The new television rights deal announced by the ARLC last week has drawn heavy criticism from some.
Even though the Commission succeeded in acquiring the promised billion-dollar agreement, the details of the deal have left many with a bitter taste in their mouths.
It is very much a “same old, same old” situation with Channel Nine and Foxtel continuing their love affair with rugby league with only a couple of “sweeteners” thrown in as a point of difference between this deal and the previous one. But the fact is this, we’re stuck with it for the next five years.
All that aside, I think the new Commission has done a great job in gaining this much capital for the game. I also think that they are aware of the shortcomings of the deal and are hopefully taking a “short term pain for a long term gain” approach.
The ARLC have a lot on their plate at the moment, including finding a new CEO and ensuring the finals play out without a hitch using the new format.
I think the ARLC have consolidated their position and given themselves a great platform to take the game into the future with well formed plans and structures, so that when the next television deal comes around, they will be the ones on the front foot.
The NRL clubs have been waiting for a long time for this financial windfall, and now that it has arrived they want their share. But I don’t see them behaving like little kids scrabbling after a handful of lollies to get it, though.
The newly formed NRL Council (encompassing all clubs) and the ARLC seem to have a mutual respect for one another and will be working together to develop the best model to move the game forward, whilst still enabling the clubs to share in the new wealth.
In fact, a sub-committee comprising several commissioners plus acting NRL CEO Shane Mattiske, David Trodden (Wests Tigers),Nick Politis (Sydney Roosters), Peter Doust (St George Illawarra) and Todd Greenberg (Canterbury-Bankstown) has been formed for this very reason. If all parties work in the best interests of the game, these individuals have the potential to steer rugby league into a vibrant future.
The players have also been keeping an eye on the television rights deal and they also want their cut. The formation of a new and improved collective bargaining agreement is in the best interests of the players and the ARLC.
The details of an increased salary cap, increases to representative payments and improvements in conditions for fringe players need to be sorted out. Both sides have to be flexible though, otherwise it could get ugly.
The issue of State of Origin eligibility must also be redefined in accordance with the modern rugby league landscape or the jewel of Australian rugby league will become a joke… it is already on it’s way to being just that. A hard stance is required and I think the majority of players, from this side of the Tasman and the other, will applaud this.
The referees have taken shots all year. In fact, we could write a book that dwarfs “War and Peace” on the exploits of the whistleblowers in 2012… and the season isn’t over yet! But they are not the only problem.
The referees as well as the entire reporting system including the match review committee and the judiciary needs to come under the same umbrella and run by the same small group of people so that everyone is on the same page.
The panel could be made up of a recently retired player of high standing (Nathan Hindmarsh?), an ex-referee that actually knew what he was doing (I have no suggestion…), and possibly a Commissioner. The referees are suffering from a crisis of confidence and have gone into siege mentality mode.
The communication between the referees and players is at an all-time low. The communication between the coaches and the referee coaches is almost non-existent. Open the channels of communication and we might start making some improvements. And a tweaking of the rules to make things simpler wouldn’t be a bad idea either. And while you’re at it, give the video referee a couple of extra heads.
In regards expansion, I don’t buy John Grant’s assessment of the extra game not being worthwhile. Of course it is. It just might not be looking like that in the AFL at the moment because the two new teams are very young and are currently copping a hammering.
Watch them in four years time; you’ll have a different opinion. I also think Grant would have a different opinion if asked him about expansion without David Gyngell sitting next to him.
Essentially, the ARLC has only had one year to look at expansion and most of the information has been filtered by the previous administration. They should review all of this data and as decisions are made, be public with them.
If the Central Coast Bears aren’t a good fit for the future of the game; tell them and the rest of the rugby league community. They deserve that at the least. The same goes for any other prospective bid.
One thing the ARLC cannot do is compare itself to AFL. The AFL had a big head start in that Australian Rules football was already a very popular sport in South Australia and Western Australia when they expanded into those areas.
Rugby league is a pioneering sport in these parts of the country. Five years should be plenty of time to get the ARLC’s strategic plans right and also have the selected new teams ready to go. Wherever they may be. But Perth and a second Brisbane team sound good to me.
A big criticism of the new deal is the lack of support for grassroots footy. The ARLC needs to use its funds appropriately and not just throw money at organisations such as the Country Rugby League and hope for the best.
They need to find out the core problems and put systems and protocols in place to help grassroots rugby league thrive again. More representation in schools is needed, which is a big strength of the AFL, especially in the Riverina region of NSW. More games in the regional areas to improve the exposure of the game.
Heavily subsidise registration and insurance for junior clubs. Make league an affordable game again. Life is already hard enough without having to tell your kids that you can’t afford for them to play rugby league. Like everything, it all comes down to money. But if the kids don’t play the game, the game won’t survive.
In five years time, if the clubs and players are happy with how the game is being run; if the referees actually have a bearing on things with the Match Review Committee and Judiciary on the same page and being consistent; if the game is in position to welcome two expansion teams that are fully equipped and ready to join the competition; and if the numbers of players around the nation increase each year, the next television rights deal will be much harder for Channel Nine and Foxtel to win.
They will need to step up and they won’t have a right of reply when the next agreement is up for grabs. Rugby league will be the stronger party and the TV stations will be pulling out all the stops next time around.
Five years should be long enough to put the game in a very strong position; a billion dollars should be just enough.
Mango Jack
Guest
It may be a victim of its own success. Or maybe the victims will be the premiership and international league. When players start considering origin in deciding which club to play with, I guess it's time to reassess.
sheek
Guest
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching both AFL & NRL. But AFL has as much chance of breaking into NZ & SP, as NRL has of breaking into WA & SA. Which isn't much! AFL is an acquired taste. When I toured NZ about 5 years ago, many Kiwis commented to me what a strange game it was. It simply doesn't fit with their basically dour personality. And Pacific Islanders simply aren't built for Australian football. Not the majority, anyway. NRL might get a team into Perth, but like the Melbourne Storm, it will basically be like a medieval castle surrounded by a moat. Not much penetration into the countryside. AFL has an awesome product in Australia, & they should concentrate on satisfying their fans in Australia. NRL has an awesome product in NSW & QLD, & perhaps NZ, & they should concentrate on satisfying their fans in these places.
sheek
Guest
Turbowed, Two questions, both barely half-serious. 1. Should ACT have their own SOO team, or a 3rd team made up of 'Rest of Australia'? 2. Should Queenbeyan be considered part of ACT, or NSW, for sporting teams?
sheek
Guest
Mango Jack/Adam, When the SOO eligibility rules were first created, I seriously doubt it ever occurred to them that the question of nationality would ever arise. Everyone in question back in 1980 was Australian, right? All that mattered at the time was where you played your first senior game would qualify you as either a New South Welshman or Queenslander. The thought that someone could play their first senior game in either NSW or QLD, & still be eligible for New Zealand was, well, it was 30 years away! And so here we are. Look, I'm rather ambivalent about this. We've just seen Brad Thorn play for the Australian Kangaroos & NZ All Blacks. I also think the SOO is a severely flawed concept. While it's rating itself through the roof, & has done so for about 30 years, & might continue to do so another 30 years, I mean, seriously, it's not something that you can ever grow with more teams, is it? At least, not into the foreseeable future, which is about 30 years. Maybe? Of course, you could add NZ & make it a triangular comp. And it would probably continue to rate through the roof. But as soon as you did that you can kiss international rugby league goodbye. Anyway, the frenzy surrounding SOO might eventually swallow it up. I would be cautious about media enterprises getting carried away with any product. Who knows where they might want to take it.....
NF
Guest
jdubya What you said sums up the backwards, insular Sydney-cetric thinking that has held this game back forever. The inability to have forward thinking people with a vision and plan has held back this game for a long time. You're a roosters supporter which is interesting considering there pretty hard to find in,,,SYDNEY. Roosters have non-existent junior base and smallest supporter base out of all the Sydney teams with no potential to grow better crowds either.
NF
Guest
Turbo You're a canberran and the Raiders were responsible for some pretty bad crowds this year along with Penrith & Roosters (typical). There's no excuses for sub 10k crowds this days I'm sick of the laziness and excuses from league fans to not attend games get out there and friggin go to it.
Adam Vaughan
Roar Pro
Mango Jack, they are very good points that you raise and I agree with them. What I was getting at is that I personally don't believe players such as James Tamou should be in SOO. And I am a New South Welshman through and through. His statement "If I can play Origin, you can too" directed at other New Zealand natives puts the very concept of SOO at risk, and as I say in my article, is in danger of becoming a joke. I love SOO for what it is and as you have stated in your comment, i am not alone. Others such as Turbodewd have made their opinion known as to the possible future of the concept, and they may have valid points. The rugby league landscape is very different now than what it was when SOO was born. My issue is that it cannot continue to be called State of Origin and played between QLD and NSW if bro's from across the ditch can get involved. That's the part that is on it's way to becoming a joke.
Mango Jack
Guest
Adam, how is SOO "on it's way to becoming a joke"? It's rating through the roof, sells acres of newsprint for months beforehand, and packs out stadiums each time. Please explain...
mushi
Guest
Do delays allowing adds mean that advertising banners that scroll across the bottom are unable to generate engouh revenue to compensate? Um strange question but I guess the answer is no. I don’t know the difference between the rates for in game banners versus decided advertising time. Without that information you can’t really say either way can you. You asked how it maybe more profitable to show one game live versus four games one of the drivers is the ability to place adds.
Bring Back the Bears
Guest
I've said this before on other boards but I think one key thing that needs to change is the NSW Cup needs to represent NSW not just Sydney. Sydney is already strongly represented by NRL teams, NSW Cup should be used to represent areas and teams that aren't already represented in the NRL (in the same vein as QCup). Would love to see perhaps a mid-north coast, Tamworth, Central Coast, Central West, Wagga, and Albury team. Tweed would be great as well but is already covered by the QCup. The other comment I have in regards to your article is expansion, I'm afraid I just can't get behing the 2nd Brisbane team (not just because I want the Bears back), but because 2nd Brisbane means the 'Bombers' and to me that bid is soulless. I agree it would be good to get another team to play out of Suncorp and if another team from SEQ is going to get the go ahead, I hope it goes to Western Corridor. While a lot of their bid details are still TBC, they offer a great point of difference from the Broncos and from what I've heard they seem like they have a strong understanding of history and tradition and have great ties with the communities and grassroots footy.
mick h
Guest
mate im tigers supporter went to storm game on june long weekend no state of origin stars rained all game crowd over 11000 not a bad effort considering. the storm have averaged 12605 this year higher than the roosters,penrith and canberra.
Zippa
Guest
I agree jdubya. Soo needs to tighten up its eligibility laws otherwise it will become state of choice. It is also a slap in the face to all the players that were born and raised in NSW with the lifelong dream of playing for the Blues to have their jersey taken by a kiwis who has only been in Australia a few years. Not to mention the effect it has on international footy.
solly
Guest
Okay, but does that mean that the advertising banners scrolling along the bottom of the screen are unable to generate enough revenue to compensate. especially when you have four live games? I guess the best thing to come out of this is that first and last rights are gone. With that in mind, one would expect that the next negotiating period will the ARLC dictate the terms.
turbodewd
Guest
Ahh, so youre avoiding the fight? Is that how you fight a war vs the AFL? Just hope they go away? Cmon man, have some steel in ya!
turbodewd
Guest
And have the ratings or crowds dropped?! No. Most fans dont know or dont care. We here on these forums are hardcore fans, we are in small numbers.
jdubya
Guest
I'll be honest here. In my opinion adding teams from outside the heartland weakens the game - just ask the AFL. I would happy if I could watch Newtown play Glebe on a Sunday arvo. I have zero interest in Perth vs New Zealand or some other contrived match up. Sydney is the game's heart and if the game ever departs from here it will lose a lot more than it could ever gain.
jdubya
Guest
Then it just becomes an All Stars match like the AFL is proposing. I think the eligibility laws should be tightened if anything.
turbodewd
Guest
Alas the Raiders, Penrith and Storm have indeed been poor. Melbourne has no excuse as you can get good undercover seating for many spots. Also the ARL did them no favors by scheduling the mega Melb vs Bris contest just days after Origin 1 in Melbourne. Ridiculous scheduling! Hopeless.
Dayer
Guest
well said, Turbo. I always wondered why NSW picked players from the ACT. why?!! can someone please explain to me .... please.
Matt_S
Roar Pro
Excuse me but the weather has been crap. I know 3 Broncos games this year were affected by near torrential rain. That probably knocked 30-40000 off those games combined. West Tigers v Dragons game probably had 15-20,000 knocked off their game with heavy rain hitting the coast. These all add up. But saying that, the likes of Penrith and Canberra need to pull their pants up and work hard toward crowds. The Storm, well they just need plugging away, Crown re-signed for another $1 million, and 9 have to promote their coverage of NRL on GEM more.