Everyone involved in that game should have a say, you can't create true independence.
On principle I agree to an extent that if anybody is getting a say then everybody should get a say, but A. that isn't happening only certain lobby groups are getting a say, and B. every business that has tried this model of every interest group having a representative has ended up with ludicrously large boards/leadership groups that spend so much time arguing over what should be done, and how to do it, that nothing actually gets done.
You're also right that true objectivity is impossible, but you can get close enough that it's functional and very successful. Just look at the AFL, I think that every informed person would rather the AFL's leadership than the NRL's if given the choice.
To give the organisations that are responsible for 99% of the running and development of the game as much say as Tasmania or WA in its funding and operation is lunatic fringe stuff.
Where did I say that the Affiliated States should get as much money as the NSWRL or QRL?
Of course they shouldn't get as much, but they should definitely be getting more than they do so they have enough money that they could actually make some significant investments in growth in the hope that one day they can become as big as the NSWRL and QRL, but this is an aside.
To the original point that I was making, if you are going to have reps for the NSWRL and QRL on the board then surely the Affiliated States need reps as well or their interests will just be railroaded.
You two have a gripe regarding expansion and your inventing all sorts of convoluted ways to get it.
This discussion doesn't really have anything to do with expansion, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up lol.