SMH
The move to axe ARLC chairman John Grant is short-sighted
Grant confident he won't be voted out
If I owned a company, my employees would love me.
They'd have huge pictures of me up the walls and in their home.
Like Lenin.
My words these aren't; rather the cogitations of that important 20th century Italian-American philosopher George Costanza, Lord of the Idiots.
Advertisement
From a distance and in the right light, the under-fire ARL Commission chairman John Grant bears an uncanny resemblance to the Russian communist revolutionary, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. Grant might pass for Lenin reincarnated – should he ever resolve to faithfully sculpt his beard in the Van Dyke style.
Chairman Grant's portrait, however, won't ever hang anywhere in the offices of those who might control his destiny in the sport; Grant's anything but loved. Put simply, John Grant's a dead man walking. Rugby league in Australia is a sport that thrives on hate – as distinct from surviving, despite the omnipresence of it.
RELATED CONTENT
Yet the fact Grant is unloved must not matter, one iota. His role doesn't demand he be collectively embraced, or even liked. To the contrary, the exquisitely difficult role that Grant has occupied since the Commission's inception in February 2012 commands that Grant remain markedly distant, lest he be infected with the desires of the game's feudal warlords.
The very contention, that jettisoning John Grant from his role as chairman of the "independent" ARL Commission is the catholicon to all monetary problems in the sport, is the biggest truckload of unadulterated rubbish I've heard in a long time. It astounds me that anyone could actually believe that removing one director from an eight-person board would cause a violent shift in the strategy of the remaining seven.
- SHARE ON FACEBOOK
- SHARE ON TWITTER
- PIN TO PINTEREST
Under pressure: ARLC chairman John Grant. Photo: Christopher Pearce
The
Oxford Dictionary defines "independent" to variously mean not depending on authority or control; self-governing. Though the Commission is self-governing under its present structure, it's anything but beyond the authority or control of others.
That the much-vaunted "independent" commission was ever so described, in the three years before its eventual implementation in 2012, is grossly misleading. Apply the blowtorch, and the fragility of this "independence" is patent. Any independence depends on the Commission's members remaining unable to agree on things more complex than the general point on the horizon over which the sun rises each morning. If the Commission's members reach a consensus, the governance structure is easily bulldozed.
- SHARE ON FACEBOOK
- SHARE ON TWITTER
- PIN TO PINTEREST
Vladimir Lenin: Squint and you'll see the resemblance. Photo: Fairfax Media
To the general meeting of the ARL Commission called to "test support" for Grant (adopting the Commission's anodyne language) scheduled for just over two weeks' time, it's no certainty as to what will happen. Under the Commission's constitution, any director can be removed by a simple majority of its voting members, of which there are 26 comprising the eight directors; the 16 NRL clubs; and the NSW and Queensland State leagues. These simple majority provisions reflect the immutable requirements of section 203D of the Corporations Act, and the rights it granted to members of public companies like the Commission.
That the directors are Commission members at all is because the architects of the Commission rightly envisaged this revolt would materialise, some day. Making the directors voting members directly dilutes the voting power of the clubs and state bodies. A simple majority of 14 votes could comprise that many clubs, or 13 clubs and the NSWRL. Without the directors as members, only 10 votes would be needed.
- SHARE ON FACEBOOK
- SHARE ON TWITTER
- PIN TO PINTEREST
Illustration: Simon Letch
Such votes take place by the "ol' show of hands" method, unless a secret poll is demanded by at least two of the 26 voters, or the chairman. A secret ballot would make it easier for the ARL-owned Newcastle Knights and Gold Coast Titans – or even the Grant-aligned QRL – to vote unhindered. Remember, it means nothing that these bodies might not have signed the notices calling for the meeting.
The Commission's constitution also includes an alternative mechanism for removing directors, empowering any 10 clubs plus both state governing bodies to vote as a bloc – meaning a minority of members could override the wishes of the majority. This clause is moot however, if the QRL abstains or refuses to spear Grant.
The immediate power to select any replacement director, should Grant be removed, lies with the seven directors he'd leave behind; not rugby league's disgruntled chairpersons. And for those who might be wondering, there's a safeguard in the constitution stopping the forced removal of all eight directors at once, so the members could appoint more malleable replacements. The likes of David Gyngell don't fail the test of director "independence" in the constitution, but he'd inevitably need to resign from any conflicting directorships or consultancies. But whomever the replacement director is won't be chairman – such an appointment is for the Commission's board to make.
Exploding the Commission's constitutional model and starting again is a more overwhelming task. At a bare minimum, all bar one of the clubs AND both state leagues must vote in favour of any change. Grant commissioning a review is rather pointless – the clubs won't accept a model they don't themselves conjure.
Pausing there, it's imperative to note the constitutional objectives of the ARL Commission are to (a) act as the controlling administrator of rugby league in Australia; and (b) to foster, develop, extend and provide adequate funding for the whole of the sport, from the junior to elite levels, in the best interests of rugby league. This includes – but is not overridden by – obligations regarding the NRL competition.
The governance model of the ARL Commission was bastardised from the outset, just as a Rembrandt might be damaged if embellished by five-year-old with ready access to finger paints. The elemental flaw in the Commission's structure is that the 16 NRL clubs and the state leagues are members at all. They are so because too many stakeholders were given a say in structuring the governing body.
In a perfect world, the ARL Commission would be structured so that its only "members" were its directors, for so long as they each remained in office. The interests of the clubs and state bodies should be enshrined in licence agreements, just as the Country Rugby League has a contractual arrangement with the Commission. Anything less isn't independence.
Had the Commission been structured as such, it would've been impervious to the tactics that will likely result in Grant being shafted. Grant and his board are decent people, attempting to deliver a strategy for the whole game; beyond the elite competition. That voting stakeholders are moving to off Grant is short-sighted.
There's a lever arch folder in my office. Running down its spine is an old Winfield Cup sticker circa 1995. Its caption reads "THE ARL MUST RUN THE GAME". A generation after the Super League War this straightforward notion remains as important as it was, 21 years ago.
Darren Kane is a Sydney lawyer. He acted for a number of parties in relation to the formation of the ARL Commission between 2010 and 2012.
