I know the 'evil nsw clubs' get blamed for a lot of things, but wasn't the last lot of expansion down to the nswrl and the old nsw establishmet? Cowboys, warriors, reds and crushers were brought in by these old evil nsw establishment, with melbourbe and Adelaide teams on the cards? Wasn't the original plan, before super league sprung up, was for the poorer badly run sydney clubs to die natural deaths or merge? Something like 6 sydney clubs was the target? But superleague, with a lot of Queenslanders, stuffed those plans up? So when all the damage was done, half the expansion teams had gone bust and rugby league needed to hang on to every single rusted on fan it could. That's how we ended up with a 14 team comp with 9 nsw teams. So much damaged had been done that we couldn't lose all the fans from any of those 9 clubs go. In fact they ended up letting souths back in. It's from the starting point of those 14 clubs that we started to rebuild. People wanting to watch those 14 clubs led to more money into the game, mean we stayed off the union threat of the early 2000s. Those 14 clubs (now 16) is how the nrl makes the majority of its money. Yet those clubs, especially the nsw clubs are blaimed for no growth. I still haven't seen a link from any nrl club boss saying they refuse any expansion plans for the nrl. On the contrary you see a guy like Gus Gould, supposedly from this old nsw establishment' say repeatedly he'd like a 2nd Brisbane team and a perth team.
I thought your post here was absolutely excellent.
They lost their way. They bought into the ideology of nsw club superiority because once they saw what expansion meant for them, they freaked out. They played catch-up a lot, now they don't want to have potentially better placed clubs until they shore up their position.
Don't worry, the Broncos swollowed the koolaid the most.
Look at Italy and Europe, they say the best government is the one that gives you what you want. It's also the worst. The Italian system is equal so nothing gets done without a lil bita curruption.... They've had a new president, who's powers are seriously diluted, on average one a year for decades.
The ARLC is fighting such a tide from one vocal section. It's insidious. And yet they should be held to account, but the clubs don't want to stop there, they want to tear it down...
Myopic at best, pathetic at worst.
Im currently working on something, read: thinking, called the Eternal Interregnum. It would include a populist, club and members council vote that is officially considered at board level, for directional consideration. An interrgum assumes no single king or power block is to return or be present. It's a gathering of Nobles
I hope to glean from it at worst how peasant power is utterly worthless in the ruthless corporate world. It could mean the clubs are kept even further away from decision making at ARLC level.
Nobles are glorified peasants. Think about it. But of course we should aim for professionalism in practice and it should function essentially like a Commonwealth. Introduce corporate structure though and you have a slightly modified commission that may just be able to appoint former club people like in AFL. Maybe they can limit that via constitution...
They should go for that. Beats Italy. I don't like how Gurr says it though....I didn't before, don't now. They should make one exception for one person and/or forward protect it from the disease...
Real power, like a modern functioning democracy, which the nrl still doesn't have due to the one track mainstream media reporting sometimes, absorbs dissidents but maintains it's path.
This is why they need that media department up and running at a greater capacity, and their digital strategy.
In that stability comes much progress and trade. Wealth even. But I have always agreed the original constitution was flawed, because Rugby League didn't really make it. Putting down revolts causes much regression and diverts forward momentum.
But you can read into this I think the commission has done a tremendous job and they don't deserve this to happen in this way.
After this the club voting power needs further dilution. Maybe a 10 man board/something to skewer agency to the top.
Gurr:.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ives-onto-arl-commission-20161204-gt3ni7.html
And they meet to resolve impasse
http://m.nrl.com/statement-regarding-club-funding-discussions/tabid/10874/newsid/102848/default.aspx
So, I think the ARLC mainly keeps adapting pretty quickly, they don't really keep everyone Super happy, their succession plan is unknown, they get broad scopes but the clubs want more club-scope, they think long term.. The ARLC uses consultancy when they need to. The ARLC is good with the revenue generally. Their biggest expense are badly run clubs.
Just why these badly run clubs need to not wait and be on the board now, is? I am trying to think of a reason.
Generally the best thing to do and its simple, is choosing things that make more money and more popularity. I think in the circumstances the ARLC are doing very well.
>>>>
What I'd do is first get rid of over protective independence laws, make a club assembly an official non executive extension of the ARLC, and dilute club voting rights further for their own good, to move that effect over to the official body. The clubs need moderate and considered opinions as well as closer ties to the NRL admin.
Making more money and generating popularity is not meant to be that hard
Reasoning, self explanatory, but beyond what we know technology is going to change governance procedures/norms before long, may as well jump the curve. And the clubs have good men in them plus they complain about pre legislation and avenues.
They want much of the same kinds of things don't they, they just want more consensus. So it's a quasi house of representatives. One half of the power share in essence. It's the ARLCs so they can form and dissolve it. They'd be telling the nrl to work with them.
Let them be an ARLC vassal, put pressure on the CEO not the commission
