The NRL has put forward its revised offer to disgruntled clubs in an effort to avert a civil war within the code and save the head of ARL commission chairman John Grant.
The two parties are at odds over an in-principle funding agreement which was last month pulled from the table.
In a last-ditch attempt to solve the impasse, the NRL on Monday night put forward a revised offer to the clubs however a planned emergency general meeting will go ahead on Tuesday where Grant’s fate will be decided.
The NRL offered a new funding agreement which went close to meeting the original offer to fund clubs at 130 per cent of the salary cap.
The governing body is also considering a push to give the clubs two seats on the independent commission.
Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates is conducting a review into ARLC constitutional change and the NRL is not willing to commit to any change to the makeup of the ARLC until he has delivered his report.
The clubs spent Monday night in talks at a lawyer’s office in Sydney’s CBD however could not reach a decision on whether to accept the offer.
The clubs have called an emergency general meeting of the commission’s stakeholders – the eight commissioners, the clubs and the QRL and NSWRL – at Rugby League Central on Tuesday morning.
The clubs and the NRL are at war over how to divvy up the $1.8 billion television deal after Grant rescinded an offer to fund clubs at 130 per cent of the salary cap from 2018 – a deal which was supposed to deliver an extra $100 million per year .
Grant cited the decline of the game’s grassroots and the need for a sinking fund to prop up failing clubs as the reason for his decision to backtrack despite trumpeting the deal at a press conference 12 months earlier.
Grant is believed to have the support of his seven fellow commissioners, the QRL and the two NRL-owned clubs, Gold Coast and Newcastle.
However the clubs and NSWRL have the 14 of 26 stakeholder votes required to oust Grant and enforce change.
It was reported that both Brisbane and North Queensland had reaffirmed their commitment to getting rid of Grant amid rumours they were set to backtrack on their decision.
The clubs were angered last month when Grant pulled from the table their club funding offer, prompting four club bosses to storm out of the meeting.
Mushi
Guest
How do you know? Your statement may be true but you didn't give any indication as to why. Also it is worth remembering the argument that led to revenue sharing in the mlb.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The only point in the package I disagree with is the fund to help clubs who are in financial distress. If they can't hack it, there will be someone else who can.