The lawyer who helped broker peace in the Super League war has again been engaged to quell rugby league's latest rebellion, but this time he isn't working for the establishment.

The NRL and its 16 clubs are at loggerheads over the signing of perpetual licenses, a move that would effectively extinguish the threat of another breakaway competition. The clubs believe the whole-of game funding agreement currently in front of them bears little resemblance to the memorandum of understanding the parties agreed to last year.

The clubs have tasked Glen Selikowitz of Baker & McKenzie to re-draft the agreement for them so it is more in keeping with the spirit of the original MOU. Ironically Selikowitz was one of the legal eagles who acted on behalf of the Australian Rugby League during negotiations to return to a single competition after the game was torn asunder during the Super League war.

Selikowitz has presented a document for the consideration of the clubs, who will gather on Friday to provide feedback and agree to a submission that will then be handed to League Central.

The clubs have several concerns about the terms and conditions attached to the extra funding, which will amount to an extra $100 million following the broadcast deal and annual grants totalling 130 per cent of total player payments from 2018-2022. They believe strings have been attached to the funding and that the NRL is exerting pressure for the document to be signed, given most clubs have budgeted for the up-front payment of more than $1 million they expected at the start of July.

One of the major sticking points is the establishment of a sinking fund that would put the onus on clubs to bail out one of their own should they fall on hard times. Currently, that is the responsibility of the NRL, who have helped out Newcastle, Gold Coast, Wests Tigers and St George Illawarra. It's understood the NRL is proposing to take about $40 million out of the funding pot for the sustainability fund.

The rebellion began as a gathering of "community clubs", those not financially indebted to the NRL or privately owned. Penrith, Parramatta, Canterbury, Roosters, Cronulla and Canberra officials met informally to discuss their concerns and it was decided that all clubs should be part of the discourse to ensure there was a united front.

"If the NRL's plan was to divide and conquer, it's had the opposite effect because they have united us," one club powerbroker said.

Melbourne chairman Bart Campbell soon took a lead role in the process, which will come to a head on Friday, which was the original deadline for the deal to be signed off.

Several administrators have complained that the NRL is demanding the clubs be run as franchises and that there isn't proper clarity over each party's reciprocal rights and responsibilities. They argue that, given the NRL is monitoring the financial performance of clubs, they should be able to raise red flags well before any club is in danger of going under. There are also fears the NRL will have the right to retain the asset and effectively take back any club forced to fold, despite the legal, ownership and membership implications of each franchise.

The governing body will likely argue that safeguards need to be put in place to ensure it is able to meet its commitment of providing eight games per week to broadcasters.

Fearful the clubs could squander the extra funding coming their way, the NRL has already moved to put a cap on football department spending. When it comes in and what form it takes is yet to be determined.