ARLC Commission Changes

[El Diablo]

I'm saying it would be biased to nsw if a qld elected board member was removed and nsw got to chose the next member. If the qrl chose the next commissioner (even if it is Katie page) and the nswrl agree with it I have no problem. The removal of Grant is being done by nsw clubs. The last thing they should get to do is dictate who the new member should be.

are your parents related?

 

[El Diablo]

I'd say close to 4/5.

lol

 

[Stormwarrior82]

are your parents related?

lol

That all you have to reply back with? Another couple useless posts.

 

[insert.pause]

I'm saying it would be biased to nsw if a qld elected board member was removed and nsw got to chose the next member. If the qrl chose the next commissioner (even if it is Katie page) and the nswrl agree with it I have no problem. The removal of Grant is being done by nsw clubs. The last thing they should get to do is dictate who the new member should be.

The QRL and nswrl don't appoint commissioners, nor do they elect chairs, that was merely the process to establish the commission, it isn't how it operates.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

The QRL and nswrl don't appoint commissioners, nor do they elect chairs, that was merely the process to establish the commission, it isn't how it operates.

Wether that is the case or not. My point still stands. The Sydney clubs are running a media campaign to slingshot Quayle or others into the commission for there own gain. The Nrl clubs have to stay out of it.

 

[insert.pause]

Wether that is the case or not. My point still stands. The Sydney clubs are running a media campaign to slingshot Quayle or others into the commission for there own gain. The Nrl clubs have to stay out of it.

all they can do under the current constitution is remove commissioners, not appoint them, unless the commission has failed to replace any vacancies after six months, which would then fall to a special majority of clubs & states to fill the vacancies. On the off chance the commissions numbers should fall below 5, the clubs can nominate their replacements immediately. Even in those instances they can still only appoint someone that fulfills the independence requirements under the constitution.

Any other scenario is just ignorant media bs.

 

[Perth Red]

Typical NSW v Qland BS that has held the game back for years.
I do think the whole NRL v Club issue is resolved by agreeing a set % of NRL revenue to go to clubs. This way the more successful the NRL is overall the more money clubs earn. It gives them incentive to actually do things that are for the good of the game. If you create a battle ground every 4-5 years it is no wonder we keep getting ground hog day around this.

 

[taipan]

If Grant is to fall on his sword... he needs to be replaced by another independently appointed qld person. To think otherwise is showing clear bias towards a Sydney centric game, that will never grow beyond the nsw establishment.

Yep we could always get Laurie Spina ,or Alfie Langer to fill in.

 

[El Diablo]

Yep we could always get Laurie Spina ,or Alfie Langer to fill in.

bring back Reebs

 

[taipan]

bring back Reebs

Then we'll get our 1% of the Chinese kiddies.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Wether that is the case or not. My point still stands. The Sydney clubs are running a media campaign to slingshot Quayle or others into the commission for there own gain. The Nrl clubs have to stay out of it.

Maybe the NRL Commission should be running a media campaign of their own because it seems about a decade since any good news was reported about them...

If they don't know how, then appoint a consultant for advice ... They have certainly got the money to squander..

 

[colly]

Those 3 clubs you talk about make up more than there fair share of player numbers. I'd say close to 4/5. Don't lump storm into the ego driven Sydney club culture. Newy are nrl owned so they don't count either.

Sydney where all the Media HQ's are
Home to Biggest Corporations HQ's
Home to 'the deal' where NRL get their billion $$$
GRant, Manly seagulls, about says it all, Go the Cronulla Dolphins
Suggest you look up the structure and voting rights.It is balanced among competing interests, but you wouldn't know about that. Tally me up 26, go on impress me.

 

[Last Week]

fair call. But Grant was still leading the game when Smith was ceo. The game needs someone new.

Katie Page would do a brilliant job and should have been the inaugural chair. Doubt she would want it though.

Nope. Don't buy that at all.

The clubs have always, always been like this.

I think East Coast Tiger said that we haven't had stable leadership since Arko and Quale, which is just laughable as the clubs started Super League because they didn't like what the leadership was doing.

It doesn't matter who is running the game, the clubs will do what ever they can to undermine the administration if they don't get their way.

I wouldn't matter who we had running the game, the clubs will find a way to get rid of them when they see fit.

 

[Perth Red]

Nope. Don't buy that at all.

The clubs have always, always been like this.

I think East Coast Tiger said that we haven't had stable leadership since Arko and Quale, which is just laughable as the clubs started Super League because they didn't like what the leadership was doing.

It doesn't matter who is running the game, the clubs will do what ever they can to undermine the administration if they don't get their way.

I wouldn't matter who we had running the game, the clubs will find a way to get rid of them when they see fit.

That's why the clubs and nrl need to nut out a set % of nrl revenue, it would close down this aggro.

 

[Last Week]

That's why the clubs and nrl need to nut out a set % of nrl revenue, it would close down this aggro.

Hardly. They'll just try and negotiate for a higher percentage every time a new TV deal is made.

 

[Perth Red]

Not really, that is beauty of a set %, if revenue goes up the clubs get more and everyone knows this. It gives clubs direct motivation to assist the NRL in growing central revenue.

 

[Danish]

Not really, that is beauty of a set %, if revenue goes up the clubs get more and everyone knows this. It gives clubs direct motivation to assist the NRL in growing central revenue.

The clubs and ARLC are right now arguing because revenue for 2018 showed that perhaps clubs would get less actual dollars than originally thought, forcing the ARLC to guarantee the dollars to the clubs with suggestions of taking out loans to do so.

Offering a revenue share model is just how it must be done now because all pro sports have gone that way. It won't have any effect one way or another on the amount of arguing and bullshit between the ARLC and clubs

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Sydney where all the Media HQ's are
Home to Biggest Corporations HQ's
Home to 'the deal' where NRL get their billion $$$
GRant, Manly seagulls, about says it all, Go the Cronulla Dolphins
Suggest you look up the structure and voting rights.It is balanced among competing interests, but you wouldn't know about that. Tally me up 26, go on impress me.

Are you still on the drugs/alcohol you took while writing this?

 

[Stormwarrior82]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...rties-must-come-together-20170522-gwai0k.html

Decent article... Grant quoted as well. Not the normal news ltd, a friend of a friends uncle told me crap. But hey let's get rid of Grant and let the clubs bully the next person.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I think East Coast Tiger said that we haven't had stable leadership since Arko and Quale, which is just laughable as the clubs started Super League because they didn't like what the leadership was doing.

What? The game was growing in leaps and bounds under Arko and Quayle and whilst I would agree they were not perfect, Super League was about a Pay TV station wanting control of the product it was broadcasting, with an end game of forcing league fans to purchase their product. The clubs jumped because of the huge money they were offering.