An activist’s bid for Broncos to oust News Corp as major shareholder

BHQArticleImageLarge281.jpg


Shareholder activist Stephen Mayne has launched a bid to join the Brisbane Broncos board, with one aim in mind – the removal of News Corp as the club’s majority shareholder.

Mayne said the US-based media company’s 24-year grip on the club represented an unacceptable conflict of interest and was out of step with Australian sporting traditions.

Speaking ahead of the Broncos’ upcoming annual general meeting, at which he will self-nominate for the board, Mayne said News Corp’s near-70 per cent holding in the club was an “anomaly” that would not be tolerated elsewhere in Australian sport.

“The biggest newspaper in Queensland owns and controls the biggest sporting team in Queensland,” he told this masthead.

“That is a massive conflict of interest to start with.”

News Corp, controlled by Rupert Murdoch and headquartered in New York, has owned a majority stake in the Broncos since 2002. It previously held stakes in other sporting teams, including the Melbourne Storm and the Los Angeles Dodgers, but exited those investments years ago.

News Corp’s Broncos ownership was “the last hangover” of the Super League wars, Mayne said, and while private ownership was common in American sports, Australia had traditionally favoured member-owned or not-for-profit structures – particularly in rugby league and Australian Rules football.

“You wouldn’t let an American billionaire come in and buy Collingwood,” he said.

“Everyone would say that’s outrageous. Yet here we have an American-based billionaire effectively controlling the most valuable NRL club.”

Mayne, the founder of news website Crikey, said the problem was not private ownership itself, but concentrated control.

“At the moment, the Broncos have around 1200 shareholders but only one of them controls the club,” he said.

“That’s inappropriate for an institution of this size and significance.”

But Mayne conceded his candidature for the Broncos board was largely symbolic, given News Corp’s voting power.

“I can’t get elected because News Corp will vote against me,” he said.

“That’s the whole point I’m making – it’s effectively a gerrymander that would make Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen blush.”

Mayne said his campaign focused on two reforms: encouraging News Corp to sell down its stake and pushing the Broncos to adopt hybrid annual general meetings, allowing online participation.

“There are more than 200 Australian companies running hybrid AGMs,” he said.

“You can watch the Broncos play on your phone, but you can’t watch the AGM on your phone.”

Mayne criticised the club’s refusal to allow remote attendance as an attempt to suppress debate.

“Transparency and shareholder participation should be non-negotiable in corporate Australia,” he said.

Comment has been sought from the Broncos.

Mayne said he was unsure whether he would be able to attend the AGM in person, but would have a proxy in the room if he was unable to make the trip.

The Broncos’ notice of meeting was expected to be released to the Australian Stock Exchange shortly, ahead of the AGM scheduled for May 19. Mayne said how the club handled his nomination would be an early test of its governance standards.

“The first test is whether they publish my arguments uncensored,” Mayne said.

“That will say a lot about whether this is a fair election.”

Longer term, Mayne proposed limits on individual shareholdings as a way to prevent future concentration of power, pointing to precedents in heavily regulated industries such as casinos.

“I don’t see why the same concept shouldn’t apply here,” he said.

“Let News Corp sell down over time and move to a model where no one owns more than, say, 5 per cent.”

Such a structure, Mayne said, would better reflect the club’s community role and align it with broader Australian sporting values.

“This isn’t about nationalising the Broncos or forcing an immediate sale – it’s about starting a debate that everyone’s too scared to have because of the Murdochs’ power,” he said.

“Once people point out how abnormal this structure is, the pressure should be on News Corp to voluntarily sell and let the club be controlled by its supporters and shareholders, not one overseas billionaire.”

News Corp did not respond to a request for comment.

Sydney Morning Herald
 
I have always thought the best ownership structure is community owned not a single rich owner.
As far as I know the only club in the NFL that has this is the Green Bay Packers and it works well for them (and probably would for other clubs).
As broncos are a listed company so going to a community owned structure would be difficult but you could maybe limit single shareholders to say 5%.
Just out of interest if News doesn't own Foxsports or Foxtel anymore who does?
DAZN bought Foxtel last year I think.

Don't know much about them, but everyone online seems to hate them and it seems like they cheap out on things whilst still charging a premium.

So stock standard in the current world.

Community ownership would be best, but is damn near impossible in this capitalist world.

I'd imagine limiting stock like that would need to be set through the company rather than the NRL being able to do it... because that would affect all the NRL licenses and the ownership structures are all over the place in NRL...and I doubt broncos would go that way because it significantly reduces the amount of money they can make from selling
 
DAZN bought Foxtel last year I think.

Don't know much about them, but everyone online seems to hate them and it seems like they cheap out on things whilst still charging a premium.

So stock standard in the current world.

Community ownership would be best, but is damn near impossible in this capitalist world.

I'd imagine limiting stock like that would need to be set through the company rather than the NRL being able to do it... because that would affect all the NRL licenses and the ownership structures are all over the place in NRL...and I doubt broncos would go that way because it significantly reduces the amount of money they can make from selling

Well I mean we already get LONG periods before, during and after games with nothing onscreen other than a sign that says coverage will continue soon, so they already do it.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't watch it anyway because its trash but that isn't the point.
 
Well I mean we already get LONG periods before, during and after games with nothing onscreen other than a sign that says coverage will continue soon, so they already do it.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't watch it anyway because its trash but that isn't the point.
Just on that, am I missing something? Why have a screen of nothing - why not sell a few ads and maybe keep our subs a bit lower?
 
Just on that, am I missing something? Why have a screen of nothing - why not sell a few ads and maybe keep our subs a bit lower?
I think it's that whoever is paying for the ad at that time isnt also paying for it to be streamed?

My parents have a Foxtel box and you definitely dont see as much blank space as you do when streaming.

Fox Sports have 3 different platforms for their broadcast.

- Satellite/ cable ie OG Foxtel
- Foxtel Go (streaming version of stock standard Foxtel)
- Kayo

I'd imagine they have different packages to sell airtime across the 3, because there are different subscribers and viewer numbers across each.

If you dont tick one of the platforms then they dont put it on there
 
I think it's that whoever is paying for the ad at that time isnt also paying for it to be streamed?

My parents have a Foxtel box and you definitely dont see as much blank space as you do when streaming.

Fox Sports have 3 different platforms for their broadcast.

- Satellite/ cable ie OG Foxtel
- Foxtel Go (streaming version of stock standard Foxtel)
- Kayo

I'd imagine they have different packages to sell airtime across the 3, because there are different subscribers and viewer numbers across each.

If you dont tick one of the platforms then they dont put it on there

I always thought it was when you are watching, say, Kayo, but they are playing ads for shows that are on Foxtel.
 
I always thought it was when you are watching, say, Kayo, but they are playing ads for shows that are on Foxtel.
Possibly, but I've seen entire 5 minute ad breaks be empty airtime when streaming through Kayo or Foxtel Go
 
I have always thought the best ownership structure is community owned not a single rich owner.
As far as I know the only club in the NFL that has this is the Green Bay Packers and it works well for them (and probably would for other clubs).
As broncos are a listed company so going to a community owned structure would be difficult but you could maybe limit single shareholders to say 5%.
Just out of interest if News doesn't own Foxsports or Foxtel anymore who does?

There are also down sides to a community ownership structure.

for example it can lead to much more destabilization in the board and club administration, which certainly has a flow on effect causing possible destabilization within the football program.

disclaimer: I want News Limited to end their association with our great club asap
 
The only risk I'd say with parting ways from News is that they are the devil you know and under that ownership the Broncos have become a powerhouse across pretty much every metric except onfield up until last year.

If they sell, it will be to the highest bidder and that could be anyone/anything, but will more than likely be someone with deep pockets... rather than a community model.

That someone could have different motives for what they want out of owning the broncos and that could have significant ramifications to running the football department.

At the moment Rupert treats the broncos as a play thing and probably a trophy on the wall, but it also happens to make money... someone else might be wanting it to make more money for them. Billionaires dont become billionaires without wanting to make money out of their investments.

This is coming from a Man U fan that has seen the Glaizers absolutely destroy what was a global powerhouse of a club.
 
I think it's that whoever is paying for the ad at that time isnt also paying for it to be streamed?

My parents have a Foxtel box and you definitely dont see as much blank space as you do when streaming.

Fox Sports have 3 different platforms for their broadcast.

- Satellite/ cable ie OG Foxtel
- Foxtel Go (streaming version of stock standard Foxtel)
- Kayo

I'd imagine they have different packages to sell airtime across the 3, because there are different subscribers and viewer numbers across each.

If you dont tick one of the platforms then they dont put it on there
Pretty sure this is what it would be, same deal with why during WWE that we watch on netflix, we get ads for stuff thats on netflix while they are running ads on the host broadcast in the states. Then when they do shows that aren't on netflix, but stream them on Youtube into Australia, we get the blank "Back soon' screens exactly like Kayo uses.

Parents also have foxtel and 99% sure they get ads for other shit on foxtel while I'm seeing "We'll be back" on Kayo.
 
Back
Top