersey commissions. The game needs funding at grassroots and it’s long overdue.

There’s some truth in that, Scott, and happy for you to blame the NRL for inaction or poor strategy etc.

But the NRL has stated their intention to allocate more resources to the broader game and I believe they’re needed otherwise the failures will continue.

Without doubt, giving more cash to the NRL clubs at the expense of grassroots will not improve rugby league at any level whatsoever – not grassroots, not at NRL level. It is simply to take as much money as they can for their pay packets or the clubs’ coffers.

But my point is that the NRL clubs (which have no obligation outside themselves) should not a controlling vote on the fate of Independent Commissioners charged with nurturing the entire game.

Newsflash Turbodewd, you haven’t read my article properly… I was suggesting a new league will evolve because this ARLC constitution is rubbish. My article was pretty harsh on the Sydney clubs, too.

Also, my Magpies are Brisbane Southern Suburbs – not Sydney. You are far too Sydney-centric. My Magpies won the Brissie comp in 1985 with Coach Wayne Bennet, Mal Meninga, Peter Jackson and Gary Belcher. Sound familiar? This was the team that won the Raiders their NSWRL comp a couple of years later. And I am a former member of the Raiders, too.

Get some sleep and have another read.

Hi Michael, the “many people wanting him out” are only the NRL clubs (and the NSWRL who are elected by the Sydney clubs). The QRL and every other Independent Commissioner are backing John Grant.

My point is that the ARLC constitution, which was meant to be independent, allows the NRL clubs to oust an Independent Commissioner despite the NRL clubs having only self-interest and the ARLC being responsible for the game at every level in every state.

The ARLC/NRL want to increase resources to grow the game in a broader sense and the NRL clubs want more cash for themselves.

It is only the NRL clubs who want more money that want John Grant out – not anyone who wants to grow rugby league.

The very good reason is that everyone wants the cash… It’s just a shame that grassroots doesn’t have the voice that the NRL clubs have.

Who’s going to stand up for the rest of the game? Sterlo? No. Gould? No. Roarers? You bet!

The clubs do not generate the revenue – the competition does.

The perfect example is the Newtown Jets or North Sydney Bears – how much money do they generate? How many people turn up to watch them play? These examples show that your claim is totally flawed.

The claims that the clubs generate the revenue is simply a false argument to justify them keeping the profits ahead of the game.

How can you know if you have an improving standard of player, or indeed improving at a good rate, when you cannot possibly compare this world to the alternate world with greater participation?

I guess we’ll have to use logic. If we have more kids playing, talent will improve moreso than if less kids are playing.

Rugby league is more than the districts of the current NRL clubs. Grassroots extends to Orange, Wagga, Toowoomba, Alice Springs, Darwin, Perth, Adelaide, Port Macquarie – North Sydney!