General Clubs' rebellion threatens future of NRL

[mrblonde_old]

Based on the evidence, I think the worst thing you could say about Scurrah is that he gives himself a fair amount of wriggle room.

So he could, in the case of Metcalf, quite legitimately say that he'd never said the Warriors would never sign Metcalf, although a lot of folk would have taken his comment that way. "It's not something we're considering now, or for the future".... You could take that statement several ways. Is the operative word "now" (ie the Warriors weren't considering it when Scurrah was asked and at that point in time saw no need to ever consider it, hence the addition "or for the future" but avoiding "at this time" because well, that's an unspoken proviso on any question about things that may or may not be considered in future), or the phrase "now, or for the future" (ie the Warriors weren't considering it when Scurrah was asked and had decided there was no need to ever consider it).

Scurrah comes across is the type of witness in a courtroom who'd drive a lawyer barmy. Not over committing himself to one position. Which might well be an extremely sensible position for a chief executive to take.

Anyhow, back on topic: several people are now lining up to basically say that the 16 clubs, 14 of whom are writing their accounts in red ink apparantly, have only mentioned the bandied about $6mAUD figure in a "this is what we'd need to make a profit" type discussion.

Also, there's the position that a breakaway competition would annoy fans simply because it's another round of bad publicity that the greatest game of all really doesn't need. You can imagine the coverage in non-league loving circles - "in the breakaway competition blah blah" never mind that actually everyone's part of it.

The implication being "that pathetic sport that can't get it's shit together"....

Sorry, I was talking union there for a second. Apologies.

 

[Jesbass_old]

Based on the evidence, I think the worst thing you could say about Scurrah is that he gives himself a fair amount of wriggle room.

So he could, in the case of Metcalf, quite legitimately say that he'd never said the Warriors would never sign Metcalf, although a lot of folk would have taken his comment that way. "It's not something we're considering now, or for the future".... You could take that statement several ways. Is the operative word "now" (ie the Warriors weren't considering it when Scurrah was asked and at that point in time saw no need to ever consider it, hence the addition "or for the future" but avoiding "at this time" because well, that's an unspoken proviso on any question about things that may or may not be considered in future), or the phrase "now, or for the future" (ie the Warriors weren't considering it when Scurrah was asked and had decided there was no need to ever consider it).

Scurrah comes across is the type of witness in a courtroom who'd drive a lawyer barmy. Not over committing himself to one position. Which might well be an extremely sensible position for a chief executive to take.

Yes, I think that's all very fair. But I still think it's a leap to go from what he said to "Scurrah is a liar because we did end up signing Metcalf".

The reality is that situations change and those situations can cause a change in thinking. That doesn't make the original statement a lie.

Ropati - our number one centre - had a season ending injury not long after Scurrah's comment. That changes things, but it doesn't make him dishonest as a result.

Analogy o'clock: If I get up in the morning and say "I'm not going to wear my green shirt today - I'm going to wear my blue shirt instead." But then I discover that my blue shirt is unwashed / still in the wash / being used as a toilet by the cat. So then I consider the changed situation and I end up wearing my green shirt anyway. That doesn't make me a liar, when lie is used in its most common sense: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood".

To be truthfully honest, (and correct me if I'm wrong, NU), I think the main issue here is that this is more about Metcalf than it is about Scurrah. I think if the exact same comment had been made about, say, Adam Blair, and we'd received an Adam Blair equivalent injury crisis, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

 

[Swanley_old]

Analogy o'clock: If I get up in the morning and say "I'm not going to wear my green shirt today - I'm going to wear my blue shirt instead." But then I discover that my blue shirt is unwashed / still in the wash / being used as a toilet by the cat. So then I consider the changed situation and I end up wearing my green shirt anyway.

Is your cat not toilet trained.

I beleive the Metclaf issue is all about the person himself and not Scurrah.

If in 4 weeks time it comes out that the Warriors are going to get extra funding after the clubs kicked up a fuss, would be be calling for Scurrah's job.

In his defence, at the time he make's a statement it is factually correct.

X,Y,Z used to make one decision can change, which may force the club to change tack and maybe go back on what it has said.

I have no issues with Scurrah and I don't think he has said any untruths.

 

[Jesbass_old]

Is your cat not toilet trained.

I beleive the Metclaf issue is all about the person himself and not Scurrah.

If in 4 weeks time it comes out that the Warriors are going to get extra funding after the clubs kicked up a fuss, would be be calling for Scurrah's job.

In his defence, at the time he make's a statement it is factually correct.

X,Y,Z used to make one decision can change, which may force the club to change tack and maybe go back on what it has said.

I have no issues with Scurrah and I don't think he has said any untruths.

This.

And we're trying to get the cat to use a potty in future! :cl

 

[NEWBIE_old]

NRL clubs' pay grab puts season in doubt

Source:https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/5781309/NRL-clubs-pay-grab-puts-season-in-doubt

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.

 

[NEWBIE_old]

Numbers add up for NRL clubs in cash scramble

Source: Numbers add up for NRL clubs in cash scramble

NRL clubs have been handed a big weapon to bludgeon co-owners News Ltd and the ARL with their demand for a doubling in their annual grants: TV audience figures for this year have eclipsed the AFL by 15 million, sending a clear message that the teams who put on the show deserve the same $1.25 billion broadcasters recently paid for AFL rights.

NRL cumulative TV audience numbers for the year, based on OzTAM data, were 128 million, compared with AFL's 113 million, a 2 million rise in both codes on the previous year's figures.

Regional free-to-air figures for the NRL the past two years were 38 million. The AFL's were 23 million this year, in areas where it has no teams in major centres of the size of population of the size of Newcastle, Wollongong and Townsville.

The AFL can boast it has superior free-to-air capital city figures, based on its national spread of teams, with 71 million viewers this year, compared with 57 million in the NRL, which is essentially a two capital city game, with matches live into Sydney and Brisbane and televised after midnight in Melbourne.

Furthermore, the AFL televises four games a week free-to-air compared with the NRL's three, although rugby league's massive State of Origin ratings are included in NRL totals.

However, the popularity of the NRL on pay TV has been the biggest driver of growth, with the total Fox Sports audience rising from 29 million to 33 million this year.

AFL pay TV numbers have also increased, up 3 million, but from a lower base of 16 million to 19 million.

Not surprisingly, of the top 100 programs this year on Foxtel, the NRL had 68 and the AFL had 12.

When these audience numbers are compared with the broadcasting fees paid, it's little wonder NRL clubs, with 14 making a loss this year, demand increased grants from a far better broadcasting deal.

The AFL plans to gatecrash the start of next year's NRL season, holding its own launch in Sydney, as well as next month's draft, while scheduling a stand-alone match between the Swans and Greater Western Sydney at ANZ Stadium ahead of the rest of the AFL competition starting.

NRL clubs argue the AFL's aggressive tactics are essentially funded off the Foxtel subscriptions paid by NRL watchers in NSW and Queensland, including the $1 million to $2 million contracts paid to code jumpers Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau, and the Gold Coast Suns' Gary Ablett and the Giants' Tom Scully.

It's hard to counter the argument when the NRL will receive $42 million for Fox Sports broadcasting five matches a week live next season, while the AFL will receive $130 million.

While NRL free-to-air rights holder, Channel Nine, has admitted it must pay more than its current $45 million a year if it is to fight off competition from Seven and Ten for the 2013 rights, the message from monopoly pay TV networks, Foxtel/Fox Sports, is that it doesn't have to substantially increase its NRL fee.

Foxtel boss Kim Williams has used a number of arguments over the years to justify the larger AFL payment: higher capital city ratings (ignoring regional numbers); bigger crowds (don't people buy pay TV to watch games at home?); a superior family image (wasn't the AFL's top player manager photographed in his underpants with a 17-year-old girl?) and finally, ratings aren't as important as subscription numbers.

Foxtel has been told to reach half of all homes within the next five to seven years, before the completion of the NBN broadband roll out.

With subscription numbers in Sydney over 30 per cent and in Adelaide and Perth lower than 20 per cent, it's true the AFL states have more growth potential.

In fact, Foxtel only needs a further 95,000 new subscribers to return the fee it paid the AFL.

But NRL clubs ask: Does this justify paying the NRL peanuts, particularly when the pay TV sport network was built on the popularity of the NRL?

Still, if Williams persists in this argument, insiders see a window of opportunity with Foxtel's potential takeover of Austar, the regional pay TV carrier.

Based on the huge regional free-to-air audience for the NRL, industry chiefs see an opportunity for rural viewers transferring to pay TV. If Foxtel takes over Austar's 762,000 subscribers and drives a campaign in rural NSW and Queensland to sign up more households, Fox Sports might be forced to pay as much for the NRL as Williams gifted the AFL.

For the NRL to receive as much in free-to-air rights as Seven paid for AFL, it must create more advertising opportunities.

There are about 80 commercials in an AFL match, which is divided by quarters, compared with 34 in the NRL, with two recent NRL Saturday evening finals matches lasting as long as one AFL final.

However, Nine staffers are exploring the potential of game stoppages creating more space for commercial opportunities.

Rugby league's representative program also has the potential to widen the gap with the AFL, which has no mid- and end-of-season representative games of consequence.

A Test match on Sunday against the Kiwis and the forthcoming Four Nations series should build on Australian and New Zealand's viewing numbers, particularly with the exciting finals form of the Warriors increasing New Zealand's audience by 29 per cent this year.

 

[RRG_old]

I think it is pretty obvious the NRL are getting screwed by fox. The only problem is the lack of competition to buy the tv rights.

TBH I think if any action was threatened a boycott would be more realistic then a break away competition.

 

[Northern_Union]

I side with the clubs on this one. The IC was ment to be in place a year ago. Thats a years lost income from the TV deal for the clubs. I suspect that the clubs would have been interested in looking at a few RWC players but obviously they can't move without that money.

 

[RRG_old]

All the NRL clubs in NSW and QLD should tell their supporters to cancel their fox subs during the offseason till they agree to match the gayfl! Ok it may not work in practice, but they need something to shake up fox to show them that the subs they are getting from league are not guaranteed.

 

[Ryan_old]

I side with the clubs on this one. The IC was ment to be in place a year ago. Thats a years lost income from the TV deal for the clubs.

So, if the IC was in place, would the NRL be able to break their contract(s) with the various broadcasters (which, as best I understand it, ends after the 2012 season)?

 

[Northern_Union]

I've no idea on the TV contracts side of things.

 

[Ryan_old]

I've no idea on the TV contracts side of things.

Right. Okay. I don't have a bone to pick here and I'm legitimately interested in what you meant by Thats a years lost income from the TV deal for the clubs. I don't know much about the IC/TV contracts/Club rebellions etc apart from the casual headline stuff.

 

[Northern_Union]

Well as i understand it when the IC comes in they then look to sign a new deal which will end the current deal with News. So that being said i take the clubs actions to be that of a group unhappy that the new IC hasn't come in and the new deal which is likely to be the biggest ever signed in Australian TV history is a year late. Hense the bill for the years lost increase in income.
Happy to be corrected on this however.

 

[Ryan_old]

Okay. Thanks.