KEY POINTS:
The final figure of NZRL losses is expected to be significantly less than the $1.25 million predicted on Friday.
The national body announced a projected loss of $1.25 million, largely because October's centenary test in Wellington (expected to make a $400,000 profit) didn't make any money and because
of a $600,000 shortfall in funding.
But the NZRL is still waiting for money from the recent tour of the UK and France and, given profits from the Kiwis' entire programme in 2007 is thought to be around $1.3 million, this could see the final loss stand at closer to the $650,000 predicted before the end of the tour.
"We are still working through the numbers and a final position won't be known until [March's] AGM," NZRL general manager Peter Cordtz said. "I'm very hopeful that we are going to improve that position [we announced on Friday]."
Auckland Rugby League chairman Cameron McGregor was under the impression it would.
"It doesn't include any profits from England and France and there are certain guarantees around that so it should come down a bit," he said. "But it's a relief that we finally have some numbers out there because that is what we have been asking for for some time."
The NZRL's financial statement was interesting for a number of reasons, not least for what it didn't reveal.
At a time when former chairman Andrew Chalmers is being accused of frivolous spending, the losses seemed related to events beyond his control - the centenary test against Australia and the $600,000 shortfall in funding from gaming machines.
One of Chalmers' main objectives as chairman was to reduce the NZRL's reliance on gaming machine funding.
It received about $2.8 million in funding in 2006 but, while this is becoming an increasingly uncertain source for all sports, it is especially difficult for rugby league in the wake of recent investigations into the appropriation of funds.
Former Kiwis prop Brent Todd was sentenced on Friday for poker machine fraud, while investigations into other rugby league identities are ongoing.
The NZRL had budgeted for a $600,000 loss in 2007 in the wake of massive changes to a raft of things, including their constitution and competition structures. This would have come on the back of a $478,000 loss in 2006.
Chalmers was convinced the game would recover sufficiently after these changes, so much so that it would become self-sufficient in 2009 on the back of a lucrative international calendar. If that happens, one thing is certain - Chalmers isn't going to be around the NZRL's corridors to see it happen.
A definite change has occurred at the NZRL since his resignation last Friday. His replacement, Ray Haffenden, is a much more circumspect individual who is not prepared to commit without board approval.
He has also consulted with the districts and affiliates to find out what they want from him.
Most agree that Chalmers ushered in important changes but he was about as subtle as an Adrian Morley high tackle and was his own worst enemy, according to a number of sources.
"Andrew runs his own business and is used to making his own decisions so he ran the NZRL a bit like that," one said. "It wasn't a good idea. It was political suicide."
McGregor said Chalmers operated like a "one-man band".
"He kept everything to himself and didn't take his board or the game with him. There are undoubtedly some good things he has done but you can't operate like that."
Chalmers ripped through the NZRL like a tornado, bringing about considerable change and causing all sorts of mayhem. For many, it was too much, too soon and the way he delivered it was clearly difficult to stomach.
But as those who have moved in to clean up are discovering, this whirlwind didn't seem to do as much damage as they had anticipated.
Chalmers has been roundly accused of running up big debts that the game couldn't afford and he was also criticised for taking too many people on the recent Kiwis tour of the UK and France.
But, as the Herald on Sunday revealed four weeks ago, the tab for all tour expenses - except for those incurred by All Golds historian John Haynes - were picked up by the RFL and French federation.
Haffenden was at pains to point out, however, that changes had been introduced by the board to curb spending.
"We put things in place last weekend so people can't spend," he said.
"We have to pass a motion before you can pass a resolution. That will halt any excessive spending. That is good governance as far as we are concerned."
When the issue of alleged frivolous spending and high debt came to light during the Kiwis tour, Chalmers accused some board members of leaking misinformation for their own political gains.
The finger was clearly being pointed at Haffenden and new vice-chairman Vinnie Weir.
They were angling to oust Chalmers on his return from the tour and it's understood they had the support of the West Coast's Peter Kerridge.
Vice-chairman Phil Campbell and Neville Kesha sided with Chalmers despite considerable pressure, particularly in the case of Kesha.
Four of the six elected members were needed to overthrow the chairman, with the three independents barred from voting.
It didn't come to that, with Chalmers resigning at last Friday's board meeting. Those close to him say he was fed up with constant attacks and continually being undermined.
As he delivered the news, it's understood he launched a stinging attack on those who had leaked the information, saying it was a serious breach of the NZRL's code of conduct and their responsibilities as directors.
As one source said: "If these guys hadn't done their business in the media, it wouldn't have all gone down the gurgler. They scared the s*** out of the stakeholders.
"They were trying to run the NZRL like a business but people in big business learn pretty quickly that you have to stop counting how much it's going to cost for morning tea. If you do that, you're never going to get anywhere."
The three independent directors - Simon Doig, Glenda Hughes and Eddie Mathews - soon tendered their resignations.
It was a clear indication that they had no faith in the existing board and were concerned about their own reputations by being associated with a dysfunctional organisation.
Chalmers remains a member of the four-man international board, despite his resignation from the NZRL.
It's not clear if he will retain the position until his tenure runs out in March 2009 but he remains, for the time being, with the backing of the New Zealand board.
The biggest consideration is ensuring a New Zealander remains on the powerful international board because it's not guaranteed he would be replaced by a Kiwi if he was to resign.
The five remaining NZRL board members will stay in place at least until March's AGM and Haffenden said they were considering appointing replacements to bring the full complement back up to nine.
"We can add one or four [directors] and we won't be sitting on our hands in terms of the independents," he said.
Sparc chief executive Nick Hill has said he is concerned with the state of rugby league and is scheduled to meet with the NZRL this week.
McGregor, as head of the country's most powerful league district, said he would follow proceedings closely.
"I think they have three months to prove to the game that they are the right people to be there," he said. "Ray is experienced and is a straight shooter. He's talking about being board-inclusive so he's making the right noises as far as I am concerned. I hope they can walk the talk now.
"In Auckland, we are going from strength to strength and we will certainly be showing the way in all sorts of things if they are not careful... I know it's been hard for some of the directors to be heard but the fact they couldn't get Andrew to change or stop any of that is basically tacit approval.
"We're encouraged by what Ray has done already and we've probably had more decisions out of him in a week than from the board in the last year."
Rugby league has taken a battering to its already tarnished imaged but one source believed they were now in a position to recover and forge ahead.
"The new board could really benefit by what Andrew Chalmers has put in place," the source said. "They might not have liked what he did but if they can maintain the work he has done, it could be very positive."
That could be seen in the final balance sheet when it is revealed in March.
