Ch 9 hammers NRL

[cochise]

It seems to me 9 has outlived its usefulness, and has for the past few years. When you start telling the person you are paying, how to spend the money, you have totally over stepped the mark.

I believe - correct me if I am incorrect, that the NRL were talking recently about taking over the rights and streaming the product themselves. If so, it sounds like a good idea.

However, for this year they may have to stick to these 9 idiots, until they can get their own broadcast rights up and running. If 9 want out of this year, then negotiate with another channel for this year, if agreed, then let 9 out of theirs.

Whatever, the scenario for now - 9 and Toddy need to be given the flick for good, probably at least half the NRL back roomers need to go as well and as has been suggested the Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Wouldn't hurt that the fans receive a bit more consideration as well.

Ok so ...... who is lining up to fill the gap and take on 9s +$130M burden .... not to mention the fallout if things go astray. I will be interested to see what the players insurers have to say for the extra risk they take on through the exercise.
As someone in AFL alluded to in their comments as to why they are weary to take on the bubble approach to a restart.
“You might as well pack them off on Ruby Princess as wait to see what happens”.....

The NRL is no longer looking at a bubble and all players will be undergoing regular testing so should be under less risk than the general population!

Change a day .... huh?

huh?

 

[Russell]

You had me until you said this!

Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Don't understand what your objection to those points are cochise?

Clubs already get too much money and should not have any greater say in how the game is run!

That's right - what right do the clubs have to have a say in a game that wouldn't exist without them. How silly that they should expect to have input.

It is also better that the NRL only give them a small portion of the money, keep a whole stack for themselves, pay themselves 50% more than they are worth or even more if the truth be known and squander the rest. That is a much better idea.

Sorry I mentioned it - I must have been off with the fairies. Go for it Toddy!!!!

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

Apparently NRL was shown in the USA when they suspended their sports and proved to be well received hopefully may spike interest from the US networks
Come on down network 10 and CBS

 

[cochise]

You had me until you said this!

Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Don't understand what your objection to those points are cochise?

Clubs already get too much money and should not have any greater say in how the game is run!

That's right - what right do the clubs have to have a say in a game that wouldn't exist without them. How silly that they should expect to have input.

It is also better that the NRL only give them a small portion of the money, keep a whole stack for themselves, pay themselves 50% more than they are worth or even more if the truth be known and squander the rest. That is a much better idea.

Sorry I mentioned it - I must have been off with the fairies. Go for it Toddy!!!!

The clubs only have their interest at heart, do you think their is any chance of expansion if we put the clubs in charge? What about junior development, international football, growing new areas of the game, country football, women's football? Do you think these areas progress with the clubs running the game?

Grant made a huge mistake in clubs receiving $13m a year, it is way over what they should be getting and has been wasted on bloated football departments!

 

[Russell]

You had me until you said this!

Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Don't understand what your objection to those points are cochise?

Clubs already get too much money and should not have any greater say in how the game is run!

That's right - what right do the clubs have to have a say in a game that wouldn't exist without them. How silly that they should expect to have input.

It is also better that the NRL only give them a small portion of the money, keep a whole stack for themselves, pay themselves 50% more than they are worth or even more if the truth be known and squander the rest. That is a much better idea.

Sorry I mentioned it - I must have been off with the fairies. Go for it Toddy!!!!

The clubs only have their interest at heart, do you think their is any chance of expansion if we put the clubs in charge? What about junior development, international football, growing new areas of the game, country football, women's football? Do you think these areas progress with the clubs running the game?

Grant made a huge mistake in clubs receiving $13m a year, it is way over what they should be getting and has been wasted on bloated football departments!

You had me until you said this!

Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Don't understand what your objection to those points are cochise?

Clubs already get too much money and should not have any greater say in how the game is run!

That's right - what right do the clubs have to have a say in a game that wouldn't exist without them. How silly that they should expect to have input.

It is also better that the NRL only give them a small portion of the money, keep a whole stack for themselves, pay themselves 50% more than they are worth or even more if the truth be known and squander the rest. That is a much better idea.

Sorry I mentioned it - I must have been off with the fairies. Go for it Toddy!!!!

The clubs only have their interest at heart, do you think their is any chance of expansion if we put the clubs in charge? What about junior development, international football, growing new areas of the game, country football, women's football? Do you think these areas progress with the clubs running the game?

Grant made a huge mistake in clubs receiving $13m a year, it is way over what they should be getting and has been wasted on bloated football departments!

Firstly, I said "greater say" - not final say.

What do the NRL do with all this wealth that they hold back?

Secondly - not everyone wants willynilly expansion.

I agree to disagree with you on these points.

 

[cochise]

You had me until you said this!

Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Don't understand what your objection to those points are cochise?

Clubs already get too much money and should not have any greater say in how the game is run!

That's right - what right do the clubs have to have a say in a game that wouldn't exist without them. How silly that they should expect to have input.

It is also better that the NRL only give them a small portion of the money, keep a whole stack for themselves, pay themselves 50% more than they are worth or even more if the truth be known and squander the rest. That is a much better idea.

Sorry I mentioned it - I must have been off with the fairies. Go for it Toddy!!!!

The clubs only have their interest at heart, do you think their is any chance of expansion if we put the clubs in charge? What about junior development, international football, growing new areas of the game, country football, women's football? Do you think these areas progress with the clubs running the game?

Grant made a huge mistake in clubs receiving $13m a year, it is way over what they should be getting and has been wasted on bloated football departments!

You had me until you said this!

Clubs need more say, more money and being treated with more respect.

Don't understand what your objection to those points are cochise?

Clubs already get too much money and should not have any greater say in how the game is run!

That's right - what right do the clubs have to have a say in a game that wouldn't exist without them. How silly that they should expect to have input.

It is also better that the NRL only give them a small portion of the money, keep a whole stack for themselves, pay themselves 50% more than they are worth or even more if the truth be known and squander the rest. That is a much better idea.

Sorry I mentioned it - I must have been off with the fairies. Go for it Toddy!!!!

The clubs only have their interest at heart, do you think their is any chance of expansion if we put the clubs in charge? What about junior development, international football, growing new areas of the game, country football, women's football? Do you think these areas progress with the clubs running the game?

Grant made a huge mistake in clubs receiving $13m a year, it is way over what they should be getting and has been wasted on bloated football departments!

Firstly, I said "greater say" - not final say.

What do the NRL do with all this wealth that they hold back?

Secondly - not everyone wants willynilly expansion.

I agree to disagree with you on these points.

Not talking about willy nilly expansion but a presence in wa and a second team in Brisbane would be nice. The NRL has blown lots of money but so has the clubs!

 

[momo_amp_medo]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

 

[cochise]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

Rubbish mate, did you read the part where players would be a less risk than the general population?

 

[momo_amp_medo]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

Rubbish mate, did you read the part where players would be a less risk than the general population?


 

[cochise]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

Rubbish mate, did you read the part where players would be a less risk than the general population?


How would they be at greater risk if they are being regularly tested?

 

[JD Tiger]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

Rubbish mate, did you read the part where players would be a less risk than the general population?


How would they be at greater risk if they are being regularly tested?

How does getting regularly tested change the risk of contraction in the first place? It might reduce spread, is that the risk they are referring to?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Doesn’t matter how often they are tested, once a player did test positive, that would be the end.

 

[momo_amp_medo]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

Rubbish mate, did you read the part where players would be a less risk than the general population?


How would they be at greater risk if they are being regularly tested?

Because they are being regularly tested ...... wider you test more positive results you discover.
That’s the great unknown in this epidemic.
Anyway mate it seems we will have to agree to disagree. Nothing you or I can do or say about this further that can shed any light as to how things will turn out.
I just sit on the side of caution and see significant wider public relation problem for our code and players if things go pear shape.
So here’s hoping that I’m wrong. Happy Easter and stay safe.

 

[cochise]

But just back on the issue of player and game insurance ..... I would be keen for someone on here with working knowledge of the industry to comment as to how current game insurers would handle the increased CV19 risk with game restart schedule.
I would image their small print would cover their back sides but then who takes on the responsibility?
The game who initiated? The government who allowed it? Or the players who willingly participated?

There would likely be lower risk for players than the general population!

What insurance are you talking about anyway, no one is insured against covid 19!

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Keep that thought and eventually you may be able to see the problem.

Rubbish mate, did you read the part where players would be a less risk than the general population?


How would they be at greater risk if they are being regularly tested?

Because they are being regularly tested ...... wider you test more positive results you discover.
That’s the great unknown in this epidemic.
Anyway mate it seems we will have to agree to disagree. Nothing you or I can do or say about this further that can shed any light as to how things will turn out.
I just sit on the side of caution and see significant wider public relation problem for our code and players if things go pear shape.
So here’s hoping that I’m wrong. Happy Easter and stay safe.

That doesn't increase their chance of infection though, it makes it a greater chance of being discovered which would actually put the players and their families at less risk. Give them earlier diagnosis and I would dare say better outcomes if they are infected.

 

[diedpretty]

I’d rather see the comp suspended till 2021, then some stupid little modified Mickey Mouse season cos the NRL are too skint to scrap 2020.

If they can play 15 rounds I wouldn't see that as a mickey mouse season!

I don’t see how it would be anything but. Traditionally, round 15 is the mark where the season is just warming up.

I would argue it would be the fairest comp we have had in a long long time with every team playing the other teams in the comp the same amount of times! In a 15 round comp every game is important so the season wouldn't need to warm up as every game would be crucial.

Not if they keep the points from the first 2 rounds already played.

Why would that make any difference?

How would it be fair to take any 2 rounds out of context of a whole season, and use the points to tack onto another different season? It would be like taking the first minute of the game (or the 23rd minute of a game) and using only the points scored in that minute.

The teams whingeing about it not being fair to exclude it, I think have a valid point, but it's just ridiculous to include it in another season, so sorry but too bad.

How lucky were Parra getting Dogs and titans in the first 2 rounds.

Or Canberra getting titans and warriors. Sharks got rabbits and storm. - Seems fair to include those games. Not.

What difference does it make?

i was replying to another poster who was commenting on something entirely different. But to answer your question it makes no difference whatsoever if its a 15 round comp and those first 2 rounds stand with 13 rounds to go and everyone plays each team once. If that happens fine but knowing the NRL i doubt that it will work out that way.

 

[momo_amp_medo]

The ‘Act of God’ clause causing more friction between the NRL and Channel 9
Peter Badel, The Courier-Mail
April 10, 2020 4:38pm

The bad blood between Channel 9 and the NRL has intensified with the parties now locked in a fresh dispute over an Act of God clause taken out by the governing body.

News Corp can reveal the NRL has formally notified its commercial and broadcast partners it has activated a Force Majeure clause to insulate the governing body financially in the wake of the fallout from the COVID-19 ordeal.

By suspending the season a fortnight ago, the NRL are technically in breach of their $1.8 billion broadcast deal with Channel 9 and Fox Sports, a scenario that could ostensibly trigger legal action.

But the Force Majeure clause protects the NRL from being sued at a time when the COVID-19 saga could cost the code up to $470 million in lost revenue this season.

Sources close to negotiations say the NRL has no intention of invoking the Force Majeure as a get-out clause to broker new, and possibly more lucrative, deals with other sponsors or broadcasters.

But the move has gone down like a lead balloon with Channel 9, which has questioned the NRL over whether the coronavirus pandemic represents an Act of God disaster.

The contractual clash of beliefs could be one reason behind Channel 9’s savage attack on the NRL on Friday, accusing the governing body of mismanaging millions over the past decade - including a $50 million loan from the free-to-air giant.

Channel 9’s current broadcast deal with the NRL, worth an estimated $125 million annually, expires at the end of 2022.

The clause covers all contracts in the NRL’s mega commercial stable - including their $625 million contract with disgruntled free-to-air broadcaster Channel 9.

A Force Majeure is a clause which gives the NRL contractual protection in the event an Act of God, in this case the coronavirus pandemic, affects their ability to fulfil obligations to sponsors and broadcasters.

By enacting the Force Majeure, the NRL has the ability to seek a renegotiation of contracts this season in good faith, with protection for future terms that had been agreed upon when the deal was initially signed.

Contacted by News Corp on Friday, an NRL spokesman said: “We are working closely with all partners to resume the Telstra Premiership and comply with our agreements.”

ARL Commission chairman Peter V’landys said he would meet with Channel 9 bosses in the next week after the NRL were accused of failing to consult the network on their May 28 relaunch plans.

“We will have talks and we will engage them in what we are trying to do,” he said.

There are fears Channel 9 could walk away from rugby league after a stinging broadside that could herald the demise of besieged NRL CEO Todd Greenberg.

At Nine we had hoped to work with the NRL on a solution to the issues facing rugby league in 2020, brought on so starkly by COVID-19,” the Nine statement said on Thursday.

“But this health crisis in our community has highlighted the mismanagement of the code over many years. Nine has invested hundreds of millions in this game over decades and we now find they have profoundly wasted those funds with very little to fall back on to support the clubs, the players and supporters.

“In the past the NRL have had problems and we’ve bailed them out many times including a $50m loan to support clubs when the last contract was signed.

“It would now appear that much of that has been squandered by a bloated head office completely ignoring the needs of the clubs, players and supporters.”

 

[gallagher]

The longer this saga goes on, the more likely it will become clear that V'Landys is nothing more than an opportunist whose leadership style of "have a win at any cost" is decidely dangerous in times such as these.

He is the Donald Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon of Australian sports leaders; a man of limited intellience, a huge ego and self-belief who is emboldened by success, as measured by his own metrics.

Well he's kept racing going.

 

[dazza65]

The longer this saga goes on, the more likely it will become clear that V'Landys is nothing more than an opportunist whose leadership style of "have a win at any cost" is decidely dangerous in times such as these.

He is the Donald Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon of Australian sports leaders; a man of limited intellience, a huge ego and self-belief who is emboldened by success, as measured by his own metrics.

Didn’t take long. Everyone was lauding him a short while back and thanking jeebus that previous chairmen were no longer in the seat.

Can’t win em all.