“THE NRL has agreed to consider a proposal to buy a 33 per cent stake in the Super League on the proviso it gets complete administrative control of the struggling competition from 2028 as part of a bid to grow the sport internationally.”
That was the opening paragraph of a news story that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last week.
But what does it mean?
How could the NRL buy a 33 per cent stake in the Super League?
It may mean that they would buy a third of the shares in Super League (Europe) Limited (SLE), the company that currently has 13 equal shareholders, with all the Super League clubs and the RFL currently each one-thirteenth of the company.
If this were to happen, the NRL would presumably pay a capital sum to own one-third of SLE, while the clubs and the RFL between them would retain twice as many shares as the NRL.
So that wouldn’t give the NRL control of Super League if the clubs and the RFL objected to something the NRL was proposing, for example to slim down Super League to ten clubs.
But it would mean that the NRL would only require four clubs to be on its side to get what it might want.
For example, Wigan and Warrington, through their respective owners Mike Danson and Simon Moran, already have very strong links with the NRL following their game in Las Vegas in March.
It wouldn’t be hard to imagine two or more other clubs being won over to the NRL’s side, particularly if they didn’t feel threatened by the NRL’s proposals.
And of course if the NRL did buy into SLE, the money it paid for the privilege would probably be divided equally between the other shareholders to ease the debts they are currently operating with.
On the other hand, the NRL might instead buy a third share in RL Commercial Limited, which is effectively the investment arm of Rugby League and is currently a joint venture between SLE and the RFL, with both organisations having a 50 per cent share.
If it went down this route, then the joint venture would involve three parties, all with equal shares.
And if the NRL paid to secure a one-third interest in RL Commercial, then it is more difficult to identify what would happen to that money. Rather than going to the clubs, I hope that RL Commercial would be able to invest a significant proportion of any money it received into an expanded marketing operation.
But how much power over British Rugby League would that give the NRL?
And how much power would we want the NRL to have?
And what would be the NRL’s motivation in buying a stake in British Rugby League.
Would it be acting specifically to shore up Rugby League in this country or would it be acting to expand its own global value?
The fact that the stories related to the NRL investing in British Rugby League have suggested that it would seek to establish a new competition with ten clubs that the NRL itself would select. That would include Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, Leeds, the two Hull clubs, Catalans, Toulouse and two others, probably including London Broncos.
Would those clubs included in that list actually vote for a ten-team competition to be run effectively by the NRL?
If they thought they would be sufficiently compensated, I’m sure they might.
But if such a move involved breaking away from the other member clubs of the RFL, I think it would be a serious mistake.
Breakaways rarely work, as we saw in the Super League war in the mid-1990s.
“The NRL has made it clear that it will not approach the Super League to buy a stake in the competition, but would be open to striking a deal if the clubs are keen for the NRL to take over the running of the game,” said the Sydney Morning Herald article.
I’m told that no formal discussions have taken place since the Las Vegas weekend.
But they are likely to happen soon, especially now that the Super League clubs have created a working party to investigate whether NRL involvement would benefit the British game.
Meanwhile, as you will see on this page, we are giving you a chance to have your say on what should happen in our Readers’ Poll this week.
