Super League (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gibson Flying V (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 14 March 2007 (→‎The super league proposal and loyalty agreements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:Superleague 1997.jpg

Super League was a rugby league competition that was held in Australia in 1997. It was created by News Corporation after an unsuccessful attempt to purchase the pay television rights to rugby league. After two years of legal battles the competition was played for a single season in 1997 before merging with the rival Australian Rugby League competition in 1998 to form the National Rugby League.

Background

News Corporation's relationship with the NSWRL and the ARL

News Corporation had been involved with rugby league since 1985 when a News subsidiary took charge of the marketing division of the New South Wales Rugby League (NSWRL). They were responsible for wholesale and retail sales of jerseys, footballs, socks and other memorabilia. The net income of the marketing division rose from $700 in 1982 to $700,000 in 1991. In 1994 the NSWRL invited News to appoint a nominee to sit on the NSWRL Board.

The Australian Rugby League (ARL) offered News naming rights to the first grade competition for $8,000,000 in cash and kind. The ARL would not budge on the cash component being a minimum of $4,000,000, and News rejected the offer, as it believed the in-kind component, which would mainly come from Ansett (in which News had a controlling stake) would exceed $4,000,000.

The Bradley Report

A rationalisation of Sydney teams in favor of a National competition was in process as the New South Wales Rugby League (NSWRL) and Australian Rugby League (ARL) plan prior to any News Corporation Super League proposal via "The Bradley Report". 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 amalgamate 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.

An issue which loomed large with the clubs was the insistence on having to apply for inclusion to the competition each and every year. This provided the club with no security as there was no long term commitment from the governing body that your club would still be there in 10, 5 or even 2 years.

The Sydney based clubs were in particular focus of the NSWRL 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 1992 by a draft document sent to all clubs titled "Organization Review" by Dr G. Bradley of WD Scott & Co commissioned by the governing body (aka "The Bradley Report"). This document is a key rationale as to 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 towards prior to any notion of Super League by News Ltd.

On 2nd May 1994 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."

Sporting rights and Pay Television

In the early 1990s News Corporation began to acquire the broadcast rights to popular sports in order to build pay television viewership. Significant purchases included:

  • English Premier League: BSkyB purchased the right to broadcast the newly created English Premier League. This competition was formed when the top 20 clubs broke away from the Football League. This would have parallels with the creation of the Super League in Australia.
  • NFL: The Fox Network purchased the NFL rights for $1.58 billion to become a major player in the US media market, see NFL on FOX.

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 Television.

In 1993 Kerry Packer had purchased the broadcasting rights for rugby league on free-to-air television until 2000 for $80,000,000. The important aspect of this deal however were 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 tabled in court documents). 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. News approached the ARL in 1994 with a view to purchasing the pay television rights. "We're looking for Pay TV rights. You can still have free-to-air rights," News Limited Chief Executive Ken Cowley told Ken Arthurson. Cowley was advised to consult with Packer.

Suddenly, Kerry Packer was sitting on a gold mine. Whilst rugby league would receive no additional benefit on their PTV rights, Packer was in a position to on sell 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 stake of approximately $150M.)

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 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.

Pay television was introduced to Australia in the mid 1990s with cables being laid down by Optus and Telstra. Each of these telecommunications companies was aligned with a pay television company: Optus with Optus Television (partially owned by Kerry Packer's Publishing and Broadcasting Limited and Seven Network) and Telstra with Foxtel (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and the then Government-owned Telstra).

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's cable.

On 6 February 1994 Packer declared himself to be the owner of all broadcast rights for rugby league in Australia, and that all clubs, as members of the ARL, were bound by it. He threatened to "sue the arse off" any club that stepped out of line.

The Super League War

Super League Mk1

A document entitled "Superleague", dated 12 August 1994, was prepared within News Corporation. 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. 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 new teams would initially be owned by News Corporation. 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 (ARL) 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 those offered 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 club 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".

On 20 October, ARL Chairman Ken Arthurson warned the Brisbane Broncos that they faced expulsion over their involvement with Super League. A Sydney Morning Herald (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."

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.
Quayle: 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 Mk2 The ARL run Super League

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 Super League 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 occurs 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 Consulting 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 December, 1994. 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.

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 Super League 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.

The super league proposal and loyalty agreements

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:

a) 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.

b) 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.

c) 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".

d) The 12 clubs would be based in Sydney (4), Queensland (2), Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland.

e) 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".

f) 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.

g) 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".

The ARL's pivotal role would continue. i.e. Their role in administering the game would continue. Note that the ARL did not own the game, as private companies were already established with ownership of a team. In esscence Super League proposed an entirely new competition, which the existing 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 Free to air (FTA)rights, 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 Super League.

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.

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.

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 was a key litigation argument to have the agreements deemed 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.

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 decided to push forward with a plan to reduce the number of Sydney teams before any player, coach or club had moved to Super League. The ARL had handed out loyalty agreements for the clubs to sign then immediately went about a plan to get rid of clubs.

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 (2 days after the Premiership Policy Committee had already committed itself to a reduction of clubs), 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.

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:

a) Sign up all the players required for a ten team Australian competition, at approximately twice their current earnings;

b) Mount a challenge to the "Five Year Agreement" binding the clubs;

c) 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 ARL 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.

The conquest begins

As all prospects to gain the PTV rights via a "friendly" alliance between News and the ARL was eliminated by Arthurson 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 targeted 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 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."

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

ARL lifeline conditional

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 (This later grew to $93M plus a further $33M). 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. 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:

a) If the League and ARL agreed, it could be recouped over time out of fees received for television rights; b) It could be recouped out of moneys received by the League and ARL for assignment of player contracts; c) 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.

The war at its peak

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 20 April Auckland, Brisbane, Canberra, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cronulla-Sutherland, North Queensland and the Western Reds. Penrith signs on 3 May.

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.

Rugby league in court

On 30 March 1995 News commenced legal action against the ARL, NSWRL and six clubs, alleging breaches of the Trades Practices Act.

The teams that signed to News were:

A new competition, to be called Star League, was announced on 1 April 1995 comprising these teams and the Adelaide Aces (later Adelaide Rams) and the Hunter Mariners. To ensure that it could have control of representative fixtures, News signed the Rugby Football League and New Zealand Rugby League organisations up on 6 April 1995. In retaliation, the ARL did not select players signed to Super League clubs for representative fixtures in the 1995 season, including State of Origin and the World Cup.

On 25 September 1995 the ARL commenced legal action in the Federal Court of Australia to stop the new competition beginning in 1996. Justice James Burchett handed down his findings on 23 February 1996 [1]. He found that the ARL owned rights to all club colours, logos, names and jerseys. Justice Burchett said that News had acted with "dishonesty" and "duplicity".

Formal orders were given in the Federal Court on 11 March 1996 to prevent any alternative rugby league football competition being held until 2000.[2] The scope of these orders was reduced on appeal to the Full Court on 13 March 1996, but still precluded the start of the Super League competition. Rupert Murdoch described the court decision as "1-nil at half-time".

All Super League teams forfeited the first round of the ARL competition, except for the Auckland Warriors, who claimed two uncontested premiership points from their unplayed match against the Brisbane Broncos. Most Super League players played in the ARL season of 1996, with the notable exception of Gorden Tallis who sat the season out, and did not play again until he joined the Brisbane Broncos in 1997.

British Rugby League boss Maurice Lindsay announced on 20 March 1996 that a new competition named Global League would be created, using the same players as the now-banned News competition, and featuring clubs such as the Cronulla Dolphins (instead of Sharks), Canberra Vikings (instead of Raiders) and Penrith Cats (instead of Panthers).

On October 4 1996 Federal Court Justices John Lockhart, Ronald Sackville and John van Dousse set aside all of Justice Burchett's previous orders, clearing the way for the Super League Telstra Cup to commence in 1997.[3] ARL Chairman Ken Arthurson wrote, "I was furious, hurt, bewildered... I felt as if had been run over by the Southern Aurora." An ARL appeal was dismissed on November 15 1996 in, according to Arthurson, "less time than it took to play a half of football." Following the court decision, Kerry Packer met with Rupert Murdoch to resolve their differences over rugby league, and on January 17 1997 Packer's Nine Network announced that it had secured free-to-air broadcast rights for Super League. On January 22 1997 Ken Arthurson announced his resignation from the ARL.

Super League competitions

World Nines

In 1996 and 1997 the Gatorade Super League World Nines Comepetition was held. Nines rugby league is a faster form of the game with only nine players on the field at a time playing in shorter halves. The World Nines competition were held as an alternative to the ARL's World Sevens.

The 1996 World Nines were held in Suva, Fiji from February 22 to February 24. The winner of this competition was New Zealand. The 1996 World Nines marked the first time that a video referee was used for a game of rugby league.

The 1997 World Nines were held in Townsville, Australia from January 31 to February 2. New Zealand won this competition for the second year in a row.

Telstra Cup

File:1997 super league grand final ticket.jpg
A ticket for the 1997 Super League Telstra Cup Grand Final.

For more information see, Super League (Australia) season 1997

The Telstra Cup was a ten team competition held over eighteen rounds. The season was dominated by the minor premiers, the Brisbane Broncos, who won 14 of their 18 matches, losing only to the Penrith Panthers, the Hunter Mariners and eventual runners-up, the Cronulla Sharks. The Grand Final was played at Brisbane's ANZ Stadium in front of 58,912 people, the ground record for that venue. The Broncos defeated the Sharks 26-8 to win their third premiership. The Auckland Warriors had teams in both the Reserve grade and two age-group Grand Finals but lost all three.

The winners in all grades were:

  • First Grade: Brisbane Broncos
  • Reserve Grade: Canterbury Bulldogs
  • Under-19s: Penrith Panthers
  • Under-17s: Brisbane Broncos

Tri-series

The Super League Tri-series was contested by New South Wales, New Zealand and Queensland. Each team played the others once, with the best two teams playing a final. After New South Wales defeated Queensland on 11 April, 1997 it was possible for New Zealand to make the final if they defeated New South Wales. This commercially disastrous final looked like becoming a reality when New Zealand winger Sean Hoppe scored a try in the dying minutes of the 14 May match against New South Wales, but the try was controversially disallowed.

The Tri-series final was held on 19 May, 1997, and won by New South Wales, who defeated Queensland 23-22 at ANZ Stadium in the longest ever game of first class rugby league. After 80 mintes, the scores were locked at 18-18, and a further 20 minutes were played. At the end of this time, the scores were 22-22, and Queensland captain Allan Langer is said to have asked the referee, "Should we toss a coin to see who wins?" The game then moved into golden point extra time, and after 104 minutes, Noel Goldthorpe kicked a field goal for New South Wales, and won the match.

Super League Challenge Cup

The Super League Challenge Cup competition was played between the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. The Australian Capital Territory won the competition, defeating the Northern Territory 40-14 at ANZ Stadium Brisbane on 19 May, 1997.

Super League (Europe)

Main article: Super League (Europe)

As the Rugby Football League had signed with News Corporation, a twelve team club competition was held from 1996 in Europe.

World Club Challenge

The World Club Challenge, held occasionally since 1975, was expanded in 1997, with all ten Australian Super League clubs competing against all twelve European clubs. The European teams were outclassed, winning only 8 of 83 matches, and suffering many heavy defeats. The competition did not prove popular in Australia, and it lost $6,000,000 due to small crowds and heavy travel expenses. The Brisbane Broncos won the final defeating the Hunter Mariners 36-12 at Ericsson Stadium, Auckland.

Tests

In 1997 the Super League Australia team played two games against New Zealand, winning one and losing one, and won a three game series against Great Britain by two games to one. Although these matches are considered to be Tests by the New Zealand Rugby League and the European Rugby Football League, they are not recognised by the Australian Rugby League.

During the Super League war, News signed up nearly every rugby league organisation outside of Australia, starving the ARL of international competition. The ARL had intended playing a team of players with New Zealand heritage but the New Zealand Rugby League took out an injunction in the Federal Court preventing the ARL from using the terms "Test", "Representative Team", "New Zealand" or "All Golds". [4] The ARL instead played international fixtures against rebel teams from Papua New Guinea and Fiji, as well as beating a Rest of the World team in July 1997.

Also see: Australia national rugby league team.

Oceania Cup

The Oceania Cup was run by Super League in place of the Pacific Cup. The following teams were involved:

The competition was won by the New Zealand XIII team, who defeated New Zealand Maori 20-15.

Aftermath

Creation of the National Rugby League

With twenty-two teams playing in two competitions in 1997 crowd attendances and corporate sponsorships were spread very thinly, and many teams found themselves in financial difficulty. On 23 September 1997 the ARL announced that it was forming a new company to control the competition in 1998 and invited Super League clubs to participate. On October 7 Rubert Murdoch announced that he was confident that there would be a single competition in 1998 and in the following months the National Rugby League, jointly owned by the ARL and News Limited was formed. The conditions of this merger controversially included an agreement to reduce the number of teams competing in the NRL to 14 by the year 2000.

The following teams were dropped from the NRL competition during 1998 and 1999:

Broadcasting Rights

In 1998 Packer's Nine Network secured the free-to-air broadcasting rights for the NRL until 2007 for $13,000,000 a year. In 2001 C7 unsuccessfully attempted to buy the pay television NRL rights until 2006 for $72,000,000 per annum. After News resigned these rights, and acquired the AFL broadcast rights, C7 was shut down in March 2002, leaving Fox Sports as the only Australian pay television sports network. [5]

The free to air rights were renewed in 2005 until 2012 for an amount of $40,000,000 a year. [6]

Foxtel was originally half-owned by News Corporation and half-owned by Telstra. On 30 October 1998 PBL purchased a quarter share in Foxtel from News Corporation for $160,000,000. [7]

Costs

Due to legal costs the Australian Rugby League posted a $9,500,000 loss in 1996. News Limited has claimed that the entire Super League exercise cost them $100,000,000, however an article in the Australian Financial Review on 5 August 2005 has put the cost at as high as $560,000,000.

Legacy

Although Super League damaged the public perceptions and financial standing of rugby league in Australia, a number of concepts that it introduced lived on into the new millennium.

ANZAC Test

A Super League Test was played between Australia and New Zealand on ANZAC Day in 1997. There was some controversy at the time for the use of the word ANZAC, as many considered it inappropriate to compare sportspeople to soldiers. Although it was dropped from the annual schedule in the early years of the new millennium, it was revived in 2004, and is now contested each year. The winner of the ANZAC Test receives the Trans-Tasman Trophy.

Night Grand Finals

The Super League Telstra Cup Grand Final was played on a Saturday night in Brisbane, whereas all NSWRL, ARL and NRL Grand Finals were traditionally played on a Sunday afternoon. From 2001 the NRL has played its Grand Finals on the Sunday night in October, to coincide with a Public Holiday in New South Wales the following day. Although a rating success for the Nine Network, this scheduling continues to upset traditionalists, who believe that having the Grand Final on a Sunday afternoon allows people to better celebrate the day, particularly with a Grand Final BBQ. Some in Sydney also believe that holding the Grand Final at night disuades parents with young children attending. It is also very unpopular outside of New South Wales, as there is no Public Holiday in Queensland the following day, and the Grand Final begins late in the evening in New Zealand.

Video Referees

At the Super League World Nines in 1996 the video referee was used for the first time. The Video referee allows an official to check the veracity of tries scored using footage from the television broadcasters. The NRL used Video Referees from its first season in 1998.

Rule Changes

A number of rule changes were introduced in both the Super League and the ARL during the war that have been adopted by the NRL. Super League innovations include:

  • Zero tackle rule (in a modified form).
  • Scrums packed 20 metres in from touch.

See also

References

Background

  • Colman, Mike (1996). Super League: The Inside Story. Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd. ISBN 0-330-35863-4.
  • Gallaway, Jack (2001). The Brisbane Broncos: The Team To Beat. University of Queensland Press. ISBN 0-7022-3275-0.
  • "How The War Unfolded", Sydney Morning Herald, March 26, 2005
  • "Channel Nine and Fox extend NRL rights", Sydney Morning Herald, July 1, 2005
  • "News plotter used NRL spot to outbid C7", Sydney Morning Herald, September 14, 2005
  • "PBL Buys 25% of Foxtel", Australian Cybermalls News, October 30, 2005
  • Leeming, Mark (1996) "The Super League Case", Australian Parliamentary Library Research Paper No. 23, 1996

Federal Court decisions and orders

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_League_(Australia)&oldid=114931426"