NRL teams are poised to be denied access to the first advance of more than $1 million each from the game's $1.8 billion broadcast windfall amid renewed hostility with the ARL Commission, which has declared it will withhold the funding until clubs give the green light to new perpetual licence agreements.
Clubs are due to provide a response to draft agreements proposed by the NRL by Friday, the same day that the first advanced instalment from the code's new five-year television deal is expected to land in League Central's account. A $1.125 million sum was then scheduled, under the terms of a memorandum of understanding last December between the NRL and clubs, to be forwarded to each club on Friday week.

Dispute intensifies: ARLC chairman John Grant. Photo: Kate Geraghty
However, that payment will almost certainly be delayed after the clubs baulked at the fine print of the draft licensing agreements, which they argue give the governing body far more wide-reaching powers and moves the goalposts significantly from what had been agreed upon late last year.
An NRL spokesman said on Monday that the money would not be delivered until the perpetual licences to play in the premiership were agreed upon. "The additional funding to the clubs will occur once the licence agreement is signed," the spokesman said. The impasse threatens to cause cash-flow headaches for a number of clubs that had budgeted for the arrival of the first payment on or about July 8.
However, stronger clubs are urging the more financially vulnerable that are hanging out for the payment to hold firm because of the need to get the licences right.
Some clubs have sought their own legal advice and corporate lawyer Glen Selikowitz at Baker McKenzie has been brought on to provide a response on behalf of all 16 clubs to the draft licence.
Intense negotiations between the parties are likely to follow in coming weeks. The clubs say the
NRL has adopted an aggressive timeframe on getting the agreements over the line but there is no certainty about when a resolution will emerge. Club bosses are determined not to be cornered into agreeing to a document that will have long-lasting implications for the game despite recognising the urgency of the situation.
There was scheduled to be a meeting at NRL headquarters on Monday but that was cancelled.
The payments due next month were to be the first of two bonuses totalling $1.5 million a year in 2016 and 2017 and pledged to clubs after the striking of a record broadcast deal last November. Half of the money, however, will be loans so teams can reduce their losses.
The sticking point in the bonus cash being passed on is common ground being reached on the perpetual licences – which will guarantee teams a place in the NRL as long as they are financially viable – and that appears some way off.
Clubs are contesting the contents of the licences on a range of fronts including pushing back at the idea of a sinking fund into which they would pour money that could be drawn upon by a team that strikes financial trouble.
They are of the belief it is up to the commission to ensure the viability of its teams, and also strongly oppose a proposal that would allow the NRL to take ownership of assets and infrastructure in the event a licence was terminated.
ARLC chairman John Grant said last week the clubs would be funded to become "long-term sustainable" under the in-principle agreement and League Central could as a result not be expected to dip into its pockets to prop up a financially distressed team.
Clubs lost a combined $38.4m last season but stand to have their annual grant rise to $13m from 2018 if, as has been foreshadowed, the salary cap is lifted to $10m that year.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-withholds-1-million-bonus-to-clubs-as-licensing-dispute-intensifies-20160627-gpsyse.html#ixzz4Coy4fL9s
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
Replies
I post this to show the dictatorial show of control that the NRL wants to adopt in control of the game.
Brett
The problem with the article is that its fairly broad & very little is mentioned regarding the actual control the NRL wants to have over the clubs. I read it a few months back & if the NRL gets what they are wanting in total, they will have a huge arsenal to use against the clubs to apply a control over them that is, as far as I am concerned very heavy handed, in some respects what we are seeing now against the eels is but a sample.
There is very much a requirement that also takes away the Junior league control of the clubs with the NRL wanting to (so called) even out the competition by having players from junior leagues go to whoever they want to send them to. Some of the stuff that Richardson had worked on when with the NRL & before heading back to club land.
At the time I read the NRL article that followed Richo's one, the only clubs that had signed off on what the NRL was trying to ram through were the 3 that the NRL had control in, Ncle, Gold Coast, IIRC the other was Wests.
There is much more to what is going on to what is in this article.
Brett, no issue with the certain amount of control but!
Following from Foxsports this morning from our old ragged reporter
The NRL is attempting to change the way clubs are licensed to participate in the competition but the changes are not going down well in clubland, Paul Kent revealed on NRL 360.
While clubs are currently given licences that run for the term of each broadcast deal and are renegotiated every time a new broadcast deal is signed, Kent said the NRL is trying to amend this arrangement to make the licences perpetual.
“It’s there forever once this is signed, it just keeps rolling over,” Kent said.
“So they have to get it right. You can’t make a mistake and then in three years time say we undernegotiated here.
“The NRL is trying to make it so that rather than its own little business, which the clubs are now ... the NRL now is saying we want greater say in the way you run your business. You are going to be more answerable to head office.”
Kent said the clubs had initially agreed broadly to the proposed changes but when the new agreement was sent out to be formally signed off on, some fundamental changes which could potentially cost the clubs money, changed their minds.
“They said ‘hang on, the fine print’s changed here’,” Kent said.
“For example, things that had been changed — what’s been written into this new deal — is the NRL wants the clubs to be responsible for the welfare of all 16 clubs, so while the NRL oversees the financial running of each individual club, if a club gets itself in financial trouble and starts to go broke, the NRL wants the other 15 clubs to bail them out.”
Kent said all 16 clubs are against this proposal and won’t sign off on it, despite the fact the NRL is threatening to withdraw a promised cash advance to every club if an agreement isn’t struck.
Suoer League v2.0 here we come.
[Edit] For what its worth both Ch 7 and 10 made lucrative submissions in the TV deal that the NRL sold to 9 and Fox.
I was told by a Ch 7 exec at the time that the combined 7 / 10 deal was worth MORE than 9s and Fox.
One channel got club games the other got rep games.
Brett - I got that information from the exec LONG before the NRL made its decision in favour of 9.
7 / 10 were very confident of getting the deal between them, and completely gobsmacked when the NRL went for LESS money.
So with that in mind the TV coverage could already be in place for a Super League v2.0
Bank is closed atm Brett.
I should bookmark your reply.
From a while back but has not gone away yet.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/broadcast/nrl-clubs-...
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-clubs-formally-discu...
http://www.bandt.com.au/media/nrl-club-bosses-again-eye-breakaway-c...