Threat of IC collapse leading to breakaway competition

[happy_tiger]

Their is an article on the nine msn page telling that clubs want an increase from 3.65 million to 6 million per season of support from the NRL once the IC takes over on November 1
\
\
And further talk if the clubs and NEWS don't agree they may start up a breakaway competition
\
\
My opinion on this

If the clubs and or News again hold the NRL to ransom again and do their best to destroy the game again as far as I am concerned they and the game can stick it

I will walk away and never watch another game of rugby league again

 

[cunno]

Surely it's huff and puff from the clubs pushing for some more money and a bit of journalistic license thrown in.

 

[happy_tiger]

Surely it's huff and puff from the clubs pushing for some more money and a bit of journalistic license thrown in.

I really hope so Cunno because if we had to got through super league and the like again the game would lose me from the disgrace of it all

 

[Fraze23]

The sooner News Ltd are out of the game, the better

 

[Spartan117]

Clubs are getting Greedy IMO,

We are at a turning point in the evolution and the history of our game and now we have this.

Wait 12 months when the new TV deal is confirmed and the annual grant in most likely to be in excess of the 6m the clubs are demanding.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

They are asking for extra money in the grant, but what will be the salary cap?

If the grant is $6m (indexed) and the cap is indexed from its current level of $3.5m, then there is a benefit for clubs. The grant can assist with non playing expenses.

However, does anyone think the player's union will allow the cap to remain at current levels with the clubs receiving $6m? No chance. The grant will always be absorbed by player wages.

 

[happy_tiger]

They are asking for extra money in the grant, but what will be the salary cap?

If the grant is $6m (indexed) and the cap is indexed from its current level of $3.5m, then there is a benefit for clubs. The grant can assist with non playing expenses.

However, does anyone think the player's union will allow the cap to remain at current levels with the clubs receiving $6m? No chance. The grant will always be absorbed by player wages.

Instead of more money to existing players lets pay more players (35 on the books per club ) and play more games so we can have a total home and away comp of 30 games and the players can be rested from games (have a limit of say 24 NRL max for anyone 1 player)

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

While I think the clubs and players should be adequately rewarded for giving us a game to follow, I don't think it's fair that the likes of St George, Manly and Cronulla can demand this money purely because they cannot run a football club at profit.

It's amazing that Wests Tigers can run at a profit in such a Sydney centric competition and yet we will only receive the same grant as teams that need the grants because their leagues clubs can no longer support them. If anything, clubs who run at a loss should receive less from the NRL. That gives the club incentive to become savvy operators, otherwise fold or relocate. It annoys me to no end that Wests and Balmain had to merge to ensure survival at the NRL in some capacity but Manly and Cronulla continue to be given concessions and carried by the NRL and more successful clubs.

 

[happy_tiger]

While I think the clubs and players should be adequately rewarded for giving us a game to follow, I don't think it's fair that the likes of St George, Manly and Cronulla can demand this money purely because they cannot run a football club at profit.

It's amazing that Wests Tigers can run at a profit in such a Sydney centric competition and yet we will only receive the same grant as teams that need the grants because their leagues clubs can no longer support them. If anything, clubs who run at a loss should receive less from the NRL. That gives the club incentive to become savvy operators, otherwise fold or relocate. It annoys me to no end that Wests and Balmain had to merge to ensure survival at the NRL in some capacity but Manly and Cronulla continue to be given concessions and carried by the NRL and more successful clubs.

I agree Bogan but we don't want to end up with 8 teams left either There has to be a happy medium

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

While I think the clubs and players should be adequately rewarded for giving us a game to follow, I don't think it's fair that the likes of St George, Manly and Cronulla can demand this money purely because they cannot run a football club at profit.

It's amazing that Wests Tigers can run at a profit in such a Sydney centric competition and yet we will only receive the same grant as teams that need the grants because their leagues clubs can no longer support them. If anything, clubs who run at a loss should receive less from the NRL. That gives the club incentive to become savvy operators, otherwise fold or relocate. It annoys me to no end that Wests and Balmain had to merge to ensure survival at the NRL in some capacity but Manly and Cronulla continue to be given concessions and carried by the NRL and more successful clubs.

I agree Bogan but we don't want to end up with 8 teams left either There has to be a happy medium

I would rather see 12 solvent and profitable sides than 8 teams who can meet a budget and 8 that are leeches on leagues club and NRL grants and still can't make a dollar in the green. I say this as a pissed off fan who was forced two watch two great clubs with near on 200 years of history merge for the "betterment" of the game. What have we seen for our clubs' sacrifices? We've won a premiership and become one of the more successful sides in the game in recent years but those are club achievements, we've been rewarded very little by the NRL itself. We still have dead weight in the competition with isolated teams with no support base and they are cut breaks at every turn by apologists who love buzzwords like "history" and "tradition" but conveniently forget when they forced two of the oldest and proudest clubs into a merger to survive at the top flight.

FTR the merger was the best thing to happen to both clubs and I support it wholly. I just hate the double standard from the NRL when it comes to supporting dead weight clubs. Become solvent, merge or GTFO.

 

[happy_tiger]

Yeah 12-14 sides is the number I have always thought would work CB

Mate totally agree with your buzzwords Tradition and History mean little to the youngsters of todays and these words are all to readily used by people wanting to keep things unchanged

I think 5 sides in NSW is the maximum you need
2 in NZ (1 on each island )
4 in Qld total
1 profitable team from Melbourne
1 in ACT
1 in NT
And possibly build from there
Maybe a Pacific Islands team ??

 

[cunno]

CB I don't have the detail you seem to have but if it is correct and this move is led by clubs who don't have the capacity, ability or are incompetent to run their clubs in a financially viable manner then the natural process should follow and those clubs should fold or be relocated. As you said, if it's something Wests and Balmain had to do then so should other clubs.

Happy, there has been media talk lately about a second NZ team and that's probably been reiinforced by the players coming through in NZ signified by their representation in the recent Grand Final day. A team in the NT is a new one, would you go there instead of Perth?

 

[happy_tiger]

CB I don't have the detail you seem to have but if it is correct and this move is led by clubs who don't have the capacity, ability or are incompetent to run their clubs in a financially viable manner then the natural process should follow and those clubs should fold or be relocated. As you said, if it's something Wests and Balmain had to do then so should other clubs.

Happy, there has been media talk lately about a second NZ team and that's probably been reiinforced by the players coming through in NZ signified by their representation in the recent Grand Final day. A team in the NT is a new one, would you go there instead of Perth?

I think Darwin is a high growth area and is not represented with any national code Although it appears that AFL is the no 1 choice

Perhaps a move there in the future by an existing team (after some trials to see crowd levels ,support etc) it could be a viable option

I really cannot see Perth or Adelaide as a long term option

Union in Perth is already on the slide with crowd numbers and support and businesses pulling out left ,right and centre

 

[cunno]

CB I don't have the detail you seem to have but if it is correct and this move is led by clubs who don't have the capacity, ability or are incompetent to run their clubs in a financially viable manner then the natural process should follow and those clubs should fold or be relocated. As you said, if it's something Wests and Balmain had to do then so should other clubs.

Happy, there has been media talk lately about a second NZ team and that's probably been reiinforced by the players coming through in NZ signified by their representation in the recent Grand Final day. A team in the NT is a new one, would you go there instead of Perth?

I think Darwin is a high growth area and is not represented with any national code Although it appears that AFL is the no 1 choice

Perhaps a move there in the future by an existing team (after some trials to see crowd levels ,support etc) it could be a viable option

I really cannot see Perth or Adelaide as a long term option

Union in Perth is already on the slide with crowd numbers and support and businesses pulling out left ,right and centre

AFL in WA has enjoyed some success compared to the Union team. If an NRL license went to Perth success would need to follow quickly, not necessarily a premiership but a competitive team.

 

[citizen_cub]

This may be a silly question, but if News are forced to relinquish their part ownership of the game, does this mean that Foxsports will no longer broadcast NRL matches?

My inexperience has caught me out on this one. Can somebody more knowledgeable help answer my question?

Cheers

 

[cunno]

Cub, I don't know for sure but I believe NRL broadcasts are important to foxtel subscriptions so even if News relinquish part ownership I'd be surprised if they stopped broadcasting NRL games, it wouldn't be good for foxtel business.

 

[citizen_cub]

Cheers cunno, I was just about to say, I'd be cringing if Ch9 were the only broadcasters! Lol, 1 live game a week! How good would that be :laughing:

AFL have been able to secure a rights deal whereby every game is shown live, why can't the NRL? Ch9's obstinate attitude towards broadcasting games live is getting beyond a joke, it's time to issue the right's to another free-to-air broadcaster who'll actually show games live.

 

[jadtiger]

This may be a silly question, but if News are forced to relinquish their part ownership of the game, does this mean that Foxsports will no longer broadcast NRL matches?

My inexperience has caught me out on this one. Can somebody more knowledgeable help answer my question?

Cheers

extremely unlikely the NRL matches on foxtel are the best ratings programs and would lead to people cancelling their subscriptions (myself included)

 

[Marshall_magic]

Yeah 12-14 sides is the number I have always thought would work CB

Mate totally agree with your buzzwords Tradition and History mean little to the youngsters of todays and these words are all to readily used by people wanting to keep things unchanged

I think 5 sides in NSW is the maximum you need
2 in NZ (1 on each island )
4 in Qld total
1 profitable team from Melbourne
1 in ACT
1 in NT
And possibly build from there
Maybe a Pacific Islands team ??

Model isn't too bad, but cutting 5/10 NSW teams would be a mistake, you slap lots of people in the face cutting one team, let alone 5\. In Sydney the Tigers/Roosters/Rabbitohs/Dragons/Bulldogs should all be pretty good and if the other 3 get their acts together I don't see why they can't also stay or Cronulla if they can somehow pull it together. As for Newcastle, they have a billionaire owner and are based in one of the games top heartlands, only a fool would punt them.

for me the following 3 are a must in the next 15 years
Brisbane/SEQ
Perth
New Zealand II (location I guess would depend on fanbase)

then if you need another, you can go Central Queensland or Central Coast, although I don't know if either area can hold a team.

 

[happy_tiger]

Yeah 12-14 sides is the number I have always thought would work CB

Mate totally agree with your buzzwords Tradition and History mean little to the youngsters of todays and these words are all to readily used by people wanting to keep things unchanged

I think 5 sides in NSW is the maximum you need
2 in NZ (1 on each island )
4 in Qld total
1 profitable team from Melbourne
1 in ACT
1 in NT
And possibly build from there
Maybe a Pacific Islands team ??

Model isn't too bad, but cutting 5/10 NSW teams would be a mistake, you slap lots of people in the face cutting one team, let alone 5\. In Sydney the Tigers/Roosters/Rabbitohs/Dragons/Bulldogs should all be pretty good and if the other 3 get their acts together I don't see why they can't also stay or Cronulla if they can somehow pull it together. As for Newcastle, they have a billionaire owner and are based in one of the games top heartlands, only a fool would punt them.

for me the following 3 are a must in the next 15 years
Brisbane/SEQ
Perth
New Zealand II (location I guess would depend on fanbase)

then if you need another, you can go Central Queensland or Central Coast, although I don't know if either area can hold a team.

MM thats what Bogan and I are alluding to (in different ways ) You have three choices Become a self sustaining club ,relocate so you can become a self sustaining club or die a painful death without support from NRL etc

You could relocate 2-3 teams to start with and maybe amalgamate two sides (Manly and Cronulla for instance) and that solves your issues
If the NRL wants they could relocate the Tigers to Central Qld 😱pen_mouth: (Just joking ,just joking)