Second rule of politics: be in the room when the votes are cast.

ARL Commission chairman John Grant, who has reached an impasse with a majority of NRL chairmen over broadcasting and budgetary matters, will have done his sums on how many votes are required to oust him. Furthermore, he will be in the room when the votes from his fellow commissioners are counted.

The constitution requires 14 of 26 members, comprised of 16 NRL clubs, two state leagues (NSWRL and QRL) and eight commissioners to remove Grant who is currently acting as interim chief executive following the resignation of Dave Smith.

The rebel club chairmen, led by Storm owner Bart Campbell but supported by long-time antagonists, the Roosters' Nick Politis and Canterbury's Ray Dib, are confident they have the votes to remove Grant if he does not meet their funding demand of 52 per cent of all game revenue.

Assuming all the commissioners vote for Grant, the rebels need 13 clubs plus the NSWRL which has been at war with the NRL for some time.

However, four clubs (Dragons, Wests Tigers, Knights and Titans) of the 16 are already beholden to Grant because they are effectively owned by the NRL or in hock to it. They have all signed participation agreements to play in the NRL beyond 2017, something the other 12 clubs have

hitherto refused to do.

This leaves the rebels one vote short of removing Grant, unless, of course, there is a split among the commissioners.

The terms of three of the eight-member ARLC – Ian Elliott, Wayne Pearce and Chris Sarra- expire in February and they need the support of their fellow commissioners to be voted back.

However, the antagonists have been calling for a greater say in the make-up of the commission and an injection of new NRL friendly board members may placate them.

This could destroy any unity on the ARLC, particularly if a commissioner has been offered a position by the rebels as Grant's replacement and the vote is by secret ballot.

The risk is the majority of commissioners would resign with Grant. This would mean new negotiations for broadcasting rights. The club chairmen are willing to accept $1.8 billion over five years but Grant obviously wants a figure closer to $2 billion, which would make it equivalent to the AFL's $2.5 billion over six years, considering the AFL has an extra game to sell and more commercial breaks for advertisers.

Furthermore, $2b would mitigate some of the fury at the Grant-supported decision to do rugby league's free-to-air TV deal first, a contract announced the day Fox Sports owner Rupert Murdoch flew into Australia.

It is widely agreed this rebuff prompted Murdoch to overpay the AFL by $300m, funds which will be used to prop up the Gold Coast Suns and GWS Giants and further their push into Queensland and NSW.

When the Channel Nine deal was announced, NRL club chairmen told Grant they would ring-fence him from criticism on condition of a guaranteed margin of revenue above the salary cap.

They want a net 30 per cent above a salary cap of $10m, meaning $13m and claim Grant has now retreated from an agreed position and is offering less.

While it is accepted the clubs need a margin of revenue not swallowed by the salary cap, Grant is determined to invest in grassroots, seeking to allocate  $100m a year to pathway development, essentially funds for the bottom of the playing pyramid. Grant is also under fire from the rebels for a micro-managing style. His critics believe he has appointed the man to replace Smith as the one he has always believed best for the job. Himself.

Those who work closely with Grant say this is unfair. But right now, with Smith gone, News Corp attempting to rush the code into a broadcasting deal and club chairmen happy to accept $1.8 billion on condition they receive 52 per cent of all game revenue (including gate takings, sponsorship and club memberships), the code needs a dictator.

Grant is smart enough to know that if he accepts $1.8 billion, it will merely justify the rebels' push to remove him, arguing the deal is inferior to the AFL's. A mass resignation of commissioners might please the game's politicians but it would sent a dreadful message to everyone else.

The rebels should be careful what they wish for.