View Full Version : The Super League war
League apart (http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/League-apart/2005/03/25/1111692629384.html?oneclick=true)
March 26, 2005
When rugby league tore itself in two it really was a case of mate against mate. Ten years on, Roy Masters finds the game is still divided over Super League.
The Super League war erupted 10 years ago next Wednesday. It became a $1 billion, three-year divide that blasted apart the club landscape, consolidated rival codes, welded the game to a media empire, yet cut away the rust that had delayed reform.
About 8pm on March 30, 1995, ARL chief executive John Quayle walked up the stairs of a hotel in The Rocks, carrying the faxes of six clubs that were announcing their defection. A few blocks away Brisbane chief executive John Ribot was signing Canterbury players, the first to join the rebel league.
Within days, the game was in pieces. The ARL was broke, its $22 million in "rainy day" funds destroyed in a deluge of obscene offer and counter offer. Agreements were broken as fast as friendships in a battle that became known as "Super Greed". The avarice produced bits of buffoonery, shards of black humour, shreds of dead dreams.
The most telling comment came from ARL chairman Ken Arthurson, lamenting the cost: "The money we spend on lawyers could fund the development of the game for a year."
There were accusations of treachery from both sides and the truth of some of the secret manoeuvring has taken a decade to surface. News Ltd chief executive Ken Cowley, the general in the Rupert Murdoch-funded campaign, was convinced he had a deal with Knights captain Paul Harragon to sign with Super League. "The Chief" points to treachery at his own club.
"The official line from our club officials was that the players would make up their minds which organisation - ARL or Super League - to join," Harragon said. "But that was not the case and it became more and more obvious as it went on.
"They very much wanted to go the News Ltd way and get the hand-outs. I was the only bloke at the Knights who had spoken to News Ltd and the ARL. I walked out of Ken Cowley's office after speaking to him and Lachlan Murdoch and I was all News Ltd.
"I was gone. I went over to Phillip Street to tell them and when I got out of the lift, it was a bunker. There were people and typewriters everywhere. I suddenly saw the sense of it all and realised this vision thing was all airy-fairy, so I signed."
Meanwhile, Harragon said, his own club officials were providing entree to News Ltd representatives to speak to the players individually and collectively, while obstructing ARL visits.
"The Knights hierarchy were trying to sidetrack Bob Fulton," he said. "I rang Bozo and asked him why he hadn't come up and he said the Knights guys told him not to come. That's when I went round the corner, hired a minibus with my own money and took the players to the ARL to sign."
Ribot, the Super League's chief executive, is certain the Roosters almost defected. He said he and NRL chief executive David Gallop, then a Super League lawyer, met Michael Conn, a Roosters board member and solicitor and reached agreement. "The Optus funding to the ARL was about to dry up and they would come over but it had to be as a single club," Ribot said. "If they merged, it had to be on their terms."
Ribot said he wanted to sign the Roosters immediately but News Ltd's representative, Tom Mockridge (now working in Italian TV) was confident he could sign St George, who he considered to be a bigger prize. But Ribot knew the psychological advantage of winning over one of the ARL's most prominent hawks, Roosters chairman Nick Politis. Politis agrees on that point.
"Because of my closeness to John Quayle and Colin Love [then ARL lawyer], plus our involvement with the Packers, it would have been a massive blow, particularly considering it only needed one club to go and the ARL agreement with Nine/Optus was broken," Politis said. "If we did go, there was no ARL."
Quayle managed to secure more Optus funding while Politis was in the US taking phone calls from Cowley and Ribot at 3am.
"It was a huge turning point for us," Ribot said of Mockridge's vacillation. "Rupert Murdoch had told me only four days earlier to get it fixed and we had the opportunity. I was really deflated. The whole pack would have folded. St George were always watery. "I'd been talking to them for two weeks but they couldn't make a decision. Their game plan was to wait for the ARL to fall and then say, 'We were with you'."
Politis denies he would have defected, saying: "I couldn't have done it. I should have. It cost a lot of money to stay alive and we lost the $20-$30million other clubs got. I didn't do the right thing by the club but I did the right thing by the game."
Nor was Super League as rock solid as imagined. Broncos owner Paul Morgan and chief executive Shane Edwards flew to Sydney to meet Kerry Packer and discussed defecting to the ARL.
"The ARL made a big mistake early," Ribot said. "They assumed we had the Broncos but they were the last club to sign up. That was as damaging to them as the loss of Nick Politis was to us."
Broncos coach Wayne Bennett had to be convinced of the merit of Super League and he advised the players not to sign. Ribot said: "Brisbane mucked me around and that delayed me going to Newcastle by a day and that's when the Chief caught the bus."
Asked his misgivings, Ribot said: "I would have gone in with more people resources and it would have been over quicker."
But wars are like that. The Germans thought World War I would be over in six days. The entry of the Packer-funded World Rugby Corporation, a move to weaken Super League by strengthening the commercial value of rugby union, opened up another theatre of war.
"Snoz [Super League talent scout Michael O'Connor] was over in South Africa and he saw James Packer signing players," Ribot recalled. "Snoz warned us something big was going on. [News Ltd's] Sam Chisholm said it was bullshit but Snoz was right.
"News Ltd got a bit de-focused with the rugby union thing. Rupert Murdoch said to me, 'Go over there and fix it' but I had to say, 'I can't. I've got a few things happening here'." So was it worth it? Gallop said: "In 10 years' time, we'll look back and say it wasn't such a bad thing."
He argued the peace process produced better relationships between the administration, clubs and players, saying: "Both sides were forced into the one trench together and this led us to developing better communication channels. You'll always get clubs making decisions for self-interest but they do think with a game hat now."
Ribot points to Super League legacies, such as improved player welfare, a better judiciary, separating operations and development so a foundation can look after grassroots, and innovations such as the video referee.
ARL people say these boasts are comparable to a man who has had his house robbed being told he should be happy an insurance company has given him a new TV and stereo. They point out that News Ltd owns half the house. According to new NRL board member Gorden Tallis, "News runs the game".
ARL chairman Love denies his organisation has been emasculated, saying it had the right of veto on any decision.
"The partnership comprises three representatives from each body and no decision can be made without agreement of both parties," he said. Asked whether the war was worth it, Love said: "It wasn't good for the game because we've given the other codes a free kick. AFL and rugby union have gained enormously from this.
"Rugby league was riding high and it's only in recent years we have got back to the levels of 1994. Players have benefited because their salaries have trebled, as have player managers' but some people would argue that isn't such a good thing."
The code's leading player manager, Wayne Beavis, built a house in the eastern suburbs from the commissions gained during the war, and Hollywood star Heath Ledger recently bought it. Asked what he thought of the war, Beavis said: "I loved it and you can quote me on that."
Love reserves his strongest criticism for the effect of the war on the international game. "It was virtually destroyed by Super League," he said. "Because of their efforts to isolate Australia, the international game was abandoned.
"Rugby league had to concentrate all its efforts in Australia rather than assist other nations. It put us so far back. Super League money was squandered in the Pacific. We've had to get the organisations in those countries up to speed."
News Ltd gained what it set out to achieve - control of pay TV rights. It draws $10m a year from the game's profits but much of this goes back to the three clubs it owns.
According to Wendy McCarthy, who co-authored the $1m Playing by the Rules report, levels of governance and player welfare are most advanced at these clubs. "You can see the influence of News Ltd," she said.
Newcastle, an ARL club, has no welfare officer, no assistant coach and struggles desperately to make ends meet. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is still as great as it was the night of March 30, 1995.
Hmmm.
If that Billion dollars was spent on the 20 team National competition that existed at the time, I have no doubt RL would be the NO 1. sport across the country
If that Billion dollars was spent on the 20 team National competition that existed at the time, I have no doubt RL would be the NO 1. sport across the country
Would it have been spent though? That is, do you think much of the money would have gone into victoria, WA, SA ect RL competitions? This is Melbournes 8th year now, in the national competition, yet still theres only a very small Rugby League competitions.
I had a look at the number of junoir clubs of aussie rules in NSW/ACT. There are 78 (give or take a few) that are appart of the several competitions in that area. Victoria have less then 20 rugby league clubs, and these may or may not be seniour and junoir clubs (according to playrugbyleague.com & playafl.com).
I dont know why money is not being spent by the NRL or ARL on a large scale in victoria, but hopfuly its got something to do with the weak amount of money given to us by channel 9 for the TV rights. Hopfuly when our next big pay packet comes in, we can start our raid on victoria's children. Lord knows its happened already in NSW and QLD from the AFL point of view.
"About 8pm on March 30, 1995, ARL chief executive John Quayle walked up the stairs of a hotel in The Rocks, carrying the faxes of six clubs that were announcing their defection"
That statement makes me sick to the stomach. Backstabbing swine.
"About 8pm on March 30, 1995, ARL chief executive John Quayle walked up the stairs of a hotel in The Rocks, carrying the faxes of six clubs that were announcing their defection"
That statement makes me sick to the stomach. Backstabbing swine.
I dont think its back stabbing. It was ARL vs Super League, not Australia vs Other. They where going to what was promised was greenier pastures. Look at what super league has done too britain.
Ever since, rugby leauge has been damaged. One could say, if it had never happened, RL would be better off. One could also say, if ALL clubs had agreed to go to the Super League, RL would be better off. You could also argue the opposite both ways.
Super League was a giant ego trip for Murdock and some members of the clubs who ratted on the ARL, you would still have the Reds but for those swine, you may have had a genuine national comp as well and people would be able to watch RL on TV as well as live in non RL states,the whole SL thing was a giant lie foisted on RL by a bunch of greedy bastards
I dont think its back stabbing. It was ARL vs Super League, not Australia vs Other. They where going to what was promised was greenier pastures. Look at what super league has done too britain.
Ever since, rugby leauge has been damaged. One could say, if it had never happened, RL would be better off. One could also say, if ALL clubs had agreed to go to the Super League, RL would be better off. You could also argue the opposite both ways.
What the hell do you mean by "ALL" clubs? Do you even know what happened or are you just some Johnny-come-lately?
ALL clubs could never join Super League because they wanted a 12 team competition. They wanted to get rid of teams like Souths and leave 2-3 Sydney teams through mergers and axing. Tell the supporters of Souths that they should have agreed to Super League. Dumbass.
What the hell do you mean by "ALL" clubs? Do you even know what happened or are you just some Johnny-come-lately?
ALL clubs could never join Super League because they wanted a 12 team competition. They wanted to get rid of teams like Souths and leave 2-3 Sydney teams through mergers and axing. Tell the supporters of Souths that they should have agreed to Super League. Dumbass.
By ALL, i mean all those that where chased or approached by super league. I dont know who was or who wasnt, except for those discussed in the article. Super league was looked upon as a bad thing and i hated it too. I'm under the impression that theres still a few too many teams in sydney and i wouldnt be upset if some more where to merge or fold, even though i know many wouldnt like it, if it ment rugby league could have more of a national coverage. But, there are otherways to get national coverage and maybe they should be looked at before clubs are axed.
And, just because a club is axed from one competition, doesnt mean it cant continue in another. Eg, North Sydney Beers. It just means they wont be in the public light as much and it wont be in THE elite competition. but if people are so passionate about their clubs, it shouldnt matter where they compete.
I Hate NSW
26-03-2005, 17:24
I'm under the impression that theres still a few too many teams in sydney and i wouldnt be upset if some more where to merge or fold, even though i know many wouldnt like it, if it ment rugby league could have more of a national coverage.
Of course you wouldn't care, you support Melbourne.
Ask all of us who's team has been given the boot if we are upset.
My ****ing oath we are upset. I would still rather have Balmain playing than watching the Storm.
Of course you wouldn't care, you support Melbourne.
Ask all of us who's team has been given the boot if we are upset.
My ****ing oath we are upset. I would still rather have Balmain playing than watching the Storm.
I dont dispute that. If i had been following a team since... hmmm... i dont know, more then 7 years or so, i'd be up set too and i would be upset if the storm was torn from the NRL, but more so because it would be devastating for vic RL more so one franchise has given way for another. I'm just voicing my opinion as we all are. No one is right or wrong when voicing their opinion.
What a huge shock it is, the Dogs were the first team to jump ship. Scum then, scum now.
it's true. the bulldogs are the worst scum in the world
Meursault
26-03-2005, 22:42
What a huge shock it is, the Dogs were the first team to jump ship. Scum then, scum now.
If the Roosters offered me one million dollars to support them next year, I would. AT least openly. So, I'd obviously be scum, because I sold my allegiance?
We condemn others for fulfilling their role of supporting and looking after themselves and their own families first, when we are all pretty much guilty of the same disease, greed.
Superleague made alot of players wealthy. They play a sport of many injuries and short careers. I bet when Fittler sits in his waterfront home and enjoys a Sunday BBQ in years to come, the pain in the joints will be a bit easier to take, knowing superleague came along and forced the powers that be, to give him a pay rise.
Just an opinion. Maybe Superleague happened because it could. Maybe the ARL was sitting on its hands far too long?
i wanna know why parra didn't join superleague
personally, i believe it's because the heart of parramatta is angelic
Hancock02
26-03-2005, 23:46
If the Roosters offered me one million dollars to support them next year, I would. AT least openly. So, I'd obviously be scum, because I sold my allegiance?
We condemn others for fulfilling their role of supporting and looking after themselves and their own families first, when we are all pretty much guilty of the same disease, greed.
Superleague made alot of players wealthy. They play a sport of many injuries and short careers. I bet when Fittler sits in his waterfront home and enjoys a Sunday BBQ in years to come, the pain in the joints will be a bit easier to take, knowing superleague came along and forced the powers that be, to give him a pay rise.
Just an opinion. Maybe Superleague happened because it could. Maybe the ARL was sitting on its hands far too long?
I agree with you, too often the public expect sports stars to be loyal at the expense of there own pay packet. I'm a teacher in Qld employeed by Qld ed but if Vic or NSW ed came l and said we will give you 4 times your current salary to move states I would do it. And if I didn't people would say I was stupid, but a sportsmen is scum if he does the same thing.
There's a difference between an individual player and a club with a 70+ year old history who are travelling quite nicely (minor premiers the year before, no less) with one of the biggest league's clubs in the state.
Scum.
Meursault
27-03-2005, 00:35
There's a difference between an individual player and a club with a 70+ year old history who are travelling quite nicely (minor premiers the year before, no less) with one of the biggest league's clubs in the state.
Scum.
No worse than when a club from the Northern Beaches was once flush with cash, and raided the Magpies of all its big name players.
No worse than when a club from the Northern Beaches was once flush with cash, and raided the Magpies of all its big name players.
How is it not 1000 times worse?
tricolours
27-03-2005, 11:45
No worse than when a club from the Northern Beaches was once flush with cash, and raided the Magpies of all its big name players.
In the 50's(?) Wests were known as the silvertails.
tricolours
27-03-2005, 11:55
Maybe if it was'nt for the treacherous acts comitted by clubs like Brisbane, C'bury, C'Berra etc. the blow may not as hurt as much, but I doubt clubs like Norths & Balmain would agree.
I was always under the impression the Broncos were the first team to sign to SL but according to Saturday's SMH the Dogs were the first to jump. Wayne Bennett had to be convinced of SL'd merits and the Broncos were the last to sign, in fact Broncos owner Paul Morgan and chief executive Shane Edwards flew to Sydney to meet Kerry Packer and discussed defecting to the ARL.
Hancock02
27-03-2005, 16:06
I was always under the impression the Broncos were the first team to sign to SL but according to Saturday's SMH the Dogs were the first to jump. Wayne Bennett had to be convinced of SL'd merits and the Broncos were the last to sign, in fact Broncos owner Paul Morgan and chief executive Shane Edwards flew to Sydney to meet Kerry Packer and discussed defecting to the ARL.
A fact always over looked by the ARL, they never came to Brisbane they assumed the Broncos were signed and sealed when they weren't. The ARL made no effort to sign up the broncos. What were the Broncos supposed to do???
Matt Holme
27-03-2005, 17:57
Good one. Maybe people will now stop blaming the broncos for super league. Blame Ribot, not the Broncos.
tricolours
27-03-2005, 18:26
I don't think the players were ever blamed, at least not up until "people" like Chris Johns got on his soap box.
rabbitville
27-03-2005, 18:27
Good one. Maybe people will now stop blaming the broncos for super league. Blame Ribot, not the Broncos.
I didn't realise the broncos were so late in joining Super League, for some reason I just assumed thats the way they will go.... the whole face of the war could have changed if the ARL secured Brisbane.
The whole saga was sickening, I can't believe what's happened to the game in the last 9 years and I'm glad it's on track to getting back to where it used to be now.
I thought Brad Walters summed it all up in two paragraphs....
Brad Walter SMH[/b]]
Brad Walter: News Limited controls the game; Norths are as good as dead; Perth, Adelaide and South Queensland are; Souths were out of the competition for two years; Gold Coast are still trying to get back in; Gosford will never get its own team ... Sure, there were some good things to come out of the Super League war, but the bad things far outweigh them.
It was never about sport but pay TV, and the fact the game is now back to the same healthy levels it was pre-1995 is in spite of News, Telstra and Foxtel - not because of them.
Here's to the people's game....
Green Machine
27-03-2005, 21:31
Phil Gould wrote today:
They thought it was about starting their own rugby league competition.
Really, it was about forcing the Australian Rugby League and its broadcasting partners to negotiate on Pay TV rights.
The introduction of pay TV to Australia, and the role it would play in media organisations gaining a stake in the telecommunication market, was obvious to the major players in this war. It meant billions of dollars. It was worth fighting for.
In 1993 Kerry Packer forced the NSWRL and ARL to sign a seven year deal on the TV rights. He had them over a barrel because Channel 7 and 10 were broke. Packer was in a deal with Telecom (now Telstra) and New Ltd at the time for future Pay TV delivery to Australia. Not long after, Packer and Murdoch fell out. Packer signed a deal with Optus with an option to buy a huge chunk of Optus in the future. Optus strung a broadband network on power poles all over Sydney to set up a local call network and use their subsidiary company Optusvision to deliver Pay TV as a sweetener to encourage customers away from Telstra in the war for the local telephone market (Packer walked away from this deal when he signed a peace deal with News Ltd in 1996 to form Foxsports and telecast Super League matches in 1997). The first subscription TV in Australia was launched by satellite provider Galaxy in 1995. Foxtel started its own broadband roll out in mid 1994.
In yesterdays SMH, it had a section on dates and comments on: How The War Unfolded. It said:
February 6, 1995, News Ltd executive David Smith addresses a meeting of ARL clubs about the Super League concept. The meeting is later addressed by Kerry Packer, who threatens to sue for breach of contract
What happen was, after Super League gave their presentation to the ARL clubs, Ken Arthurson brought big KP in and he told the clubs he would personally sue the backsides off them if they interfered with his TV rights.
The current Pay TV deal between the NRL and Foxsports is $33m a year. It would have been nice for Phil Gould to mention how much his boss paid on top on the FTA rights in 1993, to acquire the Pay TV rights also for 7 years.
Sam I Am
27-03-2005, 21:35
they had something in the saturday c-m about the super league war too, it was quite interesting. and ray ****** is supposedly having a 'john ribot day' next weekend.
Meursault
27-03-2005, 23:31
Here's to the people's game....
The people's game? Whats the difference about which millionaire owns and runs the game? It seems to me whichever team you go for dictates the crap you believe...
I love Wests, but I don't pretend that Packer and all his inherited wealth is anymore my mate than Murdoch. The so called people lost the game years ago, and everyone who has signed on the Foxtel bottom line has fed them.
It's all business to them. And as long as the 'little' people are divided and arguing about meaningless semantics these 'big' boys keep laughing all the way to the bank. Who cares. In a hundred years our grandchildren will probably be following a totally new sport and happy nonetheless.
Superleague made alot of players wealthy.
Players, managers and lawyers !
Meursault
27-03-2005, 23:46
Players, managers and lawyers !
I wouldn't argue with that.
tricolours
28-03-2005, 11:29
Phil Gould wrote today:
In 1993 Kerry Packer forced the NSWRL and ARL to sign a seven year deal on the TV rights. He had them over a barrel because Channel 7 and 10 were broke. Packer was in a deal with Telecom (now Telstra) and New Ltd at the time for future Pay TV delivery to Australia. Not long after, Packer and Murdoch fell out. Packer signed a deal with Optus with an option to buy a huge chunk of Optus in the future. Optus strung a broadband network on power poles all over Sydney to set up a local call network and use their subsidiary company Optusvision to deliver Pay TV as a sweetener to encourage customers away from Telstra in the war for the local telephone market (Packer walked away from this deal when he signed a peace deal with News Ltd in 1996 to form Foxsports and telecast Super League matches in 1997). The first subscription TV in Australia was launched by satellite provider Galaxy in 1995. Foxtel started its own broadband roll out in mid 1994.
In yesterdays SMH, it had a section on dates and comments on: How The War Unfolded. It said:
What happen was, after Super League gave their presentation to the ARL clubs, Ken Arthurson brought big KP in and he told the clubs he would personally sue the backsides off them if they interfered with his TV rights.
The current Pay TV deal between the NRL and Foxsports is $33m a year. It would have been nice for Phil Gould to mention how much his boss paid on top on the FTA rights in 1993, to acquire the Pay TV rights also for 7 years.
Gus also mentioned how History is rewriten by the victors.
KP didn't force the ARL to sign over anything!
Bond previously owned the football, when he could'nt make his payments Packer took it over.
If Murdoch wanted the Pay TV rights it would of been nice if done it morally.
Hancock02
28-03-2005, 11:36
Gus also mentioned how History is rewriten by the victors.
KP didn't force the ARL to sign over anything!
Bond previously owned the football, when he could'nt make his payments Packer took it over.
If Murdoch wanted the Pay TV rights it would of been nice if done it morally.
He didn't do anything that Packer didn't do with Cricket 30 years earlier
tricolours
28-03-2005, 11:42
He didn't do anything that Packer didn't do with Cricket 30 years earlier
Yes he did! the ACB still runs the cricket.
Green Machine
28-03-2005, 13:46
Gus also mentioned how History is rewriten by the victors. .
I loved last week how he attached himself to South Sydney war with News Ltd and then turned it into a rant on how News Ltd have been picking on him and all the great things the Fairfax Media Group and him have done for the game.
KP didn't force the ARL to sign over anything! .
I didn't realise you were fan of his. Kerry Packer once coined a funny comment on the collapsed sale of his Sydney & Melbourne Channel 9 TV stations to Allan Bond. He said “You only get one Allan Bond once in a life time. I’ve just got mine”. I suppose Kerry did not realise that the NSWRL/ARL was going to give their Pay TV rights for 7 years for nothing in 1993. His comment should have been changed to an “Allan Bond and an ARL only come around once in a lifetime”. Then again big Kerry was not to miss out again when he got the NRL rights nice and cheap for 10 years in 1998 when he had Rugby League over a barrel, again.
Bond previously owned the football, when he could'nt make his payments Packer took it over..
Bond never owned the football. He inherited State of Origin and Test rights. Club football rights were held by Channel 10. In 1987, Kerry Packer sold his TV interests to Bond for $1b. Under the terms of deal, Packer was to receive the money in two payments over three years. The first payment was $800m in cash, the second was just over $200m was in the form of an IOU, held in Bond shares. In March 1990, when Bond could not come up with the $200m, the network reverted back to Packer.
Channel 10 payed $44m million for the rights for three years, starting in 1990. In November 1991, after the collapse of the Channel 10 deal, Packers Channel 9 signed a $24m contract to televise Rugby League – a deal which also included first option on pay TV rights. In October 1993, extended the contract for a further 7 years at a cost of $70m and, after the League received an offer from US pay TV network ESPN, Packer picked up an option on the pay TV rights for $2m - $1m down and $1m to be paid 12 months later.
If Murdoch wanted the Pay TV rights it would of been nice if done it morally.
Yeh, just like Kerry did it,
tricolours
28-03-2005, 14:29
I loved last week how he attached himself to South Sydney war with News Ltd and then turned it into a rant on how News Ltd have been picking on him and all the great things the Fairfax Media Group and him have done for the game.
I didn't realise you were fan of his. Kerry Packer once coined a funny comment on the collapsed sale of his Sydney & Melbourne Channel 9 TV stations to Allan Bond. He said “You only get one Allan Bond once in a life time. I’ve just got mine”. I suppose Kerry did not realise that the NSWRL/ARL was going to give their Pay TV rights for 7 years for nothing in 1993. His comment should have been changed to an “Allan Bond and an ARL only come around once in a lifetime”. Then again big Kerry was not to miss out again when he got the NRL rights nice and cheap for 10 years in 1998 when he had Rugby League over a barrel, again.
Bond never owned the football. He inherited State of Origin and Test rights. Club football rights were held by Channel 10. In 1987, Kerry Packer sold his TV interests to Bond for $1b. Under the terms of deal, Packer was to receive the money in two payments over three years. The first payment was $800m in cash, the second was just over $200m was in the form of an IOU, held in Bond shares. In March 1990, when Bond could not come up with the $200m, the network reverted back to Packer.
Channel 10 payed $44m million for the rights for three years, starting in 1990. In November 1991, after the collapse of the Channel 10 deal, Packers Channel 9 signed a $24m contract to televise Rugby League – a deal which also included first option on pay TV rights. In October 1993, extended the contract for a further 7 years at a cost of $70m and, after the League received an offer from US pay TV network ESPN, Packer picked up an option on the pay TV rights for $2m - $1m down and $1m to be paid 12 months later.
Yeh, just like Kerry did it,
Packer & Murdoch are'nt very different, both bussinessmen lacking in scruples. But Packer did legitimately own the TV($70m) and PTV($2m), they just wer'nt given away.
10 years ago PTV was an unknown quantity in Australia, packer can't be blamed for having foresight nor can he be blamed for the other networks beig broke - Murdoch didn't want them until afew years later when he realised just how valuable they were.
Green Machine
28-03-2005, 18:38
Packer & Murdoch are'nt very different, both bussinessmen lacking in scruples. But Packer did legitimately own the TV($70m) and PTV($2m), they just wer'nt given away.
10 years ago PTV was an unknown quantity in Australia, packer can't be blamed for having foresight nor can he be blamed for the other networks beig broke - Murdoch didn't want them until afew years later when he realised just how valuable they were.
Tri Colours,
Sorry I’m a bit late in getting back to you. I have just been watching Phil Gould’s tip for the wooden spoon beat a very strong Rabbitohs outfit.
I think you are pretty spot on, Murdoch and Packer are both lacking scruples. And you are right that Packer had a legally binding contract with the NSWRL/ARL. And I don’t blame Packer for his foresight. But one thing I can not stand, is being preached to by Phil Gould or Roy Masters on their spin in the game. Especially when you know both are talking from the self interest angle. And we know Fairfax do nothing for Rugby League and Channel 9 do as little as they have to do.
As far as the past administrators go, unlike you and me, they were paid to make decisions that were in the best interests of the game. I would never accuse them of being dishonest, even though a past President of the ARL, who was also the secretary of the NSWRL had to resign in 1983 for taking money from a Leagues Club.
Consider this, in 1992 BSkyB bought the Pay TV rights to British Soccer for four years for $530m. BSkyB was part owned by Murdoch. In December 1993, Murdoch launched Fox in America and paid $2.09b for NFC rights to the NFL. In Australia, Pay TV licences were being handed out in 1993. Don’t you think someone down at Phillip St should have got on the phone to the NFL in New York or the Football Association in London, to find out what was this thing called Pay TV was before they give the Pay TV rights away for nothing? Considering today the NRL rights are worth $33m (and going up) @ season, today?
tricolours
28-03-2005, 20:19
I can't disagree with to much of what you have said, but given that the major concern for the ARL would of been FTA, and with only one bidder I'm not sure what else they could have done.
Deviating slightly from the main discussion, I found it interesting that in the middle of all of the ten years of SuperLeague stuff and discussions as to whether everything is back to normal, I look at the TV late last week and see the Broncos training at Redfern Oval.
If the Broncos training at Redfern isn't a sign the SuperLeague war is over, I don't know what is. (Or it may just mean I underestimated just how much Souths hate the Roosters!)
Hancock02
28-03-2005, 20:58
Yes he did! the ACB still runs the cricket.
Of course they do 9 have no power over cricket
tricolours
28-03-2005, 21:32
Of course they do 9 have no power over cricket
But NewsLTD have control of league.
Grantwhy
29-03-2005, 00:58
But NewsLTD have control of league.
In partnership with the ARL.
Meursault
29-03-2005, 13:18
Maybe if it was'nt for the treacherous acts comitted by clubs like Brisbane, C'bury, C'Berra etc. the blow may not as hurt as much, but I doubt clubs like Norths & Balmain would agree.
Treacherous?? Are we talking about football or Nazism? Get a grip. I head out and watch the Tigers play (and before you bag me out, and usually lose) on a regular basis. Most games I'm sitting there with about six fans (OK I'm lying, make it seven!), but when the Broncos, or Bulldogs or even the Raiders roll up the place is packed. And not just with Tigers fans...
So all these people who vote with their wallets and feet, they're just morons and support treacherous teams? I doubt it, its more likely they don't care about the propaganda you believe.
The old ARL administration got fat and lazy.
They should have KNOWN about the potential income that Pay TV could generate for the game.
Instead they put it in the too hard basket and gave the rights to Packer for next to nothing.
If the ARL were on the ball News would never have been able to touch them.
who cares anymore...seriously....it doesnt exist anymore....move on
who cares anymore...seriously....it doesnt exist anymore....move on
We only ever hear this from fans of SL clubs, ever.
I Hate NSW
29-03-2005, 14:13
who cares anymore...seriously....it doesnt exist anymore....move on
I care, always will.
Get rid of Canberra bring back Balmain.
Get rid of Canberra and bring back the Bears.
I Hate NSW
29-03-2005, 14:29
Get rid of Canberra and bring back the Bears.
Yeah, that would be good to.
tricolours
29-03-2005, 14:48
Treacherous?? Are we talking about football or Nazism? Get a grip. I head out and watch the Tigers play (and before you bag me out, and usually lose) on a regular basis. Most games I'm sitting there with about six fans (OK I'm lying, make it seven!), but when the Broncos, or Bulldogs or even the Raiders roll up the place is packed. And not just with Tigers fans...
So all these people who vote with their wallets and feet, they're just morons and support treacherous teams? I doubt it, its more likely they don't care about the propaganda you believe.
Nazism?, I think that's drawing a bit of a wide bow, and no fan supporting his club can been called a moron. (not counting cheat fans)
But this competition would be in a much better state if certain clubs had'nt delivered control of it to a media mogul.
Meursault
29-03-2005, 18:24
The old ARL administration got fat and lazy.
They should have KNOWN about the potential income that Pay TV could generate for the game.
Instead they put it in the too hard basket and gave the rights to Packer for next to nothing.
If the ARL were on the ball News would never have been able to touch them.
KFC, I agree with you.
But who's to say that all the 'treachery' (quoting tricolours) and money and pain hasn't put the game in a better position? I mean, who knows what may have been? And I'm a fan who actually has lost his team!!!
The players are certainly happier, we still get a couple of free to air games and the quality of football is great. Heck, even the Roosters who are participating on this thread, must admit its done the Roosters no harm, they seem to be travelling better than average.
Just a humble opinion.
Green Machine
29-03-2005, 20:21
But this competition would be in a much better state if certain clubs had'nt delivered control of it to a media mogul.
Tri Colours,
When the NSWRL increased the competition from 16 to 20 teams in 1995, do you think the competition would have improved the financial viability of clubs like Illawarra, South Sydney, Newcastle, Gold Coast Seagulls, Western Suburbs and Balmain? Do you think all these clubs would have lasted to the year 2000?
It is well known that the Roosters and the Raiders are in favour of a sixteenth team. When the majority of CEO’s from other clubs like Shane Richardson from Souths, come out and say they are dead against expansion and they believe the current clubs should get a greater share, is this just Rupert Murduch with a hand up his back and also up the backs the other CEO’s?
Thats a very important point Greeny. The competition expanded too fast. The ARL where also thinking of a melbourne team, before super league came along, weren't they? So it may have expanded further! This means that eventually some sydney clubs would have had to have given way, which would have led to the same upset people eventually!
But i guess we'll never know if that was to happen or not! So i guess its a mute point!
tricolours
29-03-2005, 23:35
Tri Colours,
When the NSWRL increased the competition from 16 to 20 teams in 1995, do you think the competition would have improved the financial viability of clubs like Illawarra, South Sydney, Newcastle, Gold Coast Seagulls, Western Suburbs and Balmain? Do you think all these clubs would have lasted to the year 2000?
It is well known that the Roosters and the Raiders are in favour of a sixteenth team. When the majority of CEO’s from other clubs like Shane Richardson from Souths, come out and say they are dead against expansion and they believe the current clubs should get a greater share, is this just Rupert Murduch with a hand up his back and also up the backs the other CEO’s?
These no telling what would have eventuated. I do know 94' was leagues most prosperous year, Murdoch would not of shown nearly as much interest if it's future didn't look rosey.
I would think it better for clubs to decide there own future - not have it dictated to them on the basis of what suited News Limited's best interest.
One of the bigger problems, as I see it, were the inflated player payments and such during the SL War.
All those clubs mentioned managed to exist till to '98 so I think, with all the media Interest shown towards league, it's quiet likely they all would of survived.
Green Machine
30-03-2005, 22:11
Packer had paid slightly over $70M. Money exhausted during the war.
Packer paid close to two thirds of f*ck all. Optus were only dragged into the war because Packer dragged them in to protect his very cheap TV contract and his aspirations into telephony. $70m over 7 years was not a lot of money. That was only $10m a season. Considering the Pay TV alone is worth $33m @ season today and the next FTA will be between $20-30m @ season, Channel 9 was paying huge “unders”. The majority of the money poured into the pourer ARL clubs to keep them afloat, was coming from Optus
If there had been no SL war prices would'nt have risen so sharply so no need for Optus money.
Clubs from 1995 to 2000 were about to see limit growth in the game. At the end of 1995, tobacco sponsorship was about to be outlawed. The very lucrative Rothmans sponsorship was about to come to an end. The pie was about to be cut 20 ways. So with 4 more mouths to feed, same TV money and no tobacco money........
Not being from the Western Suburbs I Find it hard to comment, but I would imagine supporters wished they had a club known as Balmain or Wests to support Just as i'm sure Souths Fans are grateful they have a team to follow.
If there had been no SL war prices would'nt have risen so sharply So no need for Optus money.
Poorer ARL Clubs did not get any stars, so they never had a massive wage bill for these clubs. All the stars went to Parramatta, Roosters and Manly. Most of the money the poorer clubs got went into the running of their clubs.
The ARL did need to get more bussinesslike but who's to say that wouldn't of happend - there had been many changes since 1908.
Some ARL clubs may not have been able to compete but it should never be Rupert Murdochs call.
I have never said it should ever have been Rupert Murdoch call who should stay in or who goes out, all I am saying that this belief that the ARL would have protected inner city clubs when the comp was increased from 16 to 20 was garbage,
tricolours
31-03-2005, 08:43
[QUOTE=Green Machine]Packer paid close to two thirds of f*ck all. Optus were only dragged into the war because Packer dragged them in to protect his very cheap TV contract and his aspirations into telephony. $70m over 7 years was not a lot of money. That was only $10m a season. Considering the Pay TV alone is worth $33m @ season today and the next FTA will be between $20-30m @ season, Channel 9 was paying huge “unders”. The majority of the money poured into the pourer ARL clubs to keep them afloat, was coming from Optus
It was a poor TV contract but it was $10M a seaon, scarcely less than the current contract and not a lot of worse than $20-30M contract we may have 10 years on, particularly when you consider that nowadays we have three healthy bidders.
PTV was a new concept in Australia, the ARL had previously never made a cent from it, considering there was no PTV operators at that time $2M might'nt have sounded too bad a deal.
Packer planned to use Optus to start up his own pay TV network.
[QUOTE=Green Machine]Clubs from 1995 to 2000 were about to see limit growth in the game. At the end of 1995, tobacco sponsorship was about to be outlawed. The very lucrative Rothmans sponsorship was about to come to an end. The pie was about to be cut 20 ways. So with 4 more mouths to feed, same TV money and no tobacco money........
Clubs were struggling but these poorer clubs elected to stayed with the ARL though.
It was the more successful clubs, clubs who were at 'the top of the heap' and wanted to remain there that went to News LTD.
It's difficult to say what new opportunties would have eventuated had the game been allowed to continue on, But it's hard to imagine that there would of been none.
[QUOTE=Green Machine]Poorer ARL Clubs did not get any stars, so they never had a massive wage bill for these clubs. All the stars went to Parramatta, Roosters and Manly. Most of the money the poorer clubs got went into the running of their clubs.
These clubs may not of made to many purhases but they had to pay many times more just to keep the ones they had.
tricolours
31-03-2005, 10:18
News LTD have always put a negative spin on the ARL and everything it did, but at the time the ARL were the number one football code, the envy of every other, sponsors were never hard to find.
I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying, at the time the Packer TV contract was the most lucative ever for a sporting event in Austalia - and it was staight up, no if's and provisos.
One thing that seems to have been forgotten in history is the(although unknowing) role the Cowboys played in this.
Firstly this is where the infamous Michael O'Connor jumping through backroom windows occured (i.e. at Dairy Farmers Stadium, then Stockland Stadium). This has become the memory of SuperLeague.
Also Im certain that one of the major reasons the Big Four (McCracken, Smith, Pay and Dymock) defected "back" to the ARL was that NO-NAMES like Cressbrook, and David Bouevang etc. were being offered INSANE amounts of money by SL. And they went "Hang on" if those nuffies are getting that much, we deserve 10 times the amount SL offered us, and went with there hands out to the ARL.
Of all the SL teams, the Cowboys got ****ed over the most, they were promised all the players that Melbourne were eventually given(Kearns, Kearney, Ross, Kimmorley, Hill etc.) (you can quote Tim Sheens on that). And ended up struggling for 10 years to recover.
toddmiller
31-03-2005, 12:29
Would Perth had got a Super 14 franchise if the Western Reds stayed active?
This is a hard question but would of there been a Super 12 at all if not for Super League?
Would Perth had got a Super 14 franchise if the Western Reds stayed active?
This is a hard question but would of there been a Super 12 at all if not for Super League?i think we should have fought harder for Adelaide
Pat Bateman
31-03-2005, 13:30
Of all the SL teams, the Cowboys got ****ed over the most, they were promised all the players that Melbourne were eventually given(Kearns, Kearney, Ross, Kimmorley, Hill etc.) (you can quote Tim Sheens on that). And ended up struggling for 10 years to recover.
There were also players that were supposed to go to clubs like Adelaide but at the end of the day they could not be forced to go somewhere that they didn't want to. Gordan Tallis would only sign with Super League if he could play with the broncos, Ribot wanted him to play for another team. The fact that the ARL and Super League were fighting each other for signatures meant players could play them off against each other.
Green Machine
31-03-2005, 17:11
It was a poor TV contract but it was $10M a seaon, scarcely less than the current contract and not a lot of worse than $20-30M contract we may have 10 years on, particularly when you consider that nowadays we have three healthy bidders.
The $20-30m was a conservative starting figure that was raised in the media three months ago. John Quayle was quoted in the weekend press saying that the real figure could be close to $100m with way way the game is run now. That might make Kerry have heart failure again.
PTV was a new concept in Australia, the ARL had previously never made a cent from it, considering there was no PTV operators at that time $2M might'nt have sounded too bad a deal.
If you believe that, then you believe in the tooth fairy. Pay TV was established for 10 years in other parts of the world.
Packer planned to use Optus to start up his own pay TV network..
Is this ground breaking news?
Clubs were struggling but these poorer clubs elected to stayed with the ARL though.
They had no where else to go. From 1995 onwards, Scott Gouley, David Barnhill, Ivan Cleary, Ben Icon, Jim Sedaris, Aaron Raper, Adam Ritson, Brett Dallas, Jim Dymock, Jason Smith, Jarrod McCracken, Brad Fittler, John Simon, Matt Sing, Craig Field, Jack Elsegood, Craig Innes, Jamie Annscough, Darren Tracey and Brad Mackay became free agents to join ARL clubs. How many were sent to struggling ARL clubs?
It was the more successful clubs, clubs who were at 'the top of the heap' and wanted to remain there that went to News LTD.
It's difficult to say what new opportunties would have eventuated had the game been allowed to continue on, But it's hard to imagine that there would of been none..
So, looking back at the last 10 years of world sport, what business opportunities did other major sporting competitions adopt that Rugby League did not that would have improved cash flows?
These clubs may not of made to many purhases but they had to pay many times more just to keep the ones they had.
Look Tri Colours, do you have any factual evidence that struggling clubs would have survived if Super League did not happen? All you have brought up is inaccurate information like Allan Bond owned the TV rights when Channel 10 went broke, News Ltd own rugby league when in fact they only have a 50% say in the running of the NRL competition, only.
Green Machine
31-03-2005, 17:17
News LTD have always put a negative spin on the ARL and everything it did, but at the time the ARL were the number one football code, the envy of every other, sponsors were never hard to find.
I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying, at the time the Packer TV contract was the most lucative ever for a sporting event in Austalia - and it was staight up, no if's and provisos.
What evidence do you have that the ARL TV deal was more lucrative than the AFL TV deal? Was it bigger than the ACB?
Tell me why the ARL held on to tobacco sponsorship years after all other major sports in Australia have negotiated sponsorships with acceptable companies. Why did the ARL accept tobacco advertising right up the date of when the Federal Government Legislated it illegal to be sponsored by a tobacco company, if companies were lining up to sponsor the ARL? The 1995 season, Rothmans paid the ARL $8m for naming rights to the Winfield Cup. When John Quayle went knock on corporate doors in 1994, how many offers did he get?
Green Machine
31-03-2005, 17:56
One thing that seems to have been forgotten in history is the(although unknowing) role the Cowboys played in this.
Firstly this is where the infamous Michael O'Connor jumping through backroom windows occured (i.e. at Dairy Farmers Stadium, then Stockland Stadium). This has become the memory of SuperLeague..
Michael O’Connor was there to sign Canberra players.
Also Im certain that one of the major reasons the Big Four (McCracken, Smith, Pay and Dymock) defected "back" to the ARL was that NO-NAMES like Cressbrook, and David Bouevang etc. were being offered INSANE amounts of money by SL. And they went "Hang on" if those nuffies are getting that much, we deserve 10 times the amount SL offered us, and went with there hands out to the ARL..
The reason the four Canterbury players plus Brett Dallas challenged their contracts was because, their player managers went to the ARL and found the ARL would better the Super League offer
Of all the SL teams, the Cowboys got ****ed over the most, they were promised all the players that Melbourne were eventually given(Kearns, Kearney, Ross, Kimmorley, Hill etc.) (you can quote Tim Sheens on that). And ended up struggling for 10 years to recover.The Super League war was over when those players became available. All of those players were from the defuct Hunter Mariners and Perth Reds. When Tim Sheens was made coach he brought in Ian Roberts, Steve Walters, Jason Death and Luke Phillips. When the cowboys joined the ARL the best quality player they could attract was an over the hill Marty Bella. I don’t know about ****ed over, if it was not for News Ltd funding, the Cowboys would have been gone a long time ago
I Hate NSW
31-03-2005, 18:08
if it was not for News Ltd funding, the Cowboys would have been gone a long time ago
That is correct.
tricolours
01-04-2005, 03:31
The $20-30m was a conservative starting figure that was raised in the media three months ago. John Quayle was quoted in the weekend press saying that the real figure could be close to $100m with way way the game is run now. That might make Kerry have heart failure again.
The $20-30M was the figure I used because that was the figure put foreward by you.
The Current contrat then, taking into account the length of time that has past, is worse than the one signed back in the ARL days, described by you as "f*ck all".
It will be interesting to see just How much the NRL do get.
If you believe that, then you believe in the tooth fairy. Pay TV was established for 10 years in other parts of the world.
My post, and it is quoted by you, clearly says Australia, not "other parts of the world.
"They had no where else to go. From 1995 onwards, Scott Gouley, David Barnhill, Ivan Cleary, Ben Icon, Jim Sedaris, Aaron Raper, Adam Ritson, Brett Dallas, Jim Dymock, Jason Smith, Jarrod McCracken, Brad Fittler, John Simon, Matt Sing, Craig Field, Jack Elsegood, Craig Innes, Jamie Annscough, Darren Tracey and Brad Mackay became free agents to join ARL clubs. How many were sent to struggling ARL clubs?
There wasn't an ARL club that Super League didn't try to woo.
The majority of these players are just part of the buying and selling process that goes on in our game, nothing to do with Super League. Players who signed ARL Contracts only had to play in the ARL. There were a few English players signed by the ARL, I think they were the only players directed towards club, Elery Hanley - Wests and one went to the G.Coast, don't know about the others.
So, looking back at the last 10 years of world sport, what business opportunities did other major sporting competitions adopt that Rugby League did not that would have improved cash flows?
I do know that TV and Cigarette sponsorship are not the only means of revenue.
Ken Arthurson...
" ..........But the fact of it was News had no choice but to peddlle lies and misinformation, because the truth was the game had never been in better shape then at the end of the 1994 season. Crowds were at record levels, TV Ratings were extrodinary(seven of the top ten programs for the year were Rugby League matches), radio ratings were sky high and the games finances had soared to record heights....... and ahead there were only higher expectations.
Ken Arthurson...".The annual surpluss had risen fom $1.32M in 1982 to $8.36M in 1991, club payments had gone from $1.36M to $7.88M........"
Look Tri Colours, do you have any factual evidence that struggling clubs would have survived if Super League did not happen? All you have brought up is inaccurate information like Allan Bond owned the TV rights when Channel 10 went broke, News Ltd own rugby league when in fact they only have a 50% say in the running of the NRL competition, only.
How could I have evidence about something that never happend? - there was a Super League war, And all I can tell you is that all the clubs survived until the end of the war.
The Paker and Optus money meerly canceled out the the overnight effects of the skyrocketing player payments, lower crowds, sponsorship a lot more difficult etc etc. People generally had 2nd thoughts about investing in league.
If it pleases you to claim a small victory over a mistaken statement then by all means go ahead (As a shareholder in Bond Corp I was and am fully aware of what Mr Bond owned). - if you think the NRL is 50/50 partnership then I have to assume that you are still putting your teeth under the pillow.
Without being able to produce any real evidence to contradict the hypothetical situation my best analogy would be this,
Prior to the war, supported only by our governing body the ARL, we were slightly Infront of AFL - post war, supported only by there governing body, they find themselves ahead.
What evidence do you have that the ARL TV deal was more lucrative than the AFL TV deal? Was it bigger than the ACB?
Tell me why the ARL held on to tobacco sponsorship years after all other major sports in Australia have negotiated sponsorships with acceptable companies. Why did the ARL accept tobacco advertising right up the date of when the Federal Government Legislated it illegal to be sponsored by a tobacco company, if companies were lining up to sponsor the ARL? The 1995 season, Rothmans paid the ARL $8m for naming rights to the Winfield Cup. When John Quayle went knock on corporate doors in 1994, how many offers did he get?
I Have no real evidence, only my recollection - that doesn't mean it not right though.
As you've pointed out The Rothmans Sponsorship deal was a very lucrative one so Why abandon it before they had to? There was probably some kind of contractual agreement.
The ARL were deep in discussion with News LTD in to take over from Rothmans when they were forced to end there sponsorship at the end '95 season. The competition would be known as the Ansett Cup. When News LTD seen there books though they changed there minds - they wanted the whole thing.
Are You sure Benson & Hedges ended it's sponsorship of the cricket prior to the government deadline?
I dont think its back stabbing. It was ARL vs Super League, not Australia vs Other. They where going to what was promised was greenier pastures. Look at what super league has done too britain.
Ever since, rugby leauge has been damaged. One could say, if it had never happened, RL would be better off. One could also say, if ALL clubs had agreed to go to the Super League, RL would be better off. You could also argue the opposite both ways.
Super League had absolutely nothing to do with Rugby League as a sport! It was all about TV! :roll:
Greenie
I can assure that Tim Sheens didn't move to the Cowboys with the promise of two has-beens Roberts and Walters, and two reserve graders Death and Phillips.
Yes Melbourne happened after the SL War but Sheens has been quoted many times saying that he was promised far more players than he was eventually given at the Cowboys.
Further, Im not saying News didn't help or even save the Cowboys AFTER SL (once they realised it was a potential goldmine), what I was saying was out of the SL War the Cowboys got the least benefits. (especially in comparison to Brisbane)
Super League Pt1
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
A rationalisation of Sydney teams in favour of a National competition was actually the NSWRL and ARL plan (see the Bradley report later).
Due to expansion of the competition the NSWRL was put into a situation where many clubs were not in a long term position to survive. The NSWRL solution was to attempt to kick them out of the competition when they could no longer meet a prescribed criteria. This occurred in the case of Newtown and was attempted twice with Western Suburbs who initiated court challenges to remain in the comp.
The NSWRL then altered it's charter to an invitation based system which would allow them to "fail" to invite a club and thereby exclude it from the competition.
In 1990 the heirarchy instituted a salary cap of between $800K to $1.5M but then standardised it across all clubs in 1991 at $1.6M.
In 1993 the RL reportedly signed a deal with Packer for the FTA (Free to air) rights to televise Rugby League. However tabled documentation during Federal Court proceedings state this was not signed until March '94. This deal was reportedly at $13M per year. The important aspect of this deal however was the clauses which basically handed over the PTV (Pay Television) rights to PBL for free (No PTV revenue shows up in NSWRL or ARL financial reports). Despite the fact that there was no PTV situation launched in Australia at the time, overseas experience had shown that once a PTV service became available in Australia, these rights would be worth a substantial amount of money to the game. At the time, Packers priority was to gain the FTA rights and the PTV clauses could have been rejected with no change to the final bargaining position if the RL employed competent negotiations. Another version contrary with all documents tabled in the Federal Court under oath, was that Packer had first option on PTV rights. The issue with this however is that first option on any rights is simply first bid. The ARL would still be able to go with a higher bidder of which there was one. The other issue is that if true it would mean that the ARL heirarchy committed perjury in the Federal court. In the aftermath of the war Quayle stated that all TV contracts at the time had the PTV clause included. At the time he made this quote he must have forgotten that if true, this would have given the ABC the PTV rights. Another version which did the rounds in the aftermath was that Packer had first option on the rights.
This free PTV component became the crux point of what later became a war.
A war of another kind was already brewing in Australia. Optus began competing with Telstra for the local telephony market. Both carriers developed comprehensive strategies involving the rollout of billions of dollars worth of cable capable of providing the end user with additional services apart from simply the standard home phone. These included Internet and Pay TV.
Suddenly, Packer was sitting on a gold mine. Whilst the RL game would receive no additional benefit on their PTV rights, Packer was in a position to onsell the rights he received for a substantial profit. He later did this for a 5% stake in Optusvision. (at late '90s valuations of PTV companies this equated to a nice $150M freebee.)
The Telco war heated up with the race for exclusive PTV content. In most other countries, the PTV carrier does not enter into expensive exclusive content deals but all carriers can provide all channels. The Telstra/Optus war took us in a different direction. Optus through Optusvision and Telstra through Foxtel wanted exclusive programming rights to movie channels and Optus ended up with the Movie Network channels whilst Foxtel got the Showtime/Encore catalog. The race for sport was now on the agenda.
The proposition of no rugby league product was not acceptable to Telstra who were in the process of a multi-billion dollar rollout of cable infrastructure. As 50% owners of Foxtel the decision was made that a rugby league product had to be included on Telstra'a cable.
Super League Pt2
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
1)The State of Play
The situation now existed within Rugby League in Australia where the PTV rights which the ARL had basically given away were signed away by Packer in a lucrative deal for exclusive access to Optusvision. This situation was simply not acceptable to Telstra and News Ltd who were in the process of spending billions on infrastructure and absolutely had to be able to deliver the Rugby League product to their customers. The Optusvision deal also excluded Galaxy, CETV (now Austar) and ECT (Later bought by Austar). Despite attempts to negotiate with the ARL and Packer directly, these rights were still not made available.
Whilst the game of Rugby League was enjoying it's most prosperous time ($21,027,344 in revenue 1994. Of this $7,662,351 was income from the combined TV contracts), unfortunately it was running at a loss. Even it's most successful season, 1994 saw the NSWRL post a loss of $722,878. The majority of clubs were also running in the red and were unable to survive without the leagues club grants.
*Figures included within financials submitted in court documents
Clearly any suggestions that the league was a successfully run business which did not need to change the way it operated are coming from someone with no idea of the facts.
Many clubs saw the PTV rights issue as a huge blunder by the governing body.
Another issue which loomed large with the clubs was the insistance on having to apply for inclusion to the competition each and every year. This provided no security as there was no long term committment from the governing body that your club would still be there in 10, 5 or even 2 years.
The clubs were also somewhat fearful of the hierarchy who
at "The Premiership Policy Committee" meeting earlier on 9th April 1992 tabled a document called "A blueprint for the expansion of Rugby League". This document was followed up shortly afterwards in Aug '92 by a draft document sent to all clubs titled "Organization Review" by Dr G. Bradley of W.D Scott & Co commissioned by the governing body. This document is why the ARL became the governing body instead of the NSWRL. The recommendations in this report to the governing body and the clubs also reached the following conclusion,
" to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process.
In the long term I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."
This is the long term plan which the ARL were already working on prior to any notion of Super League.
On 2/5/94 John Quayle sent all clubs their letter of invitation to season 1995. This included a number of criteria for admission which included,
"attract a minimum average home attendance of 10,000 people"
(Of note, the following clubs failed this criteria for 1995, Balmain, Easts, Gold Coast, Illawarra, Parramatta, Penrith, Souths, St George and Wests)
The Broncos (A private company) when transferring a 20% share of their company to Northern Rivers Ltd had the new shareholder receive this from Mr Quayle,
"Under the terms of the League's Constitution, it is necessary that, without exception, all clubs which wish to participate in the League's Premiership competition, must apply each year for admission. No club has any automatic right to participate in any year's competition and the League has the unfettered right to reject any club's application for participation."
2)The Super League Concept
Whilst the ARL were already in the process of implementation of the recommendations concluded within "The Bradley Report". The PTV rights issue and security of admission to the competition festered amongst many clubs. The concept of a "Super League" began to get a mention in newspaper and magazine articles from 2/3/94 (most likely due to the existence of "The Bradley Report" combined with the widespread knowledge of the PTV rights issue).
In April '94, John Ribot prepared a concept document which proposed a "Super League" and sent it to the CEO of News Ltd Mr Cowley.
On 14/6/94, Ribot sent a more detailed plan for a Super League competition comprising 10 or 12 teams.
a slight modification on the ARLs "Bradley Report".
Super League Pt3
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
3)A News "owned" Superleague, (Super League Mk1)
A document entitled "Superleague", dated 12 August 1994, was prepared within News. The stated objective was to set up a company called Superleague Ltd, owned by News. Superleague Ltd would establish an elite national competition (including a New Zealand team), between 12 privately owned teams. News would own up to four of these teams. Superleague Ltd would also conduct an internationally televised World Club Series between clubs initially involving Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
News was to obtain a 15% management fee, the profit share allocated to the clubs owned by it and other benefits. Superleague Ltd was to devise revenue from sponsorship, free-to-air and pay television rights, gate takings and merchandising. The company was projected to make an operational profit of $5 million by 1997 and $12 million by 1999. (A far cry from the losses of the existing situation)
The competition was to consist of twelve clubs, of which four would be based in Sydney. New teams would be based in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Each of these teams would initially be owned by News. An objective of the proposal was "to ensure that no other competition [could] exist in competition to Superleague". To achieve this, it was considered necessary to have at least the four Sydney teams (to maintain the game's largest base) and to ensure that all teams were privately owned.
The document set out a series of steps to implement the proposal. Step 1 was to approach the four "continuing teams" (Brisbane, Canberra, Newcastle and Auckland), with a view to securing a commitment for 7 years. Step 2 was to meet with representatives of the League in a "casual pleasant atmosphere" and to offer "concessions". The concessions included allowing ARL to conduct Tests and retain the profits from those matches. The League and ARL was also to be given a grant to promote the game. Step 3 was to meet at short notice with representatives of the 11 Sydney clubs and Illawarra. Each club was to be offered a share in a team. If there were three clubs in an area, each would be offered one-third of the ownership of the team. It was envisaged, for example, that the new Western Sydney club would be offered to Wests, Penrith and Parramatta. If only one of the offerees accepted, it would own 100% of the new club; if two accepted they would each own 50%. The proposal was that the old club would own half of its entitlement in the new club and the remaining 50% would be offered directly to members. The old club and non-members could sell their entitlements to a private owner. Step 4 was to announce that Super League was happening and to explain its structure. Step 5 was to deal with other clubs not included in the arrangements, such as the South Queensland Crushers.
The document noted that the co-operation of some clubs was required, while the co-operation of players needed by the new competition was essential. It was acknowledged that compensation might have to be offered to unwanted players and teams. It was also acknowledged that it would be difficult to use current names and logos, although this would be an issue for only three or four clubs, since it was better for the new or combined clubs to start with completely new identities.
On 17 October 1994, the board of the League resolved to hold a special board meeting to discuss several issues, including Super League and a "reduction in the number of Sydney teams".
An SMH article quoted Arthurson on 21 October 1994,
"The League has the right, as you well know, to deny admission to any team in the Winfield Cup"
Reports of a proposed breakaway competition continued.
On 6 November 1994 Arthurson rang Quayle from England and said words to the effect,
"I'll be home Tuesday your time. What I would like you to do for me John, is to ring every President, or if the President is not available to speak to the CEO of each club, and tell them that I am coming home, and that when I get home I want to speak with them personally about the News Limited developments, tell them I want to talk to them about entering into an agreement to play in the competition for 3 to 5 years."
(Now, they wanted to give all the clubs some longer term security!)
On the morning of 10 November 1994, a meeting was held at the offices of News between Messrs Arthurson and Quayle and Messrs Cowley and Lovett. A conversation to the following effect took place:
"Arthurson: There is continuing media speculation about the establishment of a Super League. There are suggestions that there will be a break away or rebel competition.
Cowley: The stories don't come from me.
Arthurson: ...it is common knowledge around the traps that a comprehensive report has been put together by News, with nobody knowing what the report's about. There's plenty of suspicions being harboured amongst the clubs as to your intentions.
Cowley: We do have a proposal to develop a Super League. We would like to see a competition of 12 teams. We'd like to see the number of Sydney teams reduced.
Cowley: My people have been working on the project for some time. That is a report on their findings. One of these days I will give it to you. You will probably not like some of the things you read in it.
I would like to take Rugby League to the rest of the world. If you come with us we will make the code a much stronger code.... I love the game, Ken, I want you to know that I'd never do anything to harm it.... What you fellows have done for the game has been terrific, but News can take the game the next step.
Quayle: What is going to happen if we are not interested?
Cowley: Super League is going to happen with you or without you people. It is entirely up to you.
We would be interested in exploring any way to improve the game with you and to promote it internationally. It is absolutely essential however for any discussions for it to be understood that the control of the game must stay in the hands of the accepted authority of the game, and that is the Australian Rugby League.
Cowley: We are only seeking a slice of the television cake.
Super League Pt4
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
4)The ARL run Superleague, (Super League Mk2)
Shortly before the meeting of 14 November 1994, Mr Arthurson had a telephone conversation with Mr Cowley. The conversation was to the following effect:
"Arthurson: While I am prepared to negotiate with you and conciliate, the one thing which I will never give ground on is the idea that in any game in which News Limited participates, the control of the game must rest with the Australian Rugby League.
Cowley: I appreciate that. If there is to be a Superleague it has to be under the control of the ARL. My people are preparing a proposal for you and I expect to be able to get back to you with that proposal in early February."
Meeting with all club executives regarding ARL / News Ltd discussions.
Mr Arthurson outlined what had occurred at the meeting of 10 November 1994.
My personal view is that [what was said by Mr Cowley on 10 November 1994] would be unacceptable as it would virtually mean that the Australian Rugby League would be relegated to something akin to the Junior League. Mr Cowley said he thought it would be a great opportunity for us to really develop and expand the game and all he was saying that he wanted us to be involved. In response to a question from John Quayle as to whether they intended to go ahead with or without us, Mr Cowley replied that they would be going on with it in any case. ...
I've just had a meeting with him in the last few minutes and from the first moment we've spoken to him, the main thing John Quayle and I have said over and over again, whilst we're prepared to sit down, negotiate and we would be prepared to conciliate, the one thing that was not negotiable was the fact that we would never be a party to the accepted authority of the game losing control. At the meeting today that we had with him, he has apparently had further thoughts on it and he did say to me today that he appreciated that if there was a move towards "Super League", they would accept the fact that it would be controlled by the Australian Rugby League."
In the course of the meeting, Mr Arthurson explained why the Commitment Agreement had not been forwarded to the Brisbane Broncos:
"... I'll be very candid, the reason why it wasn't forwarded to the Broncos was because, right at the particular time, we were looking for immediate expressions of loyalty towards the game and, I must say, that from the newspaper reports we had received, we weren't absolutely certain we could get that immediate support from the Broncos ...".
In answer to a question regarding how realistic it would be to get a Super League up and running,
"...we are currently working with our lawyers now to see how we can, we're doing our best to tie the clubs up and also we've obviously got to tie the players up because as you quite rightly say, I mean, another organisation can easily have 10 private franchises - I mean 10 privately owned companies and start something quite separately from the clubs, there's nothing at all to stop them if they can get sufficient players they can go ahead and run a competition in opposition to ours. But I guess that if we've got all the players tied up and all the clubs tied up, it's pretty difficult to do."
Meanwhile, News began developing the full official Super League proposal for presentation to the ARL and clubs. They contracted management consultants from Australian Consuting Partners to provide an analysis of all aspects of the Super League concept including contingencies if hurdles were encountered. The Proposal conclusions included,
The economics of an Australian Superleague are attractive overall versus the current competition.
ACP identified, in substance, three strategies, although they were not regarded as mutually exclusive. The first, labelled the "Establishment Approach" required a proposal to be presented to the League and ARL and envisaged negotiations with them "to make Superleague happen". This ran several risks, including being "strung along" or "outbid" by Mr Packer, as well as the possible inability of the League and ARL to deliver, given the perceived political hurdles.
The second approach identified by ACP was labelled the "Early Defection Approach". This also required a proposal to be presented to the League and ARL, but envisaged that they would undertake exclusive and reciprocal obligations to News. As explained by Mr Orlay of ACP in his evidence, if the League and ARL responded favourably to the proposal, News would revert to the first strategy.
The third approach, designated as the "Rebel Approach" involved News manoeuvring with stakeholders to strengthen its position, signing up key clubs on confidentiality agreements and then securing the agreement of the League and ARL and the remaining clubs.
The final draft of the document was presented to representatives of News Ltd on 13/12/94. In summary the main points were,
* 12 teams in fully professional Australasian competition
* Existing 20 clubs to remain
- Fielding teams in First Division competitions in NSW, Qld, ACT
- As shareholders in 12 Superleague Teams
* ARL continues to run football and mounts Tests
* News vigorously promotes the game nationally and internationally (e.g. World Finals) and provides finance.
Oddly enough on the same day that News received their final draft of the proposal to later present to the ARL, the minutes of the ARL annual general meeting reflect these comments from Arthurson.
"the original proposals were totally unacceptable. All Clubs had signed an agreement drafted by the League's legal advisers committing themselves to remaining with the League for the next five years and not to play with any other organisation.
At a second meeting a concession was made by News Limited to the effect that any proposal for a "Super League" would provide that any such competition would be under the banner of the Australian Rugby League. News Limited had undertaken to provide a firm proposal by February. The Australian Rugby League must always control its own destiny but with clubs having signed the agreement the position seems assured for the future."
The Confidentiality Deeds
On 22 December 1994, News sent five clubs - Brisbane, Canberra, Newcastle, Cronulla-Sutherland and the Western Reds - a document entitled "Super League Confidentiality Deed". The covering letter stated that News wished to provide the particular club with an outline of the Super League proposal, which was to be presented to the ARL. The purpose of this type of document was to gain feedback from each of these clubs with the view to making small adjustments prior to the full presentation to the ARL in February.
The Final Proposal
On 5 January 1995, a draft of a script, to be used in conjunction with slides in a presentation to the League and ARL, was completed within the News organisation. During January, representatives of News met with officials of Auckland, Cronulla-Sutherland, Illawarra and St George about their proposed participation in Super League. In early February 1995, Mr Carr, the chief executive officer of St George, was offered the position of chief executive officer of the Super League club to be formed by agreement among St George, Cronulla-Sutherland and Illawarra. The offer was conditional, inter alia, on Super League eventuating and the clubs reaching agreement among themselves.
On 25 January 1995, ACP provided News with a further report, entitled "Superleague Options". This identified the "current proposal" as "News Superleague via Clubs/ARL". Under this proposal, Superleague would fund the ARL ($3m per annum) and the clubs ($2.5m). News would fund Super League in Australia and Europe, take a management fee and buy pay television rights ($4m per annum).
Whilst this proposal from ACP amounted to $37M per year. News did not agree with this figure and increased it back to the $100M mark as later occurred in the presentation documents.
Super League Pt5
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
5) The Meeting
A meeting took place on 30 January 1995 between Messrs Arthurson, Quayle and Moore, on behalf of the League, and Messrs Cowley, David Smith and Lovett, on behalf of News, at the offices of News. The proposal for a Super League was officially presented to the ARL. The key points were,
* There was to be a twelve team competition, with the game's best players. This was to be an integral part of an international competition, with a world-wide audience of tens or even hundreds of millions.
* The existing 20 team competition would continue. The ARL's "pivotal role" would also continue, as it would administer the game. The ARL would run the State competition and Test matches and be responsible for the judiciary, referees and junior development.
* The existing 20 clubs would be shareholders in the licensed, privately owned Super League teams. This would eliminate the problem of breach of players' contracts, since there would be no breach. The 20 club competition would be the "breeding ground for the stars of the future".
* The 12 clubs would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland.
* The current financial status of the game, despite its success in attracting fans, was a net loss, with the clubs being dependent on subsidies from their associated Leagues clubs. The Super League proposal would allow the clubs to benefit from News' global media network. Super League would make it possible for $100m to be invested in rugby league, thus giving the ARL a "$100m friend".
* There would be a "fully representative Board of Directors", with three Superclub board members and the ARL represented. The chairman of the ARL would be the chairman of Super League.
* Profit distribution between the League and News Ltd was negotiable.
After the meeting had concluded, Mr Cowley asked if he could make a presentation to the clubs. Mr Arthurson responded that, subject to the clubs' agreement, that could be done. Mr Smith said:
"We want the League to support the vision of Super League, to support the concept".
Please note: The ARL's pivotal role would continue. i.e. There role in administering the game would continue. Remember the ARL did not own the game, as private companies were already established with ownership of a team. In esscence SL proposed an entirely new competition, which the existing (unsustainably loss making) 20 team competition would be a feeder for. This was an alternative to the existing ARL plan of a 14 team competition (Bradley Report) which the ARL was already in the process of implementing. In the case of SL however, a solid foundation of finance was to be made available to the League. In terms of FTA, Packer had the rights to the 20 team comp and would have been eligible to bid for the FTA rights to the new 12 team SL.
6) The ARL letter to the clubs
2 February 1995, Mr Quayle, on behalf of the ARL, sent a letter by fax to each club advising that a conference scheduled for 6 February 1995 had been cancelled and inviting the club to send three delegates to a meeting on that day. The letter, so far as relevant, was as follows:
"As you can appreciate this action, after all details for the Conference had been finalised, indicates that serious issues have arisen which require urgent attention. You are no doubt aware that the 'Super League' matter involving News Limited, the League, and Member clubs of the League, has again created a climate of uncertainty, and I must say, some mistrust amongst stakeholders within the League who potentially may be affected by 'Super League'.
Those implications were such that the League now feels that to proceed with a Chief Executives Conference involving the 20 current Clubs within the League would be irresponsible in light of certain aspects of the News Limited offer.
The purpose of the meeting will be to review the outcomes of the previous meeting held on this matter on 14 November 1994 at which the League sought, and all clubs gave, an undertaking of a five (5) year commitment to the existing Premiership structure.
It does seem, however, that in the aftermath of the News Limited meeting that there is considerable doubt regarding the commitment by a number of Clubs to that resolution.
In order that a full and frank discussion can occur, the League has invited the appropriate News Limited representatives to address the meeting so that collectively all Clubs are hearing the same message. Whether that invitation is accepted or not is not known at this time. In any case the League is determined to seek from clubs their position in relation to the 'Super League' proposal and the League role, if any, in that proposal.
So that all Clubs can leave the meeting with some certainty about their future, you are requested to carefully consider your club's position with regard to this potentially most damaging situation.
7)The News Ltd presentation to the clubs.
News Ltd presented the Super League concept to all the clubs representatives.
Mr Cowley reaffirmed the role of the ARL,
"Any role which News was to play in the game would not result in the ARL losing the control and administration of the game ... It is not intended for News to own the game ... News' interest in Superleague is to provide broadcast opportunities, not proprietorship of the game. "
After Mr Cowley and Mr Smith had left the meeting, Mr Arthurson pointed out that a television contract, including pay television, had been entered into with Channel 9 until the year 2000. Mr Arthurson told the meeting:
"The League does not want to be part of the News proposal, we can't accept it. It seems to me that the tactics of News appeared to be to divide and conquer....Our strength has always been our solidarity; the fact that we have always stood firmly beside each other. If we continue to stick together like this no one, not even Rupert Murdoch, will break our game up. The ARL does not want to be a part of the News proposal, and will not accept it."
When the meeting resumed after lunch, Mr Packer addressed the representatives. He told them that the Nine Network had contractual rights until the year 2000, which he expected the ARL and the clubs to honour. Legal action would be taken against any club or person failing to comply with their contractual obligations.
Mr Arthurson then sought from each club a statement of its position, with regard to Super League. The representatives of those clubs that said they had not signed any confidentiality agreement all expressed their commitment to and support for the ARL. Mr Morgan of the Brisbane Broncos said that his club had signed a confidentiality agreement with News, but had stipulated that the club would only play in a competition owned by the ARL. Mr Neil of Canberra and Mr Lawler of Newcastle said much the same thing, each stating that his club would remain loyal to the League. Mr Puddy of the Western Reds said that a confidentiality agreement had been signed by his club, but that it wholeheartedly supported the ARL.
Mr Arthurson responded as follows:
"Well, thank you gentlemen for that unanimous pledge of loyalty to the ARL and your commitment not to join a Super League of any description. I would like Colin Love [the League's solicitor] to say a few words to you in relation to further actions which may be necessary following your unanimous support given to the concept of the ARL controlled competition."
The League's solicitor, Mr Love, then addressed the meeting as follows:
"You will recall that in November last you all signed an agreement to remain loyal to the League for the next five years. Our view is that this agreement will withstand any legal challenge and in that view we are supported by the opinion of senior counsel. It seems to us however, that for more abundant caution it would be advisable to have the clubs sign a further agreement pledging loyalty to the League, which supplements and supports the original document."
Mr Arthurson then said:
"Once everybody has signed this Agreement that Colin has referred to, there will not be any doubt about anybody's loyalty to the League and indeed if there is any doubt about anyone's loyalty they ought not to be part of the League."
A motion was then moved and seconded as follows: "That it be recommended to the Board of Directors of the League that any clubs not signing the new Agreement by 9 am on 8 February 1995, or in the case of the Western Reds by 9 am on Thursday 9 February 1995 be expelled from the 1995 competition."
This motion was carried unanimously. A further motion was moved that no negotiations with News be undertaken by any club in relation to Super League. Mr Arthurson indicated to the meeting that this motion was unnecessary, having regard to the resolution already passed.
Immediately after the meeting closed, the board of the League held a meeting. The board resolved not to accept the resolution passed at the meeting. The board also resolved to seek legal advice regarding the action that might be taken against clubs which did not sign the new agreement by the due date and time.
Between the closure of the meeting with the clubs and before the board meeting, Mr Arthurson telephoned Mr Cowley and told him that the clubs had unanimously rejected the proposal put by News.
Super League Pt6
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
The Loyalty Agreements
On 7 February 1995, Mr Quayle, on behalf of the ARL, sent by fax a letter to each of the clubs, accompanied by a draft deed. The letter stated that the deed was being sent to all clubs which were members of the League. It specified that each club had to sign the deed and return it by 9am the following day
"The League will view the failure of any club to sign and return the Deed by the deadline as an act of gross disloyalty.
I also refer you to yesterday's meeting of the League which passed the resolution to recommend that the Board of the League consider the expulsion of any Club which fails to sign and return the Deed by the deadline."
This type of coersive approach to signing a legal agreement basically renders the agreement invalid.
On 10 February 1995, the board of the ARL met. According to the minutes, the chairman, Mr Arthurson, explained that it had been necessary following discussions with News to ask all clubs to sign a deed in the form presented to the meeting. The board resolved that the deed, a copy of which was attached to the minutes, be executed by the League.
Key anti-competitive section in the loyalty agreement,
2.1 The Club agrees:
(a) that it will not directly or indirectly have any economic or financial or other interest or involvement in or otherwise carry on or be engaged in or be concerned as principal, agent, trustee, partner, director, shareholder, financier or otherwise, whether alone or jointly, in any, or in any club or team participating in any rugby league football competition which:
(i) may undermine the quality, competitiveness and geographical reach of teams competing in the National Competition;
(ii) may adversely affect the number of depth of experienced and well known players participating in the Club's teams in the National Competition, or teams organised by other clubs participating in the National Competition,
for playing seasons 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999;
(b) that it will not release, waive or otherwise permit or allow players who either now or in the future are under contract or other binding obligation to play for the Club to play in any competition other than the National Competition approved by the ARL and/or NSWRL for playing seasons 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
The war planning continues!
It should be noted that Mr Ribot gave evidence that he had a telephone conversation with Mr Cowley shortly after the meeting of 6 February 1995. In that conversation, Mr Ribot expressed the view that, having regard to the ARL's attitude at the meeting, it would not be possible to proceed with the Super League competition in its then form. According to Mr Ribot, Mr Cowley had replied that he would like Mr Ribot to speak to Mr Smith "about putting a different proposal together to progress the matter". Mr Ribot also gave evidence that about a fortnight after the meeting of 6 February 1995, he had several conversations with Mr Smith. Mr Smith had indicated that he needed to put in place a strategy to overcome the ARL's refusal to support the Super League proposal.
Meanwhile, back at the ARL the Sydney club culling was about to begin on recommendation from Manly,
At least one loyal club took the view that Super League, perhaps in an altered version, was not out of the question. In a letter dated 16 February 1995, Mr Hudson, the chairman of the board of Manly Warringah, wrote to Mr Quayle:
"there are great advantages for News Limited in getting their current proposal, or some version of it, finally accepted. Hence, we feel that the proposition is not 'dead and buried' and that attempts to de-stabilise the competition will continue.
There is a vulnerability in this which News Limited have identified. Their twelve (12) team competition has just four (4) teams in Sydney. They can see that a Sydney club can only survive with great difficulty financially and logistically, against the competition provided by one city clubs, and now (for Brisbane) a two (2) club city.
If the situation of the eleven (11) teams in Sydney is not addressed in some way by the League, the threat of a take-over, or such like, will continue to loom large.
We suggest that a plan to address the problems of the eleven (11) Sydney clubs vis-a-vis their colleagues in other cities and in other states is urgently needed."
The letter went on to request that the question of the Sydney clubs be considered by the Premiership Policy Committee on an urgent basis.
The committee did consider the letter at its meeting of 14 March 1995. The meeting (at which Mr Quayle was present) unanimously agreed that the "future structure of the Winfield Cup competition should contain fewer Sydney clubs". The committee also expressed the view that "the Board should convene as soon as possible to demonstrate leadership on the issue of fewer Sydney clubs".
Super League Pt7
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
In the meantime, a meeting of the board of the League, held on 20 February 1995, received a report from the League's solicitor, Mr Love, that all clubs, except Brisbane and Canberra, had signed Loyalty Agreements. The board agreed to accept the amendments proposed by Canberra and to have Mr Love continue to negotiate with the Brisbane Broncos on outstanding issues. Agreement appears to have been reached shortly thereafter.
In mid-March 1995 a meeting took place between Mr Cowley and Mr Arthurson. The minutes of the ARL's board meeting of 24 March 1995 record Mr Arthurson's report of that discussion. According to Mr Arthurson's account, the discussion had been cordial. Mr Cowley had assured him that News would still be pursuing the principle of Super League, but had given an assurance that any proposals in respect of its establishment would be made directly to the ARL and not to the club.
On 16 March 1995, Mr Arthurson wrote to each of the clubs, referring to the meeting with Mr Cowley. The letter included the following:
"Mr Cowley has given me an assurance that, even though News Limited supports the principle of a Super League, any further approaches to clubs will be made through the Australian Rugby League. I accept that these assurances were given to me in good faith and I will keep you informed of any further developments if we are approached by News Limited in the future.
That is the positive news. Unfortunately, I have also been presented with evidence that representatives from some clubs have been speaking with representatives of News Limited in relation to the participation of these clubs in a Super League, after the clubs signed the loyalty deed.
...
It is important that all clubs realise that those clubs which have had discussions with News Limited regarding the Super League proposal after signing the loyalty deed, are likely to be in breach of their obligations in the deed.
As Chairman of the Australian Rugby League, if I receive evidence of any clubs having any further discussions with News Limited or any other party in relation to their involvement in any other competition, I will consider such involvement a serious breach of the loyalty deed and I will be recommending that the ARL consider the expulsion of those clubs from the ARL competition and legal action under the deed.
We now see both sides engaged in deceptive behaviour. On the one hand you have News Ltd telling the ARL it will only approach through them and not directly to the clubs. On the other you have the ARL who is threatening clubs with expulsion for any contact with News Ltd whilst secretly planning to cull a large number of the Sydney clubs despite their own loyalty agreements.
On 23 March 1995, a meeting took place within News. The participants included Messrs Cowley, Smith and Ribot, together with Mr Rupert Murdoch. The notes for discussion at that meeting were in evidence, although not referred to by the trial Judge. The notes, which were presumably seen by Mr Murdoch, state that the first attempt to build an Australian Super League had been unsuccessful, because News had made some wrong assumptions. In particular, it had been assumed that the threat of clubs defecting to an alternative competition would pressure the ARL to accept the concept and that the ARL had the ability to grant television rights to News. News' position had been weakened because the clubs did not think that News would follow through with a rival competition outside the ARL. Moreover, Mr Packer had dominated events, in large measure because of his threat at the meeting of 6 February 1995 to sue clubs in the event of breach. This threat had "spooked" club officials.
What was needed, according to the notes, in order to set up a competition in 1997 or, perhaps, 1996, was a second, more aggressive approach. Building an Australian Super League to capture television rights would cost $60 million over four years. Super League would be owned and operated by News. The key elements of the more aggressive approach were to:
sign up all the players required for a ten team Australian competition, at approximately twice their current earnings;
mount a challenge to the "Five Year Agreement" binding the clubs; and
credibly mount a rival Super League without the "ARL Establishment", even though the "best" outcome was for the ARL to co- operate.
Clearly enough, Mr Murdoch approved the option of the "rebel competition".
Thereafter, detailed planning took place within the News organisation. The planning was recorded in a chart designated as the "war room" chart. The expression "war room" was apparently a reference to Mr Smith's office at News. The planning group prepared a schedule of about 200 target players, considered to be the ARL's "core playing strength" (a phrase used by Mr Raneberg, a consultant engaged by ACP). A "Presenter's Outline" was drafted, setting out, in effect, a sales pitch designed to persuade players contracted to AFL clubs to sign with Super League. Plans were formulated for approaches to be made to players and coaches in various parts of Australia and New Zealand. The plans included making travel arrangements under false names in order to preserve secrecy.
Super League Pt 8
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
The conquest begins
As all prospects to gain the PTV rights via a "friendly" alliance between News and the ARL was eliminated by Arko and Packer, News now embarked on a hostile takeover with the intent to pressure the ARL into a joint alliance. The key point being that a "new" competition resulted in new PTV rights being up for negotiation.
The plan involved,
Firstly, sign the coaches and CEOs of the targetted clubs.
On or shortly after 28 March 1995, News entered contracts with the coaches of the Auckland, Canberra, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla- Sutherland and Western Reds clubs. Each contract was constituted by a letter, countersigned by the particular coach. The term of the engagement in each case was three years, commencing three months after notice from News but no later than 1 January 1997. Each coach received a signing-on fee on execution of the letter. Mr Ribot acknowledged in evidence that it was very important to sign up the coaches, since they were thought to be instrumental in News' success in signing up players. He also acknowledged that in most cases the approach to the coach was made with the knowledge of the chief executive of the club.
Next, sign the majority of the high profile players at the club. This would then put the club itself into a position where it had virtually no option but to move to Super League as without key playing staff and officials the team would be basically eliminated from the ARL competition through the team reduction process which was already in play.
On 30 March 1995, the present proceedings were instituted by News. That evening, a number of Canterbury-Bankstown players attended a meeting at the request of their coach, Mr Anderson, who had already signed a contract with News. The first the players knew of the meeting was at training, when they were asked to attend that evening. At the meeting, Mr Ribot and Mr Lachlan Murdoch spoke to the players about Super League. Each player was then asked individually to sign a contract with a Super League company, which would require him to play full time in the new competition. The players were offered salaries of between $150,000 and $350,000 per annum, plus signing-on fees of between $50,000 and $100,000. The salaries, in general, were very much greater than the payments they were entitled to under their contracts with the Canterbury-Bankstown club. The players were not permitted to consult with their managers or families, nor were they permitted to take the contracts away with them. In the event, seven players signed contracts that night. The last contract was signed well after midnight. Each player who signed was handed a cheque for the amount of the agreed signing-on fee.
More clubs are targetted,
More or less the same process was repeated the following day, when a total of about twenty-six players from the Brisbane Broncos, Canberra and Cronulla-Sutherland clubs signed employment contracts with various Super League companies. In each case the coach supported the Super League approach. The salaries offered to these players ranged from $80,000 to $600,000 per annum. The signing-on fees varied from $20,000 to $100,000. Other players subsequently signed similar contracts, including thirteen Auckland Warriors players, who signed employment contracts on 2 April 1995 in New Zealand.
Mr Cowley, when challenged by Mr Arthurson as to how his actions were consistent with his promise to approach through the front door, replied:
"We thought that after we had bought your players that it would have such an effect on you that we would be better able to negotiate with you and come through the front door."
Super League Pt 9
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
ARL response, Packer takes over the ARL and demands team reductions.
The board of the League met at 12 noon on 1 April 1995 to consider the Super League situation. Three representatives of PBL (a Packer company involved in the operations of Channel Nine) and two from Optus and Optus Vision joined the meeting. Mr Powers, on behalf of PBL and Optus Vision, stated that these organisations would provide human and financial resources to assist the League in stemming defections to Super League. Mr Powers said that Channel Nine and Optus were prepared to commit $13-20 million. He also stated that the quid pro quo would include the League making some changes to accelerate the reduction of teams and the signing of player contracts with the ARL, instead of the clubs.
None of the ARL plan of team reductions are discussed in the media or on nine's Footy show as they are busy selling the idea that it is the SL that is tearing the game apart.
Canterbury, Cronulla and Canberra to be kicked out, Peter Moore resigns, Roosters associated PBL take over ARL.
The board resolved, that:
the Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla-Sutherland and Canberra clubs be requested to show cause why they should not be excluded from the competition;
a committee be established to identify and sign players to League agreements; and
Mr Leckie, representing PBL and Optus vision, be appointed as a director of the League.
In the course of the meeting, Mr Moore arrived. Mr Moore was a director of both the League and ARL. He was also a director and chief executive of Canterbury-Bankstown. Mr Moore had been actively involved in supporting Super League, and in securing the signature of the Canterbury-Bankstown coach (his son-in-law) to a Super League contract. Mr Moore offered his resignation from the League and ARL to Mr Arthurson outside the meeting. His offer was accepted.
More ARL threats
Immediately after the meeting, the League issued a press release. This stated that any players or coaches who had agreed to be associated with News would not be considered for representative selection. It also warned that the ARL would vigorously pursue through the courts any player found to have breached his obligations to the ARL. The press release indicated that the League, with the support of Channel Nine and Optus, through Optus Vision, would commit substantial resources to establishing financial incentives for players to play exclusively in the ARL competition.
England and New Zealand sign with Super League
A further meeting of the board of the League took place on 7 April 1995. Among other things, the board discussed the actions of News in completing arrangements with the New Zealand Rugby League and the English Rugby League. This was a matter of considerable significance to the League, since test matches between Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand had been conducted through the New Zealand and English Leagues.
Roosters associates to have veto vote on which teams are to be eliminated from ARL competition.
A document dated 11 April 1995 summarised "deal terms" between the League and ARL and Channel Nine/Optus Vision. This provided for Channel Nine/Optus Vision to fund player contract commitments up to $40 million. The League and ARL were not to change the competition, format and frequency of the competition in a materially adverse way without the consent of Channel Nine/Optus Vision.
ARL screwed for at least a further 5 years on TV rights.
The rights period under existing television agreements were to be extended for a further five years, with Channel Nine/Optus Vision to have a first and last right of refusal. Channel Nine/Optus Vision's funding commitment was non-recoupable, except as follows:
if the League and ARL agreed, it could be recouped over time out of fees received for television rights;
it could be recouped out of moneys received by the League and ARL for assignment of player contracts;
the commitment could be used as a set-off against the cost of exercising the right of refusal for renewal of the television rights agreement.
Basically, this means that whilst the ARL have handed the power over to Packer, the ARL will have to compensate Packer for any money spent by having it deducted from future TV rights payments. Great deal or what? Packer must have been laughing his head on the way down in the lift after that deal.
Super League Pt 10
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
The pinnacle of loyalty, nothing but a lie.
Fair current Market value is an even more interesting situation. Particularly in the case of Fittler. Everyone understands that market competition is a key factor in the setting of "fair market value". The primary driver of market competition at the time of the SL war was the race for player signatures between the SL and ARL. This resulted in a bidding war which drove the "fair market value" of a players contract up. Whatever a player managed to get was fair market value. In Fittler's case it was extremely unusual. Firstly the ARL announces that any SL players will not be eligible for selection in the Kangaroo squad. Then it makes Fittler the new captain as Meninga signs with SL. Fittler then announces that he will leave Penrith and stay with the ARL. This declaration of remaining with the ARL without having a club to go to should have dramatically reduced his fair market value as he had just eliminated the key driver behind the bidding war, SL. Despite the elimination of the key competitive force for his signature, he then signs one of the highest value contracts in history with the Roosters. Over $4M for 5 years as per Big League. It's clear from these events that the Kangaroos captaincy and a huge deal were all prior conditions of his media show of "loyalty".
This may be of interest to some regarding the Fittler show of loyalty,
These details are all quoted from court documents and sworn under oath by the relevant parties,
Regarding orignal Panthers Contracts
On 26 August 1993, Bradley Scott Fittler entered into an employment
agreement with the Penrith Club, a company limited by guarantee, as is the
League. The agreement was in he standard form of Playing Contract approved by
and uniformly used by the Leagues. On 25 July 1994 Matthew Charles Sing
entered into such an employment agreement with the Penrith Club. This also was
in the standard form in use by the Leagues.
Matt Sing gets paid $50K for loyalty prior to the Panthers move to SL
Thus on 3 April 1995, Mr Sing, for a
payment of $50,000 from the League, agreed to what were described as
"commitments to the League Competition" contained in clause 2 thereof
Essentially the commitments required the player for up to eight years not to
enter into any "Contractual Arrangement" relating to playing in any "Match" or
"Competition" other than the Rugby League Competition which the ARL and the
League "do and will in the future conduct".
Fittler gets paid $800K for loyalty prior to the Panthers move to SL
Mr Fittler on 4 April 1995 for a consideration of $300,000 and for a
further guarantee to meet any shortfall between the payment received by the
player under his contract to play in the League Competition and $500,000,
undertook equivalent obligations to those of Mr Sing.
The ARL went behind Penriths back to buy Fittler and Sing
I accept the evidence given that neither player entered into these
further Loyalty Agreements at the request of the Penrith Club or with the
knowledge of the Penrith Club at the time they were entered into, nor in a
form which mirrored any condition the Penrith club sought to attach to its
Commitment Agreement.
Panthers sign with SL
The next significant event is Penrith Club's entry into what I will
conveniently call the Super League arrangements. These involved a Deed of
Indemnity and Heads of Agreement both dated 3 May 1995. Under these
arrangements speaking generally, Penrith Club in conjunction with an only
partially associated entity and licensee AH PE Pty Limited, committed itself
to supporting the competing Rugby League football competition called
colloquially "Super League" set up under the control of News Limited and its
associated entities.
So, in a nutshell, it seems that loyalty came at a price and was negotiated and paid for even before the Panthers made the move.
Super League Pt 11
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
News continue the pressure on clubs to jump to SL and take on all litigation risk.
On 6 April 1995, News agreed to indemnify the Canberra Raiders against any action by the ARL or the League in consequence of the club contracting with News or supporting Super League.
During April, News made a concerted effort to sign up target clubs. By this stage, some had lost key personnel to Super League. Club representatives were told that if they did not join Super League, they would face rival clubs established in their area. Advertisements appeared in the media, giving publicity to the fact that prominent players had signed with Super League. News also placed advertisements advising players who had signed with the ARL that their contracts might be set aside because News had signed the English and New Zealand Rugby Leagues. Frequent meetings took place between News representatives and "rebel" clubs to obtain their support in implementing the proposed arrangements. In particular, meetings took place between News representatives and those clubs on 13 and 18 April 1995.
Extract from Super League Club Deed
Clause 3(a) provided that, subject to certain conditions, News agreed to indemnify the club (inter alia):
"(i) from any liability that Club may incur to ARL and or NSWRL under the Commitment Agreement or the Loyalty Agreement or both by reason of club entering into and delivering this deed or observing or performing the provisions hereof on its part to be observed or performed".
By cl.4(a) News also agreed to indemnify, again subject to certain conditions:
"each of Club's directors and officers (each "Indemnified Party") from any liability that Indemnified Party may incur to ARL, NSWRL, Club, Club's members or any other person by reason of Club entering into and delivering this deed or observing or performing the provisions hereof on its part to be observed or performed...".
Deeds in this form were executed by Auckland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla-Sutherland, North Queensland and the Western Reds. The deeds were expressed to be operative for periods of between three years (for example, Cronulla-Sutherland) and nine years (for example, Brisbane). Subsequently, on 4 May 1995, Penrith entered into a deed in similar terms, although the indemnity was wider, extending to liability under any joint venture arrangement. On 12 May 1995, the existence of the deeds to which the eight clubs were parties was publicly announced.
The Players
A total of 307 players and 10 coaches entered into Super League contracts. Of those, three players subsequently had their contract cancelled by agreement and four players had their contracts cancelled following proceedings in the New South Wales Industrial Commission. Consequently, at the date of the hearing of the appeal, 300 players were parties to the current Super League contracts. None of these had proceedings on foot seeking cancellation of the contracts. We were told that 42 of the 300 contracted players had signed on or prior to 2 April 1995. (On 1 April 1995, the League and ARL announced that it would be signing players in competition with Super League.)
Counsel representing the intervening coaches and players prepared a schedule listing the 300 players. The schedule specified, in each case, whether the player was party to an ARL club contract and, if so, the year in which the contract expired. A summary of the contractual status of the 300 players is as follows:
(i) Players who never had ARL club contracts - 28
(ii) Players who had ARL club contracts expiring in 1995 or earlier - 109
(iii) Players who had ARL contracts expiring in 1996 or later - 163
Of those in the third category, 30 had contracts expiring in 1997 and only 7 had contracts expiring later than 1997.
tricolours
01-04-2005, 19:59
DJ, we've been through this before. The ARL basically gave away the rights?....$2M....hardly given away.
Gus got it right when he said "the victors write history"
Gus got it right when he said "the victors write history"
Oh well then if Gus said it .......
Gus's philosophy is actually,
"Gus rewrites history!"
Court docs are court docs.
No PTV revenue in the financials.
As stupid as the ARL was, I don't think they would commit perjury.
Ghoulies
01-04-2005, 20:13
DJ, we've been through this before. The ARL basically gave away the rights?....$2M....hardly given away.
Gus got it right when he said "the victors write history"
When you think about it, $2M was a giveaway. If the ARL waits for a few more years for Pay TV to show its true value they could have been in for a lot more money. (Note: This is according to Arthur Beetsons' book, 'Big Artie'.)
tricolours
01-04-2005, 20:31
When you think about it, $2M was a giveaway. If the ARL waits for a few more years for Pay TV to show its true value they could have been in for a lot more money. (Note: This is according to Arthur Beetsons' book, 'Big Artie'.)
Hindsights a wonderful thing.
Actually they had been included in every TV sponsorship deal for the last 10 years, Paker was just the first one take up the rights.
tricolours
01-04-2005, 20:34
Oh well then if Gus said it .......
Gus's philosophy is actually,
"Gus rewrites history!"
Court docs are court docs.
No PTV revenue in the financials.
As stupid as the ARL was, I don't think they would commit perjury.
Due to expansion of the competition the NSWRL was put into a situation where many clubs were not in a long term position to survive. The NSWRL solution was to attempt to kick them out of the competition when they could no longer meet a prescribed criteria. This occurred in the case of Newtown and was attempted twice with Western Suburbs who initiated court challenges to remain in the comp.
The only proscribed criteria was simply this; Clubs had to pay there players .
When Arko & Quayle took over in the early '80 things wern't great but by the '90 the game had never been better on & off the field, and that what attracted News LTD.
When Arko & Quayle took over in the early '80 things wern't great but by the '90 the game had never been better on & off the field, and that what attracted News LTD.
Here you go Tricolours.
The one and only,
much talked about by ARL/Packer history rewriters
most successful season ever
1994
6. League Financial Statements: 31 October 1994
The following are extracts from the League's profit and loss account for the year ended 31 October 1994:
NEW SOUTH WALES RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 OCTOBER 1994
REVENUE ACTUAL
Premiership
T.V. Fees 4,653,351
Sponsorships 3,676,300
Radio Broadcasts 256,745
T.V. Fees - F.N.F. 1,180,000
Sundry 20,000
TOTAL 9,786,396
General and Administrative
TOTAL 828,096
Representative Matches
1. State of Origin
T.V. Fees 450,000
Gate Receipts 2,572,633
Sponsorships 639,000
Radio Broadcasts 2,250
Sundry 26,000
TOTAL 3,689,883
2. City v Country
TOTAL 150,000
3. Final Series
T.V. Fees 1,379,000
Gate Receipts 3,309,280
Sponsorships 900,000
Radio Broadcasts 26,760
TOTAL 5,615,040
Metropolitan Cup
TOTAL 88,728
Development & Coaching
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT & COACHING 869,201
TOTAL REVENUE 21,027,344
This includes only 7,662,351 in total TV broadcast revenue
EXPENDITURE
TOTAL EXPENDITURE 21,750,223
PROFIT/(LOSS) (722,878)
Clearly a successful sports business model for the future!
So who has pocketed your mystery $2M.
Ah well it makes a good story anyway, they should make it $10M next time they tell it!
tricolours
01-04-2005, 22:40
[/font]Here you go Tricolours.
The one and only,
much talked about by ARL/Packer history rewriters
most successful season ever
1994
This includes only 7,662,351 in total TV broadcast revenue[/b]
Clearly a successful sports business model for the future!
[/b]
Ken Arthurson...
" ..........But the fact of it was News had no choice but to peddlle lies and misinformation, because the truth was the game had never been in better shape then at the end of the 1994 season. Crowds were at record levels, TV Ratings were extrodinary(seven of the top ten programs for the year were Rugby League matches), radio ratings were sky high and the games finances had soared to record heights....... and ahead there were only higher expectations.
Meursault
01-04-2005, 23:02
Is Ken Arthurson impartial? Is he the Zen Buddha of truth? When he talks about lies and misinformation, he obviously has no interest in distorting the facts himself?
Of course not. Boring....
tricolours
01-04-2005, 23:15
So who has pocketed your mystery $2M.
Ah well it makes a good story anyway, they should make it $10M next time they tell it!
[Mike Coleman];" ..........Pakers nine network signed a $24M contract to televise rugby league ......In October '93 extended the contract for a further seven years at a cost of $70M and,..........,picked up the option on Pay TV rights for $2M - $1M down, The other Million to be paid $12 months later...."
tricolours
01-04-2005, 23:31
Is Ken Arthurson impartial? Is he the Zen Buddha of truth? When he talks about lies and misinformation, he obviously has no interest in distorting the facts himself?
Of course not. Boring....
He repeated this in court! the front men for the opposition, Ken Cowley and Lachlan Murdoch, where 'mysteriously' absent.
Beaver Gc
02-04-2005, 00:47
DJ1 you can sugar coat it all you want News Ltd back doored their way in to the game
They were only able to do that because of scumbag clubs like yours who were so quick to jumpship
Peter moore
John ribot
Porky morgan
kevin Neil
M oconnor
All scum
2 of them have got theirs 3 to go.
Ghoulies
02-04-2005, 02:07
Its football Cliffy, its not the end of the world. The game has survived despite all the ***** News put it through and is going from strength to strength.
But saying something like, 'they got theirs' about men who have recently died is a pretty low act.
2 of them have got theirs 3 to go.
The most pathetic statement I've read in these pages.
Take a good look at yourself before labelling anyone else a scumbag.
Ken Arthurson...
" TV Ratings were extrodinary(seven of the top ten programs for the year were Rugby League matches),
Packer got a great deal then considering he received a stake in Optusvision worth around $150M for the cost *cough* of the PTV rights which the ARL sold *cough* to him.
radio ratings were sky high and the games finances had soared to record heights....... and ahead there were only higher expectations.
lol, when you make a loss in a year, you would hope that you only had higher expectations ahead.
Were these expectations based on the culling of teams back to the ARL plan of 14?
Beaver Gc
02-04-2005, 08:47
The most pathetic statement I've read in these pages.
Take a good look at yourself before labelling anyone else a scumbag.
its called karma mate
its called karma mate
You're a fool. You need to get a life if you seriously think people deserve to die because they may have a different perspective on rugby league to the one you have.
[Mike Coleman];" ..........Pakers nine network signed a $24M contract to televise rugby league ......In October '93 extended the contract for a further seven years at a cost of $70M and,..........,picked up the option on Pay TV rights for $2M - $1M down, The other Million to be paid $12 months later...."
...and yet under oath in a court of law, the deal was not signed until Mar 94.
So, either way if the $2M was accurate, at least $1M of it would have turned up in the financials presented.
But tell me, have we now gone from $2M per year or are you suggesting that the ARL sold 7 years worth of PTV rights for $2M (less than $300K per year).
Is it just a co-incidence that this new $70M 7 year deal which included PTV rights was shown in court to be signed in Mar 94 after the first media report of a possible Super League in the newspaper on 2/3/94?
Or is it that the existing (pre Mar 94) contract was not as rock solid as the ARL later claimed, and a new one was hastily put together after the first sniff from News?
Good business? mmmm should we sign this extension now or should we investigate the value of these PTV rights?
As a reference point, these rights were sought by News for $500M over 5 years pre war ($100M per season), post war after Packer got what he wanted (a further 7 year extension of the FTA rights for the same cash and a 25% stake in Foxtel) and abandoned the ARL, which forced the merger, these PTV rights were signed for $400M over 6 years ($67M per season)
tricolours
02-04-2005, 09:10
The most pathetic statement I've read in these pages.
You havn't posted that often in this thread.
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 09:14
The $20-30M was the figure I used because that was the figure put foreward by you.
The Current contrat then, taking into account the length of time that has past, is worse than the one signed back in the ARL days, described by you as "f*ck all".
It will be interesting to see just How much the NRL do get.
Woo up their Tri Colours. What I described as F*ck was giving your pay TV rights away for a small amount and locking the figure in for 7 long years. Yes you are right, what Packer paid at the end of 1997 was bad. But if I was to say that Packer used the peace talks between Optus, the ARL, News Ltd and Telstra to screw a very (below market value) cheap FTA (with no Pay TV element) 10 contract, you would probably counter with, “so what it’s a legally binding contract”
My post, and it is quoted by you, clearly says Australia, not "other parts of the world.
Sorry, I didn't see that get out of jail card. OK, so in Australia in 1993, there was no such thing as Telephones, Faxes, Telex’s, email, newspapers and satellites to communicate with rest of the world. I’m pretty sure their was no such things as airplanes to fly to the US or Europe either.
Thank god things have changed today. David Gallop and Graham Annisley visit the NRL HQ in New York at the end of each season to keep up with all the latest developments in marketing football. Also, the AFL makes the same trip each year.
There wasn't an ARL club that Super League didn't try to woo.
So what?
The majority of these players are just part of the buying and selling process that goes on in our game, nothing to do with Super League. Players who signed ARL Contracts only had to play in the ARL. There were a few English players signed by the ARL, I think they were the only players directed towards club, Elery Hanley - Wests and one went to the G.Coast, don't know about the others.
Ellery Hanley was 36 years old in 1997 and he played with Balmain that season. Jason Robinson and Gary Connelly stayed at Wigan. I find it interesting that if over 20 good players became available on the market to 12 clubs that talent starved clubs like Balmain, Wests, Souths, Crushers, Chargers and Illawarra would get at least one each. Seems funny the majority would end up at the Roosters, Eels and Manly
I do know that TV and Cigarette sponsorship are not the only means of revenue.
Ken Arthurson...
" ..........But the fact of it was News had no choice but to peddlle lies and misinformation, because the truth was the game had never been in better shape then at the end of the 1994 season. Crowds were at record levels, TV Ratings were extrodinary(seven of the top ten programs for the year were Rugby League matches), radio ratings were sky high and the games finances had soared to record heights....... and ahead there were only higher expectations.
Ken Arthurson...".The annual surpluss had risen fom $1.32M in 1982 to $8.36M in 1991, club payments had gone from $1.36M to $7.88M........".
Yes the Arthurson administration did a good job in lifting up profits as did the previous Humphries administration, as did the Buckley administration as did the Flegg administration and the Gallop administration of today that returns something of the vicinity of $3m to each of the 15 NRL clubs. But you said there may have been other business opportunities out there. So any ideas what they might have been?
How could I have evidence about something that never happend? - there was a Super League war, And all I can tell you is that all the clubs survived until the end of the war.
The Paker and Optus money meerly canceled out the the overnight effects of the skyrocketing player payments, lower crowds, sponsorship a lot more difficult etc etc. People generally had 2nd thoughts about investing in league.
The money had just a little more affect than canceling out skyrocketing player payments. For two or three years it was free entry to any ground in Sydney to watch footy. Most of the struggle clubs were on the breadline in 1994 did not have the same level of debt in 1998.
If it pleases you to claim a small victory over a mistaken statement then by all means go ahead (As a shareholder in Bond Corp I was and am fully aware of what Mr Bond owned). - if you think the NRL is 50/50 partnership then I have to assume that you are still putting your teeth under the pillow.
I don’t know what putting teeth under the pillow is but let me ask you this Tri Colours. If you think News tell the clubs what to do, can you please list all the times the majority of the 14 NRL clubs (and 15 since 2002) were rolled on a issue by News Ltd in the last 5 years?
Without being able to produce any real evidence to contradict the hypothetical situation my best analogy would be this,
Prior to the war, supported only by our governing body the ARL, we were slightly Infront of AFL - post war, supported only by there governing body, they find themselves ahead.
I Have no real evidence, only my recollection - that doesn't mean it not right though.
I thought you said It's difficult to say what new opportunties would have eventuated had the game been allowed to continue on, But it's hard to imagine that there would of been none. I think you also said the Packer TV contract was the most lucative ever for a sporting event in Austalia - and it was staight up, no if's and provisos
As you've pointed out The Rothmans Sponsorship deal was a very lucrative one so Why abandon it before they had to? There was probably some kind of contractual agreement.
The ARL were deep in discussion with News LTD in to take over from Rothmans when they were forced to end there sponsorship at the end '95 season. The competition would be known as the Ansett Cup. When News LTD seen there books though they changed there minds - they wanted the whole thing.
So News Ltd was the only company John Quayle could entertain to becoming a major sponsor. Gee, I thought there might have been more.
Are You sure Benson & Hedges ended it's sponsorship of the cricket prior to the government deadline?
Cricket held on right up until the end. It was disgrace as well. Cricket argued that the Packer inspired World Series Cup was an international competition and received government exemption and cricket and Rugby League were the last two sports to hang onto tobacco sponsorship.
On final point Tri Colours if you don’t believe the NSWRL was out to get rid of struggling clubs, get a copy of Ian Head’s (a big Roosters fan) excellent book “True Blue” The Story of the NSWRL.
DJ1 you can sugar coat it all you want News Ltd back doored their way in to the game
No! Actually they front doored it.
They were rejected.
They instituted a hostile takeover. Common business practise.
They were only able to do that because of scumbag clubs like yours who were so quick to jumpship
No! They were only able to do that because,
1) Many clubs had no confidence in the existing heirarchy to provide them with long term security
2) Every team had to apply each year for entry to the comp, you could be rejected at the whim of the heirarchy.
3) The heirarchy had already distributed to all clubs the Bradley report which outlined their plan to reduce the comp to 14 teams.
4) Once a teams coach and key players had been signed to SL, the club had no choice but to jump or it would have immediately come into the sights for ARL expulsion via the Bradley report strategy.
5) Some teams were not able to survive financially under the existing ARL system and were faced with the choice of being kicked out via the Bradley report strategy or going bankrupt attempting to embark on a short term strategy of buying class players in the hope of attracting the crowds to meet potential criteria.
6) Many clubs saw the good business model of the initial Super League system i.e. existing 20 team comp where all 20 were shareholders in the 12 team Super League with guarantees of long term financial viability.
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 09:26
Greenie
I can assure that Tim Sheens didn't move to the Cowboys with the promise of two has-beens Roberts and Walters, and two reserve graders Death and Phillips.
Mark, I did also hear Tim say that.
Ian Roberts and Steve Walters were current Australian players before going to North Queensland. Jason Death was rookie on the way up and played some pretty good footy with Souths when he left the Cowboys. The last time I remember Luke Phillips playing reserve grade was at the Raiders. Luke was close to the best player for the Roosters in the 2001 First Grade Grand Final.
Yes Melbourne happened after the SL War but Sheens has been quoted many times saying that he was promised far more players than he was eventually given at the Cowboys.
I very disappointed that News Ltd talked Tim in leaving the Raiders to get the Cowboys up to scratch. I have also seen the amateur behaviour of the various cowboy boards from the moment they came into the big league in 1995 and up until Graham Murray arrived. Grant Bell was sacked in record time. Graham Lowe was brought in with big group of Kiwi players that were going to wonders and were shown the door when Tim arrived. Then there was Tim’s constant public fighting with board with Tim going on sick leave to make sure he got a pay out. Then Tim’s assistant Murray Hurst went the same way as Tim. If I was a Cowboy fan, I would be happy that when Graham Murray was appointed, that the chairman and the board finally decided to stay out of the running of the team. I would also be happy with the legacy that Tim had left behind with all those players that Tim introduced to top grade that have really come on under Graham Murray’s coaching.
Further, Im not saying News didn't help or even save the Cowboys AFTER SL (once they realised it was a potential goldmine), what I was saying was out of the SL War the Cowboys got the least benefits. (especially in comparison to Brisbane)
The Cowboys got life, and that is a lot more than a lot of other clubs got. If you compare any club to the Broncos back in the Super League days, yes you are right, the Broncos did get more, but the same could be said for every other club in Super League.
You havn't posted that often in this thread.
Haven't I? Nice of you to notice tricolours. I didn't realise you were taking such an interest in my activities. I'll give you a tip for your comedy routine in the future... being funny is always a good start.
tricolours
02-04-2005, 10:35
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricolours
[Mike Coleman];" ..........Pakers nine network signed a $24M contract to televise rugby league ......In October '93 extended the contract for a further seven years at a cost of $70M and,..........,picked up the option on Pay TV rights for $2M - $1M down, The other Million to be paid $12 months later...."
--------------------------------------------
...and yet under oath in a court of law, the deal was not signed until Mar 94.
So, either way if the $2M was accurate, at least $1M of it would have turned up in the financials presented.
But tell me, have we now gone from $2M per year or are you suggesting that the ARL sold 7 years worth of PTV rights for $2M (less than $300K per year).
Is it just a co-incidence that this new $70M 7 year deal which included PTV rights was shown in court to be signed in Mar 94 after the first media report of a possible Super League in the newspaper on 2/3/94?
Or is it that the existing (pre Mar 94) contract was not as rock solid as the ARL later claimed, and a new one was hastily put together after the first sniff from News?
Good business? mmmm should we sign this extension now or should we investigate the value of these PTV rights?
As a reference point, these rights were sought by News for $500M over 5 years pre war ($100M per season), post war after Packer got what he wanted (a further 7 year extension of the FTA rights for the same cash and a 25% stake in Foxtel) and abandoned the ARL, which forced the merger, these PTV rights were signed for $400M over 6 years ($67M per season)
--------------------------------------------------
Quote DJ1
"
In 1993 the RL signed a deal with Packer for the FTA (Free to air) rights to televise Rugby League. This deal was reportedly at $13M per year. The important aspect of this deal however was the clauses which basically handed over the PTV (Pay Television) rights to PBL for free."
-----------------------------------------------------
Was this court case held at a theme park?
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 10:40
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricolours
[Mike Coleman];" ..........Pakers nine network signed a $24M contract to televise rugby league ......In October '93 extended the contract for a further seven years at a cost of $70M and,..........,picked up the option on Pay TV rights for $2M - $1M down, The other Million to be paid $12 months later...."
Quote DJ1
"In 1993 the RL signed a deal with Packer for the FTA (Free to air) rights to televise Rugby League. This deal was reportedly at $13M per year. The important aspect of this deal however was the clauses which basically handed over the PTV (Pay Television) rights to PBL for free."
Was this court case held at a theme park?
No DJ1, don't hit him again. He's bleeding to death
tricolours
02-04-2005, 10:59
[QUOTE=Green Machine]Woo up their Tri Colours. What I described as F*ck was giving your pay TV rights away for a small amount and locking the figure in for 7 long years. Yes you are right, what Packer paid at the end of 1997 was bad. But if I was to say that Packer used the peace talks between Optus, the ARL, News Ltd and Telstra to screw a very (below market value) cheap FTA (with no Pay TV element) 10 contract, you would probably counter with, “so what it’s a legally binding contract”
I don't imagine it would of been easier then the original contract, the one that was signed with just the one interested party.
I too, used to believe the later "post war" reports that the deal was worth $13M and signed in Oct 93.
That was until I found this in the summary by the judge of submitted documents as evidence.
J. The Roles of the League, ARL and Clubs
Section 3 financial arangements
Page 63
In recent years, the League has entered into agreements with television networks, granting rights to televised matched for varying periods. In 1987, the League granted the rights to Channel 9 to televise State of Origin games for three seasons. In 1990, agreement was reached with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to televise matches for a three year period. Most importantly, in March 1994, a series of agreements was executed between the League, ARL and Channel 9 for televising competition and State of Origin matches, on both free-to-air and pay television.
Later I found this,
L. The Birth of the Super League Proposal
Section 1. The Initial Proposal
Page 79
Newspaper or magazine articles concerning a rebel Super League competition sponsored by News appeared as early as March 1994, the first such article being in the Rugby League Week of 2 March 1994.
Which actually opens up the possibility of my questions as to which actually occurred first.
Was the signing of the new extension a reaction to the report of a "News" sponsored competition?
Why was Packer and the ARL in a sudden rush to institute a new extended contract?
Unless of course they signed it on March 1st, the day before the article.
Laws of probability suggest otherwise.
tricolours
02-04-2005, 11:49
I too, used to believe the later "post war" reports that the deal was worth $13M and signed in Oct 93.
That was until I found this in the summary by the judge of submitted documents as evidence.
Later I found this,
Which actually opens up the possibility of my questions as to which actually occurred first.
Was the signing of the new extension a reaction to the report of a "News" sponsored competition?
Why was Packer and the ARL in a sudden rush to institute a new extended contract?
Unless of course they signed it on March 1st, the day before the article.
Laws of probability suggest otherwise.
Arthurson went to court and testified under oath, Cowley wouldn't.
I Know which one I believe!
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 11:54
[QUOTE=Green Machine]Woo up their Tri Colours. What I described as F*ck was giving your pay TV rights away for a small amount and locking the figure in for 7 long years. Yes you are right, what Packer paid at the end of 1997 was bad. But if I was to say that Packer used the peace talks between Optus, the ARL, News Ltd and Telstra to screw a very (below market value) cheap FTA (with no Pay TV element) 10 contract, you would probably counter with, “so what it’s a legally binding contract”
I don't imagine it would of been easier then the original contract, the one that was signed with just the one interested party.
I wonder why the rights were hurriedly signed in March 1994. Was John Quayle talking to Ken Cowley about taking over the sponsorship of the NSWRL at that time? I wonder if Pay TV came up in their discussions?
tricolours
02-04-2005, 12:04
[QUOTE=tricolours]
I wonder why the rights were hurriedly signed in March 1994. Was John Quayle talking to Ken Cowley about taking over the sponsorship of the NSWRL at that time? I wonder if Pay TV came up in their discussions?
Who knows, all we can do is speculate on this contrat that was re-sinned late 1993).... luck or genius, eitherway doesn't matter there was no interest shown by any others at that time.
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 12:24
Who knows, all we can do is speculate on this contrat that was re-sinned late 1993).... luck or genius, eitherway doesn't matter there was no interest shown by any others at that time.
Tri Colours,
I don’t like to regurgitate someone else’s work but:
In 1993 the RL reportedly signed a deal with Packer for the FTA (Free to air) rights to televise Rugby League. However tabled documentation during Federal Court proceedings state this was not signed until March '94. This deal was reportedly at $13M per year. The important aspect of this deal however was the clauses which basically handed over the PTV (Pay Television) rights to PBL for free (No PTV revenue shows up in NSWRL or ARL financial reports). Despite the fact that there was no PTV situation launched in Australia at the time, overseas experience had shown that once a PTV service became available in Australia, these rights would be worth a substantial amount of money to the game. At the time, Packers priority was to gain the FTA rights and the PTV clauses could have been rejected with no change to the final bargaining position if the RL employed competent negotiations. Another version contrary with all documents tabled in the Federal Court under oath, was that Packer had first option on PTV rights. The issue with this however is that first option on any rights is simply first bid. The ARL would still be able to go with a higher bidder of which there was one. The other issue is that if true it would mean that the ARL heirarchy committed perjury in the Federal court. In the aftermath of the war Quayle stated that all TV contracts at the time had the PTV clause included. At the time he made this quote he must have forgotten that if true, this would have given the ABC the PTV rights. Another version which did the rounds in the aftermath was that Packer had first option on the rights.
Arthurson went to court and testified under oath, Cowley wouldn't.
I Know which one I believe!
but these statements relating to the PTV deal of Mar 94 were not made by Cowley.
They were made by the judge based on the actual contracts table by Mr Arthurson.
Which may be why the date differs from the "post war" story of Oct 93, the Mar '94 one was under oath!
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 12:49
Packer got a great deal then considering he received a stake in Optusvision worth around $150M for the cost *cough* of the PTV rights which the ARL sold *cough* to him.
What a great business opportunity. Put up a $2m stake and receive a $150m return. That’s like going to the races and getting 74/1 about the favourite in a one horse race
Meursault
02-04-2005, 13:55
Arthurson went to court and testified under oath, Cowley wouldn't.
I Know which one I believe!
He testified under oath? Well, that seals it, you're definitely right! Why would anyone lie under oath? Its inconceivable....
And Rudolph had a shiny red nose, and he flew and everything...
tricolours
02-04-2005, 14:32
The ARL were not a bussiness, there aim in life was not to make money. They were established to propagate Rugby League, and they were very successful at it - too successful. The game is all the worse for the loss.
Green Machine
02-04-2005, 16:43
The ARL were not a bussiness, there aim in life was not to make money. They were established to propagate Rugby League, and they were very successful at it - too successful. The game is all the worse for the loss.
I always wondered how Jim Sedaris made the 1994 Kangaroo Tour. Ben Elias was voted NSW representative player of the year and missed out with the second hooking spot behind Steve Walters. I wonder if it had anything to do with Jim signing a contract for Manly for the 1996 season in 1994. I could never work out how Terry Hill made the 1994 Kangaroo Tour ahead of Mark Coyne. What about Jason Smith and Dean Pay both having tremendous backs to the season as with David Furner, which could not be overlooked for select on the 1994 Tour. Wasn’t it funny how Spud Carroll went off when he missed section and said he was promised a spot on the tour?
In Tony Adams book "Masters of the Game", he does an interview with a very angry Jack Gibson on the sacking of Mark Murray at East’s. Tony quotes Phil Gould speak on presentation night in 1995; “East now has the stature to attract the big-name players” Was this because Phil was the NSW coach like Bob Fulton was the Australian coach? I wonder if the Super League War didn’t happen would the NSW side consisted of half from Manly and the other half from East’s by 1997?
Tri Colours, I got to agree with you, the NSWRL were good at organising football.
The ARL were not a bussiness, there aim in life was not to make money.
Unfortunately, the court ruling which allowed Super League to go ahead disagreed.
The ARL was a business and making money was at the core of it's operational procedures and focus. The fact that it wasn't very good at it was irrelevant.
They were established to propagate Rugby League, and they were very successful at it - too successful. The game is all the worse for the loss.
Does this mean that you will be supporting a bid of $2M for the PTV rights and $10M for the FTA rights in the next negotiations?
tricolours
03-04-2005, 19:02
No, it's no longer 1993!
tricolours
03-04-2005, 19:35
He testified under oath? Well, that seals it, you're definitely right! Why would anyone lie under oath? Its inconceivable....
And Rudolph had a shiny red nose, and he flew and everything...
Maybe!............But which one is more credible, the one that went to court or the one that 'mysteriously' disappeared when it came time to take the stand?
Green Machine
03-04-2005, 20:36
Maybe!............But which one is more credible, the one that went to court or the one that 'mysteriously' disappeared when it came time to take the stand?
Say it ten times and it will become fact
Maybe!............But which one is more credible, the one that went to court or the one that 'mysteriously' disappeared when it came time to take the stand?
Mysterious disappearance? At what point was he actually required to take the stand?
The legalities involved the status of the ARL as a business, the illegalities of their practice of signing loyalty agreements under the duress of expulsion from the league and the trade practices act provisions within club and player contracts excluding them from seeking a better deal elsewhere.
From the SL side of the fence, afadavits presented by the legal team was all that was required.
It was the ARL officials who were scrambling around attempting to justify their behaviours and corrupt procedures.
If a court requires someone to testify they have to respond to the satisfaction of the court. The court was satisfied!
tricolours
05-04-2005, 11:40
Mysterious disappearance? At what point was he actually required to take the stand?
The legalities involved the status of the ARL as a business, the illegalities of their practice of signing loyalty agreements under the duress of expulsion from the league and the trade practices act provisions within club and player contracts excluding them from seeking a better deal elsewhere.
From the SL side of the fence, afadavits presented by the legal team was all that was required.
It was the ARL officials who were scrambling around attempting to justify their behaviours and corrupt procedures.
If a court requires someone to testify they have to respond to the satisfaction of the court. The court was satisfied!
The ARL was never a bussiness. Courts need to show a bit more commonsense. The world is not black and white.
this may be off topic
but i believe the courts are WRONG to include any official sporting body as a company who should be subject to the TPA
if news ltd wanted to help set up a rival Australian olympic commitee legally they would be able to under the TPA
thats ridiculous
the same goes for any sport
SPORT should not be subject to the TPA
and a NEW sporting administration ACT should be written up to avoid another super league happening in league or any other sport
The ARL was never a bussiness. Courts need to show a bit more commonsense. The world is not black and white.
Did it have to submit a tax return? Yes
Did it have "Ltd" in it's registered name? Yes
Did it sell it's services for money? Yes
Were it policies and procedures in place to generate a profit? Yes
Did it breach the trade practices act? Yes
this may be off topic
but i believe the courts are WRONG to include any official sporting body as a company who should be subject to the TPA
They don't! Only sporting bodies which are structured and run as a business to generate a profit.
if news ltd wanted to help set up a rival Australian olympic commitee legally they would be able to under the TPA
thats ridiculous
the same goes for any sport
SPORT should not be subject to the TPA
and a NEW sporting administration ACT should be written up to avoid another super league happening in league or any other sport
The AOC is a non-government, not-for-profit organisation committed to the development of Australian youth, sport and the funding of future Olympic teams.
tricolours
05-04-2005, 12:55
Did it have to submit a tax return? Yes
Did it have "Ltd" in it's registered name? Yes
Did it sell it's services for money? Yes
Were it policies and procedures in place to generate a profit? Yes
Did it breach the trade practices act? Yes
Dj, we are both aware of the court result. but courts don't always deal in realities.
Mark, I did also hear Tim say that.
Ian Roberts and Steve Walters were current Australian players before going to North Queensland. Jason Death was rookie on the way up and played some pretty good footy with Souths when he left the Cowboys. The last time I remember Luke Phillips playing reserve grade was at the Raiders. Luke was close to the best player for the Roosters in the 2001 First Grade Grand Final.
Greenie
Im almost certain Ian Roberts was not a Current International in 1997, but I am happy to stand corrected. At the very least you would have to say that Walters and Roberts were on the downside of their Careers.
Yeh Phillips might have been a good player in 2001 but was he in 1997? And yes he played reserve grade with the Raiders, this was only the year before in 1996.
I still remember Phillips making the mother of all-cockups in a semi against Parramatta in 1999 or 2000 which led to a Parra Try. Me and my Cowboys mates were yelling at the screen "You learned that from playing with Cowboys..." "You can take the boy out of the Cowboys, but you cant take the Cowboys out of the boy.."
Mark, I did also hear Tim say that.
Ian Roberts and Steve Walters were current Australian players before going to North Queensland. Jason Death was rookie on the way up and played some pretty good footy with Souths when he left the Cowboys. The last time I remember Luke Phillips playing reserve grade was at the Raiders. Luke was close to the best player for the Roosters in the 2001 First Grade Grand Final.
points of order here
Roberts last test was on the 1994 Roo tour
Walters played one SL test in 1997.
2000 was the GF Phillips played in
Green Machine
06-04-2005, 17:54
Greenie
Im almost certain Ian Roberts was not a Current International in 1997, but I am happy to stand corrected. At the very least you would have to say that Walters and Roberts were on the downside of their Careers.
Yeh Phillips might have been a good player in 2001 but was he in 1997? And yes he played reserve grade with the Raiders, this was only the year before in 1996.
I still remember Phillips making the mother of all-cockups in a semi against Parramatta in 1999 or 2000 which led to a Parra Try. Me and my Cowboys mates were yelling at the screen "You learned that from playing with Cowboys..." "You can take the boy out of the Cowboys, but you cant take the Cowboys out of the boy.."
Please forgive my error Mark. Ian Roberts was a starter in the Test Team on 1994 Kangaroo Tour. Once Ian Roberts signed a super league contract, he was ineligible for ARL rep sides in 1995 (even though he played for Manly in the Grand Final), and was one of super league’s biggest coos from an ARL. Roberts with Gordon Tallis both refused to play with ARL clubs in 1996 and elected to sit out the season. Tallis moved to Brisbane and Roberts moved to North Qld in 1997 for the Super League season.
Super League players were made eligible for State of Origin in 1996 and Steve Walters played State of Origin. Steve Walters was still in good enough form in 1997 to make the tri series between NSW, Qld and NZ and also made the Super League Test team and was North Queensland first Test player. Things go by that fast that I forgot Steve was also joined by Owen Cunningham (Manly), Jason Ferris (played some good footy with the Sharks) and John Lomax at North Queensland under Tim Sheens. As for Luke Phillips, I’m sorry I meant to type 2002 as he was one of the Roosters best on ground in this Grand Final against the Warriors:
Phillips recovers to rejoin the Roosters
By Brad Walter
February 10, 2004
Sydney Roosters' 2002 grand final hero, Luke Phillips, is set to return to the club this week after recovering from the horrific injuries that forced his retirement last April.
Phillips, who needed 11 pain-killing injections to stay on the field in what he believed would be his last game - the Roosters' premiership win over the Warriors - expects to sign an incentive-based contract before Saturday's premier league trial against Balmain after training with his former teammates over the summer.
The 28-year-old utility back yesterday said he was fully fit - after surgery on a broken shoulder and both groins - and determined to revive his career with the club he joined in 2000 after stints at Canberra, North Queensland and Manly.
"I just want to play footy again, my body feels really good and I've got itchy feet," Phillips said. "I had a run for my girlfriend's cousin's team out at Paterson late last year and ever since then I've been thinking about playing again.
"The Roosters are interested in me signing so hopefully everything will be finalised by Friday."
At the time of his shock retirement, Phillips was establishing what is now a successful hotel-based interactive trivia machine business - the most popular game of which is an NRL quiz - and he said he just didn't have the time or motivation to put himself through months of exhaustive rehabilitation work.
Previously contracted until the end of this season, he will now play for match payments - an attractive deal for the Roosters as they do not count towards the 2004 salary cap.
Super League Pt1
A rationalisation of Sydney teams in favor of a National competition was actually the NSWRL and ARL plan (see the Bradley report later).
Ironically, ARL Chairman Ken Arthurson had himself proposed a similar elite competition in the 1980s. In July 1986 The Daily Telegraph (Australia) reported:
...Ken Arthurson has proposed a Super League... comprising four or five teams from Sydney, two from Brisbane, three New South Wales Country teams, Queensland Country and Auckland. You could almalgamate Manly/Northern Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs/Souths, Parramatta/Penrith and so on.
Due to expansion of the competition the NSWRL was put into a situation where many clubs were not in a long term position to survive. The NSWRL solution was to attempt to kick them out of the competition when they could no longer meet a prescribed criteria. This occurred in the case of Newtown and was attempted twice with Western Suburbs who initiated court challenges to remain in the comp.
The NSWRL then altered it's charter to an invitation based system which would allow them to "fail" to invite a club and thereby exclude it from the competition.
In 1990 the heirarchy instituted a salary cap of between $800K to $1.5M but then standardised it across all clubs in 1991 at $1.6M.
In 1993 the RL reportedly signed a deal with Packer for the FTA (Free to air) rights to televise Rugby League. This deal was reportedly at $13M per year. However tabled documentation during Federal Court proceedings state this was not signed until March '94 and the value attributed to this deal in tabled financial statements appears to be $7,662,351. The important aspect of this deal however was the clauses which basically handed over the PTV (Pay Television) rights to PBL for free (No PTV revenue shows up in NSWRL or ARL financial reports). Despite the fact that there was no PTV situation launched in Australia at the time, overseas experience had shown that once a PTV service became available in Australia, these rights would be worth a substantial amount of money to the game. At the time, Packers priority was to gain the FTA rights and the PTV clauses could have been rejected with no change to the final bargaining position if the RL employed competent negotiations. Another version contrary with all documents tabled in the Federal Court under oath, was that Packer had first option on PTV rights. The issue with this however is that first option on any rights is simply first bid. The ARL would still be able to go with a higher bidder of which there was one. The other issue is that if true it would mean that the ARL heirarchy may have committed perjury in the Federal court. In the aftermath of the war Quayle stated that all TV contracts at the time had the PTV clause included. At the time he made this quote he must have forgotten that if true, this would have given the ABC the PTV rights. Another version which did the rounds in the aftermath was that Packer had first option on the rights.
This free PTV component became the crux point of what later became a war.
A war of another kind was already brewing in Australia. Optus began competing with Telstra for the local telephony market. Both carriers developed comprehensive strategies involving the rollout of billions of dollars worth of cable capable of providing the end user with additional services apart from simply the standard home phone. These included Internet and Pay TV.
Suddenly, Packer was sitting on a gold mine. Whilst the RL game would receive no additional benefit on their PTV rights, Packer was in a position to onsell the rights he received for a substantial profit. He later did this for a 5% stake in Optusvision. (at late '90s valuations of PTV companies this equated to a nice $150M freebee.)
The Telco war heated up with the race for exclusive PTV content. In most other countries, the PTV carrier does not enter into expensive exclusive content deals but all carriers can provide all channels. The Telstra/Optus war took us in a different direction. Optus through Optusvision and Telstra through Foxtel wanted exclusive programming rights to movie channels and Optus ended up with the Movie Network channels whilst Foxtel got the Showtime/Encore catalog. The race for sport was now on the agenda.
The proposition of no rugby league product was not acceptable to Telstra who were in the process of a multi-billion dollar rollout of cable infrastructure. As 50% owners of Foxtel the decision was made that a rugby league product had to be included on Telstra'a cable.
Super League Pt2
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
1)The State of Play
The situation now existed within Rugby League in Australia where the PTV rights which the ARL had basically given away were signed away by Packer in a lucrative deal for exclusive access to Optusvision. This situation was simply not acceptable to Telstra and News Ltd who were in the process of spending billions on infrastructure and absolutely had to be able to deliver the Rugby League product to their customers. The Optusvision deal also excluded Galaxy, CETV (now Austar) and ECT (Later bought by Austar). Despite attempts to negotiate with the ARL and Packer directly, these rights were still not made available.
Whilst the game of Rugby League was enjoying it's most prosperous time ($21,027,344 in revenue 1994. Of this $7,662,351 was income from the combined TV contracts), unfortunately it was running at a loss. Even it's most successful season, 1994 saw the NSWRL post a loss of $722,878. The majority of clubs were also running in the red and were unable to survive without the leagues club grants.
*Figures included within financials submitted in court documents
Clearly any suggestions that the league was a successfully run business which did not need to change the way it operated are coming from someone with no idea of the facts.
Many clubs saw the PTV rights issue as a huge blunder by the governing body.
Another issue which loomed large with the clubs was the insistance on having to apply for inclusion to the competition each and every year. This provided no security as there was no long term committment from the governing body that your club would still be there in 10, 5 or even 2 years.
The clubs were also somewhat fearful of the hierarchy who
at "The Premiership Policy Committee" meeting earlier on 9th April 1992 tabled a document called "A blueprint for the expansion of Rugby League". This document was followed up shortly afterwards in Aug '92 by a draft document sent to all clubs titled "Organization Review" by Dr G. Bradley of W.D Scott & Co commissioned by the governing body. This document is why the ARL became the governing body instead of the NSWRL. The recommendations in this report to the governing body and the clubs also reached the following conclusion,
" to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process.
In the long term I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney."
This is the long term plan which the ARL were already working on prior to any notion of Super League.
On 2/5/94 John Quayle sent all clubs their letter of invitation to season 1995. This included a number of criteria for admission which included,
"attract a minimum average home attendance of 10,000 people"
(Of note, the following clubs failed this criteria for 1995, Balmain, Easts, Gold Coast, Illawarra, Parramatta, Penrith, Souths, St George and Wests)
The Broncos (A private company) when transferring a 20% share of their company to Northern Rivers Ltd had the new shareholder receive this from Mr Quayle,
"Under the terms of the League's Constitution, it is necessary that, without exception, all clubs which wish to participate in the League's Premiership competition, must apply each year for admission. No club has any automatic right to participate in any year's competition and the League has the unfettered right to reject any club's application for participation."
2)The Super League Concept
Whilst the ARL were already in the process of implementation of the recommendations concluded within "The Bradley Report". The PTV rights issue and security of admission to the competition festered amongst many clubs. The concept of a "Super League" began to get a mention in newspaper and magazine articles from 2/3/94 (most likely due to the existence of "The Bradley Report" combined with the widespread knowledge of the PTV rights issue).
In April '94, John Ribot prepared a concept document which proposed a "Super League" and sent it to the CEO of News Ltd Mr Cowley.
On 14/6/94, Ribot sent a more detailed plan for a Super League competition comprising 10 or 12 teams.
a slight modification on the ARLs "Bradley Report".
Super League Pt3
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
3)A News "owned" Superleague, (Super League Mk1)
A document entitled "Superleague", dated 12 August 1994, was prepared within News. The stated objective was to set up a company called Superleague Ltd, owned by News. Superleague Ltd would establish an elite national competition (including a New Zealand team), between 12 privately owned teams. News would own up to four of these teams. Superleague Ltd would also conduct an internationally televised World Club Series between clubs initially involving Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
News was to obtain a 15% management fee, the profit share allocated to the clubs owned by it and other benefits. Superleague Ltd was to devise revenue from sponsorship, free-to-air and pay television rights, gate takings and merchandising. The company was projected to make an operational profit of $5 million by 1997 and $12 million by 1999. (A far cry from the losses of the existing situation)
The competition was to consist of twelve clubs, of which four would be based in Sydney. New teams would be based in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Each of these teams would initially be owned by News. An objective of the proposal was "to ensure that no other competition [could] exist in competition to Superleague". To achieve this, it was considered necessary to have at least the four Sydney teams (to maintain the game's largest base) and to ensure that all teams were privately owned.
The document set out a series of steps to implement the proposal. Step 1 was to approach the four "continuing teams" (Brisbane, Canberra, Newcastle and Auckland), with a view to securing a commitment for 7 years. Step 2 was to meet with representatives of the League in a "casual pleasant atmosphere" and to offer "concessions". The concessions included allowing ARL to conduct Tests and retain the profits from those matches. The League and ARL was also to be given a grant to promote the game. Step 3 was to meet at short notice with representatives of the 11 Sydney clubs and Illawarra. Each club was to be offered a share in a team. If there were three clubs in an area, each would be offered one-third of the ownership of the team. It was envisaged, for example, that the new Western Sydney club would be offered to Wests, Penrith and Parramatta. If only one of the offerees accepted, it would own 100% of the new club; if two accepted they would each own 50%. The proposal was that the old club would own half of its entitlement in the new club and the remaining 50% would be offered directly to members. The old club and non-members could sell their entitlements to a private owner. Step 4 was to announce that Super League was happening and to explain its structure. Step 5 was to deal with other clubs not included in the arrangements, such as the South Queensland Crushers.
The document noted that the co-operation of some clubs was required, while the co-operation of players needed by the new competition was essential. It was acknowledged that compensation might have to be offered to unwanted players and teams. It was also acknowledged that it would be difficult to use current names and logos, although this would be an issue for only three or four clubs, since it was better for the new or combined clubs to start with completely new identities.
On 17 October 1994, the board of the League resolved to hold a special board meeting to discuss several issues, including Super League and a "reduction in the number of Sydney teams".
An SMH article quoted Arthurson on 21 October 1994,
"The League has the right, as you well know, to deny admission to any team in the Winfield Cup"
Reports of a proposed breakaway competition continued.
On 6 November 1994 Arthurson rang Quayle from England and said words to the effect,
"I'll be home Tuesday your time. What I would like you to do for me John, is to ring every President, or if the President is not available to speak to the CEO of each club, and tell them that I am coming home, and that when I get home I want to speak with them personally about the News Limited developments, tell them I want to talk to them about entering into an agreement to play in the competition for 3 to 5 years."
(Now, they wanted to give all the clubs some longer term security!)
On the morning of 10 November 1994, a meeting was held at the offices of News between Messrs Arthurson and Quayle and Messrs Cowley and Lovett. A conversation to the following effect took place:
"Arthurson: There is continuing media speculation about the establishment of a Super League. There are suggestions that there will be a break away or rebel competition.
Cowley: The stories don't come from me.
Arthurson: ...it is common knowledge around the traps that a comprehensive report has been put together by News, with nobody knowing what the report's about. There's plenty of suspicions being harboured amongst the clubs as to your intentions.
Cowley: We do have a proposal to develop a Super League. We would like to see a competition of 12 teams. We'd like to see the number of Sydney teams reduced.
Cowley: My people have been working on the project for some time. That is a report on their findings. One of these days I will give it to you. You will probably not like some of the things you read in it.
I would like to take Rugby League to the rest of the world. If you come with us we will make the code a much stronger code.... I love the game, Ken, I want you to know that I'd never do anything to harm it.... What you fellows have done for the game has been terrific, but News can take the game the next step.
Quayle: What is going to happen if we are not interested?
Cowley: Super League is going to happen with you or without you people. It is entirely up to you.
We would be interested in exploring any way to improve the game with you and to promote it internationally. It is absolutely essential however for any discussions for it to be understood that the control of the game must stay in the hands of the accepted authority of the game, and that is the Australian Rugby League.
Cowley: We are only seeking a slice of the television cake.
Super League Pt4
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
4)The ARL run Superleague, (Super League Mk2)
Shortly before the meeting of 14 November 1994, Mr Arthurson had a telephone conversation with Mr Cowley. The conversation was to the following effect:
"Arthurson: While I am prepared to negotiate with you and conciliate, the one thing which I will never give ground on is the idea that in any game in which News Limited participates, the control of the game must rest with the Australian Rugby League.
Cowley: I appreciate that. If there is to be a Superleague it has to be under the control of the ARL. My people are preparing a proposal for you and I expect to be able to get back to you with that proposal in early February."
Meeting with all club executives regarding ARL / News Ltd discussions.
Mr Arthurson outlined what had occurred at the meeting of 10 November 1994.
My personal view is that [what was said by Mr Cowley on 10 November 1994] would be unacceptable as it would virtually mean that the Australian Rugby League would be relegated to something akin to the Junior League. Mr Cowley said he thought it would be a great opportunity for us to really develop and expand the game and all he was saying that he wanted us to be involved. In response to a question from John Quayle as to whether they intended to go ahead with or without us, Mr Cowley replied that they would be going on with it in any case. ...
I've just had a meeting with him in the last few minutes and from the first moment we've spoken to him, the main thing John Quayle and I have said over and over again, whilst we're prepared to sit down, negotiate and we would be prepared to conciliate, the one thing that was not negotiable was the fact that we would never be a party to the accepted authority of the game losing control. At the meeting today that we had with him, he has apparently had further thoughts on it and he did say to me today that he appreciated that if there was a move towards "Super League", they would accept the fact that it would be controlled by the Australian Rugby League."
In the course of the meeting, Mr Arthurson explained why the Commitment Agreement had not been forwarded to the Brisbane Broncos:
"... I'll be very candid, the reason why it wasn't forwarded to the Broncos was because, right at the particular time, we were looking for immediate expressions of loyalty towards the game and, I must say, that from the newspaper reports we had received, we weren't absolutely certain we could get that immediate support from the Broncos ...".
In answer to a question regarding how realistic it would be to get a Super League up and running,
"...we are currently working with our lawyers now to see how we can, we're doing our best to tie the clubs up and also we've obviously got to tie the players up because as you quite rightly say, I mean, another organisation can easily have 10 private franchises - I mean 10 privately owned companies and start something quite separately from the clubs, there's nothing at all to stop them if they can get sufficient players they can go ahead and run a competition in opposition to ours. But I guess that if we've got all the players tied up and all the clubs tied up, it's pretty difficult to do."
Meanwhile, News began developing the full official Super League proposal for presentation to the ARL and clubs. They contracted management consultants from Australian Consuting Partners to provide an analysis of all aspects of the Super League concept including contingencies if hurdles were encountered. The Proposal conclusions included,
The economics of an Australian Superleague are attractive overall versus the current competition.
ACP identified, in substance, three strategies, although they were not regarded as mutually exclusive. The first, labelled the "Establishment Approach" required a proposal to be presented to the League and ARL and envisaged negotiations with them "to make Superleague happen". This ran several risks, including being "strung along" or "outbid" by Mr Packer, as well as the possible inability of the League and ARL to deliver, given the perceived political hurdles.
The second approach identified by ACP was labelled the "Early Defection Approach". This also required a proposal to be presented to the League and ARL, but envisaged that they would undertake exclusive and reciprocal obligations to News. As explained by Mr Orlay of ACP in his evidence, if the League and ARL responded favourably to the proposal, News would revert to the first strategy.
The third approach, designated as the "Rebel Approach" involved News manoeuvring with stakeholders to strengthen its position, signing up key clubs on confidentiality agreements and then securing the agreement of the League and ARL and the remaining clubs.
The final draft of the document was presented to representatives of News Ltd on 13/12/94. In summary the main points were,
* 12 teams in fully professional Australasian competition
* Existing 20 clubs to remain
- Fielding teams in First Division competitions in NSW, Qld, ACT
- As shareholders in 12 Superleague Teams
* ARL continues to run football and mounts Tests
* News vigorously promotes the game nationally and internationally (e.g. World Finals) and provides finance.
Oddly enough on the same day that News received their final draft of the proposal to later present to the ARL, the minutes of the ARL annual general meeting reflect these comments from Arthurson.
"the original proposals were totally unacceptable. All Clubs had signed an agreement drafted by the League's legal advisers committing themselves to remaining with the League for the next five years and not to play with any other organisation.
At a second meeting a concession was made by News Limited to the effect that any proposal for a "Super League" would provide that any such competition would be under the banner of the Australian Rugby League. News Limited had undertaken to provide a firm proposal by February. The Australian Rugby League must always control its own destiny but with clubs having signed the agreement the position seems assured for the future."
The Confidentiality Deeds
On 22 December 1994, News sent five clubs - Brisbane, Canberra, Newcastle, Cronulla-Sutherland and the Western Reds - a document entitled "Super League Confidentiality Deed". The covering letter stated that News wished to provide the particular club with an outline of the Super League proposal, which was to be presented to the ARL. The purpose of this type of document was to gain feedback from each of these clubs with the view to making small adjustments prior to the full presentation to the ARL in February.
The Final Proposal
On 5 January 1995, a draft of a script, to be used in conjunction with slides in a presentation to the League and ARL, was completed within the News organisation. During January, representatives of News met with officials of Auckland, Cronulla-Sutherland, Illawarra and St George about their proposed participation in Super League. In early February 1995, Mr Carr, the chief executive officer of St George, was offered the position of chief executive officer of the Super League club to be formed by agreement among St George, Cronulla-Sutherland and Illawarra. The offer was conditional, inter alia, on Super League eventuating and the clubs reaching agreement among themselves.
On 25 January 1995, ACP provided News with a further report, entitled "Superleague Options". This identified the "current proposal" as "News Superleague via Clubs/ARL". Under this proposal, Superleague would fund the ARL ($3m per annum) and the clubs ($2.5m). News would fund Super League in Australia and Europe, take a management fee and buy pay television rights ($4m per annum).
Whilst this proposal from ACP amounted to $37M per year. News did not agree with this figure and increased it back to the $100M mark as later occurred in the presentation documents.
nachoman
27-02-2006, 13:05
My eyes hurt from all the words.
Super League Pt5
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
5) The Meeting
A meeting took place on 30 January 1995 between Messrs Arthurson, Quayle and Moore, on behalf of the League, and Messrs Cowley, David Smith and Lovett, on behalf of News, at the offices of News. The proposal for a Super League was officially presented to the ARL. The key points were,
* There was to be a twelve team competition, with the game's best players. This was to be an integral part of an international competition, with a world-wide audience of tens or even hundreds of millions.
* The existing 20 team competition would continue. The ARL's "pivotal role" would also continue, as it would administer the game. The ARL would run the State competition and Test matches and be responsible for the judiciary, referees and junior development.
* The existing 20 clubs would be shareholders in the licensed, privately owned Super League teams. This would eliminate the problem of breach of players' contracts, since there would be no breach. The 20 club competition would be the "breeding ground for the stars of the future".
* The 12 clubs would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland.
* The current financial status of the game, despite its success in attracting fans, was a net loss, with the clubs being dependent on subsidies from their associated Leagues clubs. The Super League proposal would allow the clubs to benefit from News' global media network. Super League would make it possible for $100m to be invested in rugby league, thus giving the ARL a "$100m friend".
* There would be a "fully representative Board of Directors", with three Superclub board members and the ARL represented. The chairman of the ARL would be the chairman of Super League.
* Profit distribution between the League and News Ltd was negotiable.
After the meeting had concluded, Mr Cowley asked if he could make a presentation to the clubs. Mr Arthurson responded that, subject to the clubs' agreement, that could be done. Mr Smith said:
"We want the League to support the vision of Super League, to support the concept".
Please note: The ARL's pivotal role would continue. i.e. There role in administering the game would continue. Remember the ARL did not own the game, as private companies were already established with ownership of a team. In esscence SL proposed an entirely new competition, which the existing (unsustainably loss making) 20 team competition would be a feeder for. This was an alternative to the existing ARL plan of a 14 team competition (Bradley Report) which the ARL was already in the process of implementing. In the case of SL however, a solid foundation of finance was to be made available to the League. In terms of FTA, Packer had the rights to the 20 team comp and would have been eligible to bid for the FTA rights to the new 12 team SL.
6) The ARL letter to the clubs
2 February 1995, Mr Quayle, on behalf of the ARL, sent a letter by fax to each club advising that a conference scheduled for 6 February 1995 had been cancelled and inviting the club to send three delegates to a meeting on that day. The letter, so far as relevant, was as follows:
"As you can appreciate this action, after all details for the Conference had been finalised, indicates that serious issues have arisen which require urgent attention. You are no doubt aware that the 'Super League' matter involving News Limited, the League, and Member clubs of the League, has again created a climate of uncertainty, and I must say, some mistrust amongst stakeholders within the League who potentially may be affected by 'Super League'.
Those implications were such that the League now feels that to proceed with a Chief Executives Conference involving the 20 current Clubs within the League would be irresponsible in light of certain aspects of the News Limited offer.
The purpose of the meeting will be to review the outcomes of the previous meeting held on this matter on 14 November 1994 at which the League sought, and all clubs gave, an undertaking of a five (5) year commitment to the existing Premiership structure.
It does seem, however, that in the aftermath of the News Limited meeting that there is considerable doubt regarding the commitment by a number of Clubs to that resolution.
In order that a full and frank discussion can occur, the League has invited the appropriate News Limited representatives to address the meeting so that collectively all Clubs are hearing the same message. Whether that invitation is accepted or not is not known at this time. In any case the League is determined to seek from clubs their position in relation to the 'Super League' proposal and the League role, if any, in that proposal.
So that all Clubs can leave the meeting with some certainty about their future, you are requested to carefully consider your club's position with regard to this potentially most damaging situation.
7)The News Ltd presentation to the clubs.
News Ltd presented the Super League concept to all the clubs representatives.
Mr Cowley reaffirmed the role of the ARL,
"Any role which News was to play in the game would not result in the ARL losing the control and administration of the game ... It is not intended for News to own the game ... News' interest in Superleague is to provide broadcast opportunities, not proprietorship of the game. "
After Mr Cowley and Mr Smith had left the meeting, Mr Arthurson pointed out that a television contract, including pay television, had been entered into with Channel 9 until the year 2000. Mr Arthurson told the meeting:
"The League does not want to be part of the News proposal, we can't accept it. It seems to me that the tactics of News appeared to be to divide and conquer....Our strength has always been our solidarity; the fact that we have always stood firmly beside each other. If we continue to stick together like this no one, not even Rupert Murdoch, will break our game up. The ARL does not want to be a part of the News proposal, and will not accept it."
When the meeting resumed after lunch, Mr Packer addressed the representatives. He told them that the Nine Network had contractual rights until the year 2000, which he expected the ARL and the clubs to honour. Legal action would be taken against any club or person failing to comply with their contractual obligations.
Mr Arthurson then sought from each club a statement of its position, with regard to Super League. The representatives of those clubs that said they had not signed any confidentiality agreement all expressed their commitment to and support for the ARL. Mr Morgan of the Brisbane Broncos said that his club had signed a confidentiality agreement with News, but had stipulated that the club would only play in a competition owned by the ARL. Mr Neil of Canberra and Mr Lawler of Newcastle said much the same thing, each stating that his club would remain loyal to the League. Mr Puddy of the Western Reds said that a confidentiality agreement had been signed by his club, but that it wholeheartedly supported the ARL.
Mr Arthurson responded as follows:
"Well, thank you gentlemen for that unanimous pledge of loyalty to the ARL and your commitment not to join a Super League of any description. I would like Colin Love [the League's solicitor] to say a few words to you in relation to further actions which may be necessary following your unanimous support given to the concept of the ARL controlled competition."
The League's solicitor, Mr Love, then addressed the meeting as follows:
"You will recall that in November last you all signed an agreement to remain loyal to the League for the next five years. Our view is that this agreement will withstand any legal challenge and in that view we are supported by the opinion of senior counsel. It seems to us however, that for more abundant caution it would be advisable to have the clubs sign a further agreement pledging loyalty to the League, which supplements and supports the original document."
Mr Arthurson then said:
"Once everybody has signed this Agreement that Colin has referred to, there will not be any doubt about anybody's loyalty to the League and indeed if there is any doubt about anyone's loyalty they ought not to be part of the League."
A motion was then moved and seconded as follows: "That it be recommended to the Board of Directors of the League that any clubs not signing the new Agreement by 9 am on 8 February 1995, or in the case of the Western Reds by 9 am on Thursday 9 February 1995 be expelled from the 1995 competition."
This motion was carried unanimously. A further motion was moved that no negotiations with News be undertaken by any club in relation to Super League. Mr Arthurson indicated to the meeting that this motion was unnecessary, having regard to the resolution already passed.
Immediately after the meeting closed, the board of the League held a meeting. The board resolved not to accept the resolution passed at the meeting. The board also resolved to seek legal advice regarding the action that might be taken against clubs which did not sign the new agreement by the due date and time.
Between the closure of the meeting with the clubs and before the board meeting, Mr Arthurson telephoned Mr Cowley and told him that the clubs had unanimously rejected the proposal put by News.
Super League Pt6
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
The Loyalty Agreements
On 7 February 1995, Mr Quayle, on behalf of the ARL, sent by fax a letter to each of the clubs, accompanied by a draft deed. The letter stated that the deed was being sent to all clubs which were members of the League. It specified that each club had to sign the deed and return it by 9am the following day
"The League will view the failure of any club to sign and return the Deed by the deadline as an act of gross disloyalty.
I also refer you to yesterday's meeting of the League which passed the resolution to recommend that the Board of the League consider the expulsion of any Club which fails to sign and return the Deed by the deadline."
This type of coersive approach to signing a legal agreement basically renders the agreement invalid. The agreements themselves were later ruled to have been in breach of the Trade Practices act.
On 10 February 1995, the board of the ARL met. According to the minutes, the chairman, Mr Arthurson, explained that it had been necessary following discussions with News to ask all clubs to sign a deed in the form presented to the meeting. The board resolved that the deed, a copy of which was attached to the minutes, be executed by the League.
Key anti-competitive section in the loyalty agreement,
2.1 The Club agrees:
(a) that it will not directly or indirectly have any economic or financial or other interest or involvement in or otherwise carry on or be engaged in or be concerned as principal, agent, trustee, partner, director, shareholder, financier or otherwise, whether alone or jointly, in any, or in any club or team participating in any rugby league football competition which:
(i) may undermine the quality, competitiveness and geographical reach of teams competing in the National Competition;
(ii) may adversely affect the number of depth of experienced and well known players participating in the Club's teams in the National Competition, or teams organised by other clubs participating in the National Competition,
for playing seasons 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999;
(b) that it will not release, waive or otherwise permit or allow players who either now or in the future are under contract or other binding obligation to play for the Club to play in any competition other than the National Competition approved by the ARL and/or NSWRL for playing seasons 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
The war planning continues!
It should be noted that Mr Ribot gave evidence that he had a telephone conversation with Mr Cowley shortly after the meeting of 6 February 1995. In that conversation, Mr Ribot expressed the view that, having regard to the ARL's attitude at the meeting, it would not be possible to proceed with the Super League competition in its then form. According to Mr Ribot, Mr Cowley had replied that he would like Mr Ribot to speak to Mr Smith "about putting a different proposal together to progress the matter". Mr Ribot also gave evidence that about a fortnight after the meeting of 6 February 1995, he had several conversations with Mr Smith. Mr Smith had indicated that he needed to put in place a strategy to overcome the ARL's refusal to support the Super League proposal.
Meanwhile, back at the ARL the Sydney club culling was about to begin on recommendation from Manly,
At least one loyal club took the view that Super League, perhaps in an altered version, was not out of the question. In a letter dated 16 February 1995, Mr Hudson, the chairman of the board of Manly Warringah, wrote to Mr Quayle:
"there are great advantages for News Limited in getting their current proposal, or some version of it, finally accepted. Hence, we feel that the proposition is not 'dead and buried' and that attempts to de-stabilise the competition will continue.
There is a vulnerability in this which News Limited have identified. Their twelve (12) team competition has just four (4) teams in Sydney. They can see that a Sydney club can only survive with great difficulty financially and logistically, against the competition provided by one city clubs, and now (for Brisbane) a two (2) club city.
If the situation of the eleven (11) teams in Sydney is not addressed in some way by the League, the threat of a take-over, or such like, will continue to loom large.
We suggest that a plan to address the problems of the eleven (11) Sydney clubs vis-a-vis their colleagues in other cities and in other states is urgently needed."
The letter went on to request that the question of the Sydney clubs be considered by the Premiership Policy Committee on an urgent basis.
The committee did consider the letter at its meeting of 14 March 1995. The meeting (at which Mr Quayle was present) unanimously agreed that the "future structure of the Winfield Cup competition should contain fewer Sydney clubs". The committee also expressed the view that "the Board should convene as soon as possible to demonstrate leadership on the issue of fewer Sydney clubs".
The Premiership Policy Committee had already decided to push forward with a plan to reduce the number of Sydney teams before any player, coach or club had moved to SL.
i.e. The ARL handed out loyalty agreements for the clubs to sign then immediately went about a plan to get rid of clubs.
Super League Pt7
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
In the meantime, a meeting of the board of the League, held on 20 February 1995, received a report from the League's solicitor, Mr Love, that all clubs, except Brisbane and Canberra, had signed Loyalty Agreements. The board agreed to accept the amendments proposed by Canberra and to have Mr Love continue to negotiate with the Brisbane Broncos on outstanding issues. Agreement appears to have been reached shortly thereafter.
In mid-March 1995 a meeting took place between Mr Cowley and Mr Arthurson. The minutes of the ARL's board meeting of 24 March 1995 record Mr Arthurson's report of that discussion. According to Mr Arthurson's account, the discussion had been cordial. Mr Cowley had assured him that News would still be pursuing the principle of Super League, but had given an assurance that any proposals in respect of its establishment would be made directly to the ARL and not to the club.
2 days after the Premiership Policy Committee had already committed itself to a reduction of clubs, Arthurson is again pushing for loyalty by the clubs to the ARL.
On 16 March 1995, Mr Arthurson wrote to each of the clubs, referring to the meeting with Mr Cowley. The letter included the following:
"Mr Cowley has given me an assurance that, even though News Limited supports the principle of a Super League, any further approaches to clubs will be made through the Australian Rugby League. I accept that these assurances were given to me in good faith and I will keep you informed of any further developments if we are approached by News Limited in the future.
That is the positive news. Unfortunately, I have also been presented with evidence that representatives from some clubs have been speaking with representatives of News Limited in relation to the participation of these clubs in a Super League, after the clubs signed the loyalty deed.
...
It is important that all clubs realise that those clubs which have had discussions with News Limited regarding the Super League proposal after signing the loyalty deed, are likely to be in breach of their obligations in the deed.
As Chairman of the Australian Rugby League, if I receive evidence of any clubs having any further discussions with News Limited or any other party in relation to their involvement in any other competition, I will consider such involvement a serious breach of the loyalty deed and I will be recommending that the ARL consider the expulsion of those clubs from the ARL competition and legal action under the deed.
We now see both sides engaged in deceptive behaviour. On the one hand you have News Ltd telling the ARL it will only approach through them and not directly to the clubs. On the other you have the ARL who is threatening clubs with expulsion for any contact with News Ltd whilst secretly planning to cull a large number of the Sydney clubs despite their own loyalty agreements.
On 23 March 1995, a meeting took place within News. The participants included Messrs Cowley, Smith and Ribot, together with Mr Rupert Murdoch. The notes for discussion at that meeting were in evidence, although not referred to by the trial Judge. The notes, which were presumably seen by Mr Murdoch, state that the first attempt to build an Australian Super League had been unsuccessful, because News had made some wrong assumptions. In particular, it had been assumed that the threat of clubs defecting to an alternative competition would pressure the ARL to accept the concept and that the ARL had the ability to grant television rights to News. News' position had been weakened because the clubs did not think that News would follow through with a rival competition outside the ARL. Moreover, Mr Packer had dominated events, in large measure because of his threat at the meeting of 6 February 1995 to sue clubs in the event of breach. This threat had "spooked" club officials.
What was needed, according to the notes, in order to set up a competition in 1997 or, perhaps, 1996, was a second, more aggressive approach. Building an Australian Super League to capture television rights would cost $60 million over four years. Super League would be owned and operated by News. The key elements of the more aggressive approach were to:
sign up all the players required for a ten team Australian competition, at approximately twice their current earnings;
mount a challenge to the "Five Year Agreement" binding the clubs; and
credibly mount a rival Super League without the "ARL Establishment", even though the "best" outcome was for the ARL to co- operate.
Clearly enough, Mr Murdoch approved the option of the "rebel competition".
Thereafter, detailed planning took place within the News organisation. The planning was recorded in a chart designated as the "war room" chart. The expression "war room" was apparently a reference to Mr Smith's office at News. The planning group prepared a schedule of about 200 target players, considered to be the ARL's "core playing strength" (a phrase used by Mr Raneberg, a consultant engaged by ACP). A "Presenter's Outline" was drafted, setting out, in effect, a sales pitch designed to persuade players contracted to AFL clubs to sign with Super League. Plans were formulated for approaches to be made to players and coaches in various parts of Australia and New Zealand. The plans included making travel arrangements under false names in order to preserve secrecy.
Super League Pt 8
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
The conquest begins
As all prospects to gain the PTV rights via a "friendly" alliance between News and the ARL was eliminated by Arko and Packer, News now embarked on a hostile takeover with the intent to pressure the ARL into a joint alliance. The key point being that a "new" competition resulted in new PTV rights being up for negotiation.
The plan involved, Firstly, sign the coaches and CEOs of the targetted clubs.
On or shortly after 28 March 1995, News entered contracts with the coaches of the Auckland, Canberra, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla- Sutherland and Western Reds clubs. Each contract was constituted by a letter, countersigned by the particular coach. The term of the engagement in each case was three years, commencing three months after notice from News but no later than 1 January 1997. Each coach received a signing-on fee on execution of the letter. Mr Ribot acknowledged in evidence that it was very important to sign up the coaches, since they were thought to be instrumental in News' success in signing up players. He also acknowledged that in most cases the approach to the coach was made with the knowledge of the chief executive of the club.
Next, sign the majority of the high profile players at the club. This would then put the club itself into a position where it had virtually no option but to move to Super League as without key playing staff and officials the team would be basically eliminated from the ARL competition through the team reduction process which was already in play.
On 30 March 1995, the present proceedings were instituted by News. That evening, a number of Canterbury-Bankstown players attended a meeting at the request of their coach, Mr Anderson, who had already signed a contract with News. The first the players knew of the meeting was at training, when they were asked to attend that evening. At the meeting, Mr Ribot and Mr Lachlan Murdoch spoke to the players about Super League. Each player was then asked individually to sign a contract with a Super League company, which would require him to play full time in the new competition. The players were offered salaries of between $150,000 and $350,000 per annum, plus signing-on fees of between $50,000 and $100,000. The salaries, in general, were very much greater than the payments they were entitled to under their contracts with the Canterbury-Bankstown club. The players were not permitted to consult with their managers or families, nor were they permitted to take the contracts away with them. In the event, seven players signed contracts that night. The last contract was signed well after midnight. Each player who signed was handed a cheque for the amount of the agreed signing-on fee.
More clubs are targetted,
More or less the same process was repeated the following day, when a total of about twenty-six players from the Brisbane Broncos, Canberra and Cronulla-Sutherland clubs signed employment contracts with various Super League companies. In each case the coach supported the Super League approach. The salaries offered to these players ranged from $80,000 to $600,000 per annum. The signing-on fees varied from $20,000 to $100,000. Other players subsequently signed similar contracts, including thirteen Auckland Warriors players, who signed employment contracts on 2 April 1995 in New Zealand.
Mr Cowley, when challenged by Mr Arthurson as to how his actions were consistent with his promise to approach through the front door, replied:
"We thought that after we had bought your players that it would have such an effect on you that we would be better able to negotiate with you and come through the front door."
Super League Pt 9
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
ARL response, Rooster director Packer takes over the ARL and demands team reductions.
The board of the League met at 12 noon on 1 April 1995 to consider the Super League situation. Three representatives of PBL (a Packer company involved in the operations of Channel Nine) and two from Optus and Optus Vision joined the meeting. Mr Powers, on behalf of PBL and Optus Vision, stated that these organisations would provide human and financial resources to assist the League in stemming defections to Super League. Mr Powers said that Channel Nine and Optus were prepared to commit $13-20 million. He also stated that the quid pro quo would include the League making some changes to accelerate the reduction of teams and the signing of player contracts with the ARL, instead of the clubs.
None of the ARL plan of team reductions are discussed in the media or on nine's Footy show as they are busy selling the idea that it is the SL that is tearing the game apart.
Canterbury, Cronulla and Canberra to be kicked out, Peter Moore resigns, Roosters associated PBL take over ARL.
The board resolved, that:
a) the Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla-Sutherland and Canberra clubs be requested to show cause why they should not be excluded from the competition;
b) a committee be established to identify and sign players to League agreements; and
c) Mr Leckie, representing PBL and Optus vision, be appointed as a director of the League.
In the course of the meeting, Mr Moore arrived. Mr Moore was a director of both the League and ARL. He was also a director and chief executive of Canterbury-Bankstown. Mr Moore had been actively involved in supporting Super League, and in securing the signature of the Canterbury-Bankstown coach (his son-in-law) to a Super League contract. Mr Moore offered his resignation from the League and ARL to Mr Arthurson outside the meeting. His offer was accepted.
It was players and staff who had jumped to SL not the clubs you idiots. In other words the ARL is saying that they are going to kick out those clubs. This was a stupid move as it gave those clubs only one option and opened the door for SL to walk in and support those clubs.
More ARL threats
Immediately after the meeting, the League issued a press release. This stated that any players or coaches who had agreed to be associated with News would not be considered for representative selection. It also warned that the ARL would vigorously pursue through the courts any player found to have breached his obligations to the ARL. The press release indicated that the League, with the support of Channel Nine and Optus, through Optus Vision, would commit substantial resources to establishing financial incentives for players to play exclusively in the ARL competition.
As predicted, News step in to support clubs about to be kicked out,
On 6 April 1995, News agreed to indemnify the Canberra Raiders against any action by the ARL or the League in consequence of the club contracting with News or supporting Super League. During April, News made a concerted effort to sign up target clubs. By this stage, some had lost key personnel to Super League.
England and New Zealand sign with Super League
A further meeting of the board of the League took place on 7 April 1995. Among other things, the board discussed the actions of News in completing arrangements with the New Zealand Rugby League and the English Rugby League. This was a matter of considerable significance to the League, since test matches between Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand had been conducted through the New Zealand and English Leagues.
Roosters associates to have veto vote on which teams are to be eliminated from ARL competition.
A document dated 11 April 1995 summarised "deal terms" between the League and ARL and Channel Nine/Optus Vision. This provided for Channel Nine/Optus Vision to fund player contract commitments up to $40 million. The League and ARL were not to change the competition, format and frequency of the competition in a materially adverse way without the consent of Channel Nine/Optus Vision.
ARL screwed for at least a further 5 years on TV rights and have to pay back any money spent via TV rights.
The rights period under existing television agreements were to be extended for a further five years, with Channel Nine/Optusvision to have a first and last right of refusal. Channel Nine/Optus Vision's funding commitment was non-recoupable, except as follows: if the League and ARL agreed, it could be recouped over time out of fees received for television rights;
it could be recouped out of moneys received by the League and ARL for assignment of player contracts;
the commitment could be used as a set-off against the cost of exercising the right of refusal for renewal of the television rights agreement.
Basically, this means that whilst the ARL have handed the power over to Packer, the ARL will have to compensate Packer for any money spent by having it deducted from future TV rights payments.
Great deal or what? Packer must have been laughing his head on the way down in the lift after that deal.
Super League Pt 10
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
The pinnacle of loyalty, nothing but a lie.
Fair current Market value is an even more interesting situation. Particularly in the case of Fittler. Everyone understands that market competition is a key factor in the setting of "fair market value". The primary driver of market competition at the time of the SL war was the race for player signatures between the SL and ARL. This resulted in a bidding war which drove the "fair market value" of a players contract up. Whatever a player managed to get was fair market value. In Fittler's case it was extremely unusual. Firstly the ARL announces that any SL players will not be eligible for selection in the Kangaroo squad. Then it makes Fittler the new captain as Meninga signs with SL. Fittler then announces that he will leave Penrith and stay with the ARL. This declaration of remaining with the ARL without having a club to go to should have dramatically reduced his fair market value as he had just eliminated the key driver behind the bidding war, SL. Despite the elimination of the key competitive force for his signature, he then signs one of the highest value contracts in history with the Roosters. Over $4M for 5 years as per Big League. It's clear from these events that the Kangaroos captaincy and a huge deal were all prior conditions of his media show of "loyalty".
This may be of interest to some regarding the Fittler show of loyalty, These details are all quoted from court documents and sworn under oath by the relevant parties,
Regarding orignal Panthers Contracts
On 26 August 1993, Bradley Scott Fittler entered into an employment
agreement with the Penrith Club, a company limited by guarantee, as is the
League. The agreement was in he standard form of Playing Contract approved by and uniformly used by the Leagues. On 25 July 1994 Matthew Charles Sing entered into such an employment agreement with the Penrith Club. This also was in the standard form in use by the Leagues.
Matt Sing gets paid $50K for loyalty prior to the Panthers move to SL
Thus on 3 April 1995, Mr Sing, for a payment of $50,000 from the League, agreed to what were described as "commitments to the League Competition" contained in clause 2 thereof Essentially the commitments required the player for up to eight years not to enter into any "Contractual Arrangement" relating to playing in any "Match" or "Competition" other than the Rugby League Competition which the ARL and the League "do and will in the future conduct".
Fittler gets paid $800K for loyalty prior to the Panthers move to SL
Mr Fittler on 4 April 1995 for a consideration of $300,000 and for a further guarantee to meet any shortfall between the payment received by the
player under his contract to play in the League Competition and $500,000,
undertook equivalent obligations to those of Mr Sing.
The ARL went behind Penriths back to buy Fittler and Sing
I accept the evidence given that neither player entered into these
further Loyalty Agreements at the request of the Penrith Club or with the
knowledge of the Penrith Club at the time they were entered into, nor in a
form which mirrored any condition the Penrith club sought to attach to its
Commitment Agreement.
Panthers sign with SL
The next significant event is Penrith Club's entry into what I will
conveniently call the Super League arrangements. These involved a Deed of Indemnity and Heads of Agreement both dated 3 May 1995. Under these
arrangements speaking generally, Penrith Club in conjunction with an only
partially associated entity and licensee AH PE Pty Limited, committed itself
to supporting the competing Rugby League football competition called
colloquially "Super League" set up under the control of News Limited and its
associated entities.
So, in a nutshell, it seems that loyalty came at a price and was negotiated and paid for even before the Panthers made the move.
Super League Pt 11
(please note quote boxes used to denote transcripts from court documents)
News continue the pressure on clubs to jump to SL and take on all litigation risk.
During April, News made a concerted effort to sign up target clubs. By this stage, some had lost key personnel to Super League. Club representatives were told that if they did not join Super League, they would face rival clubs established in their area. Advertisements appeared in the media, giving publicity to the fact that prominent players had signed with Super League. News also placed advertisements advising players who had signed with the ARL that their contracts might be set aside because News had signed the English and New Zealand Rugby Leagues. Frequent meetings took place between News representatives and "rebel" clubs to obtain their support in implementing the proposed arrangements. In particular, meetings took place between News representatives and those clubs on 13 and 18 April 1995.
7 Clubs sign to Super League on Apr 20 Auckland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla-Sutherland, North Queensland and the Western Reds. Penrith signs on May 3.
Extract from Super League Club Deed
Clause 3(a) provided that, subject to certain conditions, News agreed to indemnify the club (inter alia):
"(i) from any liability that Club may incur to ARL and or NSWRL under the Commitment Agreement or the Loyalty Agreement or both by reason of club entering into and delivering this deed or observing or performing the provisions hereof on its part to be observed or performed".
By cl.4(a) News also agreed to indemnify, again subject to certain conditions:
"each of Club's directors and officers (each "Indemnified Party") from any liability that Indemnified Party may incur to ARL, NSWRL, Club, Club's members or any other person by reason of Club entering into and delivering this deed or observing or performing the provisions hereof on its part to be observed or performed...".
Deeds in this form were executed by Auckland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla-Sutherland, North Queensland and the Western Reds. The deeds were expressed to be operative for periods of between three years (for example, Cronulla-Sutherland) and nine years (for example, Brisbane). Subsequently, on 4 May 1995, Penrith entered into a deed in similar terms, although the indemnity was wider, extending to liability under any joint venture arrangement. On 12 May 1995, the existence of the deeds to which the eight clubs were parties was publicly announced.
The Players
A total of 307 players and 10 coaches entered into Super League contracts. Of those, three players subsequently had their contract cancelled by agreement and four players had their contracts cancelled following proceedings in the New South Wales Industrial Commission. Consequently, at the date of the hearing of the appeal, 300 players were parties to the current Super League contracts. None of these had proceedings on foot seeking cancellation of the contracts. We were told that 42 of the 300 contracted players had signed on or prior to 2 April 1995. (On 1 April 1995, the League and ARL announced that it would be signing players in competition with Super League.)
Counsel representing the intervening coaches and players prepared a schedule listing the 300 players. The schedule specified, in each case, whether the player was party to an ARL club contract and, if so, the year in which the contract expired. A summary of the contractual status of the 300 players is as follows:
(i) Players who never had ARL club contracts - 28
(ii) Players who had ARL club contracts expiring in 1995 or earlier - 109
(iii) Players who had ARL contracts expiring in 1996 or later - 163
Of those in the third category, 30 had contracts expiring in 1997 and only 7 had contracts expiring later than 1997.
No doubt many of you have read earlier versions of these articles before. If you haven't great, have a read. Some updates have been made from earlier versions. It is also timely in light of a couple of other threads which have begun the SL/ARL debate again.
Bernie Lomax
27-02-2006, 13:50
No doubt many of you have read earlier versions of these articles before. If you haven't great, have a read. Some updates have been made from earlier versions. It is also timely in light of a couple of other threads which have begun the SL/ARL debate again.
Interesting read. The whole thing was like and iceberg, we only saw what was at veiwing level.
DJ1 so you resurrected a thread that has been dormant for almost 11 months just for another chance for a Rooster bash? You're like a broken record. Man, you need to gat laid.
DJ1 so you resurrected a thread that has been dormant for almost 11 months just for another chance for a Rooster bash? You're like a broken record. Man, you need to gat laid.
No I had it as a new updated thread after I included some new info. It was merged into the older thread by someone.
Okay then I'm sorry. It just looked that way to me.
Okay then I'm sorry. It just looked that way to me.
Lol! Me too, until I worked what had happened.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.