General Warriors turn heat on NZRL

warriors4life_old

Guest
From stuff.co.nz

By STEVE KILGALLON

The Warriors have exceeded their budgeted loss for 2006 and want more cash from their shareholders, which could dilute the New Zealand Rugby League's share in the club.

The move has angered the NZRL, which is expected to refuse to make a contribution, as it could lose its input into Kiwi league's flagship without being repaid.

CEO Wayne Scurrah said it was at a level "we certainly didn't anticipate".

The NZRL brokered the original deal that gave the club's majority owners, Eric Watson and Mark Hotchin's Cullen Sports, 75% of the club in 2000.

The league has been negotiating to sell its shares to Cullen.

The Sunday Star-Times has seen the original shareholders agreement signed by then NZRL chairman Gerald Ryan and Watson. It suggests the NZRL's contributions were limited to $500,000 - a figure which it is understood has been reached.

Warriors chairman Maurice Kidd denied that. But he did confirm the shareholders were to be asked for more cash, and said if the minority partners - the NZRL and a Wellington consortium led by Ramesh Dayal - did not contribute, diluting their holdings was "certainly an option". The NZRL-Dayal bloc holds 25% of the club.

The news sparked an angry response from NZRL chief executive Selwyn Pearson.

"The timing is impeccable when negotiations are at a very sensitive stage for Cullen Sport to takeover the NZRL's shareholding," he said. Pearson, formerly the chairman, said the board had always been "unanimous that they would not tip in any more money to the Warriors. I'm certain there has been no change in that stance.

"I feel sorry for the NZRL board - they have never had any say in the governance, management, operations or finance of the Warriors, yet here they are being asked to put their hand into their pocket to pay for something that is totally out of their control.

"It doesn't sound fair."

Told that Kidd had said diluting the shareholding was possible, Pearson responded: "What a sad day it would be if the major shareholder punted the minor shareholder, who were actually instrumental in the major shareholder getting the football club in the first place. Words would fail me if that happened."

Kidd said the decision to call for funds had come "probably a fraction earlier than expected".

"The reasons for it are the salary cap issue and the lower crowds than we budgeted on.

"Those were unexpected things and things built into the budget were not achieved. In the long run, they will not be recurring: there will not be another salary cap issue and the team are doing a fantastic job and getting results on the paddock and they will start winding back the attendances."

It's understood Cullen has already put in money once this season - without the other shareholders contributing. Scurrah said the club had analysed its cashflow and alerted the board of the need for more money, but that it was not disastrous.

Sky TV host Stephen McIvor claimed on Friday night that rumours were circulating that Watson and Hotchin wanted out of the Warriors, but Kidd vehemently denied that prospect, saying: "Hell, no."

However, relations between Cullen and the NZRL seem to have hit a new low, with Pearson adding: "It is time the NZRL board of the day who completed the sale came out and told the world what discussions took place at the time of the sale ... What was said? What was agreed to? What was promised? Then we can compare that to what is actually happening now."
 

PB_old

Guest
"I feel sorry for the NZRL board - they have never had any say in the governance, management, operations or finance of the Warriors, yet here they are being asked to put their hand into their pocket to pay for something that is totally out of their control.

"It doesn't sound fair."

What a sook.
 

Wiki_old

Guest
warriors4life said:
"It is time the NZRL board of the day who completed the sale came out and told the world what discussions took place at the time of the sale ... What was said? What was agreed to? What was promised? Then we can compare that to what is actually happening now."

I am pretty sure thats what a contractual agreement is for.

:?
 

Northern_Union

Guest
If i were the NZRL i'll tell the Warriors to go get ****ed for three reasons.
First off they refused to release Toopi and Hohaia for the GB game and only at the last moment have they released Toopi. This club was set up to try and avoid this crap.
Second the Warriors haven't payed there development fee to the NZRL for several years now so are already in debt to the NZRL.
Third they havent been paying there international transfer fees to the NZRL for the players they take from NZ domestic football.

Any wonder the NZRL don't want to have to gift more money to the Warriors?
 

Northern_Union

Guest
polar bob said:
"I feel sorry for the NZRL board - they have never had any say in the governance, management, operations or finance of the Warriors, yet here they are being asked to put their hand into their pocket to pay for something that is totally out of their control.

"It doesn't sound fair."

What a sook.

I don't see anything wrong with what he's said.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
polar bob said:
"I feel sorry for the NZRL board - they have never had any say in the governance, management, operations or finance of the Warriors, yet here they are being asked to put their hand into their pocket to pay for something that is totally out of their control.

"It doesn't sound fair."

What a sook.

I don't see anything wrong with what he's said.

The NZRL get screwed over by all and sundry. It isn't fair? S***, when it isn't a boys club they obviously have NFI. They enter legally binding contracts fully aware of their obligations and input and whinge when it doesn't work out. What they need to do is show some smarts and put themselves in a position where this can't happen. Every year there's something and every year we get these "poor me" statements. Again; bloody sooks.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Doesn't a legally binding contract work both ways? Hense the transfer fees and development fee?
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
Doesn't a legally binding contract work both ways? Hense the transfer fees and development fee?

If they don't have to pay any, and/or it can't be enforced, then it's not legally binding is it?
 

Northern_Union

Guest
every club in the nrl pays them...except the Warriors. So yes i'd say it is enforcable through the NRL at the least.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Besides that PB your well known for your thoughts on the NZRL. They said the sky was blue you'd call them amatures and say it was pink.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
every club in the nrl pays them...except the Warriors. So yes i'd say it is enforcable through the NRL at the least.
Then they can stop their bleating and go through the channels available to them.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
If you'd bother to keep up with events PB you'd know they are at present but the Warriors are saying they don't have the money for it.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
Besides that PB your well known for your thoughts on the NZRL. They said the sky was blue you'd call them amatures and say it was pink.

:D Only 'cause they'd call it blue in the middle of a beautiful pink sunset.

The day they stop the old boys network is the day I'll give them their dues.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
If you'd bother to keep up with events PB you'd know they are at present but the Warriors are saying they don't have the money for it.

So the bleating has stopped then? What, it hasn't? Sorry about that, mustn't have been keeping up with events.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
polar bob said:
RS_Dragon said:
Besides that PB your well known for your thoughts on the NZRL. They said the sky was blue you'd call them amatures and say it was pink.

:D Only 'cause they'd call it blue in the middle of a beautiful pink sunset.

The day they stop the old boys network is the day I'll give them their dues.

Dear god....the old boys network?? You had a look at union lately (or for that matter the last 100 years?)
 

Northern_Union

Guest
polar bob said:
RS_Dragon said:
If you'd bother to keep up with events PB you'd know they are at present but the Warriors are saying they don't have the money for it.

So the bleating has stopped then? What, it hasn't? Sorry about that, mustn't have been keeping up with events.

Hey i got an idea, why don't you stand for election on the NZRL board and do something positive rather than be negative all the time.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
Dear god....the old boys network?? You had a look at union lately (or for that matter the last 100 years?)

Have you seen me posting on rugby sites RS? I don't think you will. Likely 'cause I don't really care about rugby.

I will however rephrase. I was in error. It should read "old publican and friends of people who have done them favours" network. Apologies.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
Hey i got an idea, why don't you stand for election on the NZRL board and do something positive rather than be negative all the time.

Hey, I got an idea, why don't I feed my family instead? Given my propensity for being neutral, I think I'm allowed to rant on a pet subject. Doesn't stop anyone else.

Mad props for them being involved in Rugby League. Likewise for George Piggins for saving Souths backside, but time moves on and, like George, they need to also or start being seen to be effective.

I'm sure they could put the sleep they lose over my opinion of them in a thimble and still have room for a thimble full of something else.
 

PB_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
Or another way of putting it is old labour party polititions.

I think you can lump all party politicians in there RS. All different pronounciations of potato to me.
 

Similar threads

jonno
Replies
128
Views
7K
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE
Replies
0
Views
1K
PB_old
Replies
16
Views
2K
Fazz_old
Replies
0
Views
792
PB_old
Replies
0
Views
764
warriors4life_old