RL independence day arrives - NRL Independent Commission announced for November 1

[Quidgybo]

So all 6 board members need to agree on the deal before them, so if one NRL board member didnt agree it doesnt go through

I'm not sure whether it's a constitutional requirement for unanimity on such votes, or whether it is a simple majority and it's just generally assumed that both partners would always vote as block thereby effectively making it unanimous anyway. Roy Masters reported it as follows...

"The potential for conflicts for both News and ARL representatives was explicitly anticipated when the current management structure was established," a News Ltd spokesman said. "As a result, all major decisions by the partnership committee require the unanimous support of all members of the committee. This applies equally to contracts between the NRL and Fox Sports."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/h...1173166982379.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

He is a figure head, he does not have a vote on anything. News have 3 votes, The Arl have 3 votes

Gallop negotiates the deals. He's a News stooge but he's no figurehead. He's the administrative boss of the league. That's why the deals are so bad.

 

[Quidgybo]

Gallop is hired and fired by the NRL Partnership Executive Committee. He marches to their orders. If the deal he presents isn't acceptable to the Partners then they don't have to accept it. As the acceptance of any deal requires both News Ltd and the ARL to vote it thru the Executive Committee, and given the ARL supposedly exists solely to look out for the game's best interests, if the ARL cast its votes to accept an under valued TV deal then the ARL failed in its duty to the game. There is simply no escaping that fact.

Leigh.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

I still have not seen a single response to the question: how the hell can the New Zealand Warriors part-own and control Australian rugby league? If there is no answer to this question the commission is flawed from the start.

From my understanding "all profits are to stay with the commission which will be independent from the clubs, the ic will hand out grants to the clubs, QRL, NSWRL and CRL"
The 16 clubs only get a vote in who is on the commision, it doest set the commissions agendas this is decided by those 8 members elected, so the warriors dont own any part of RL in australia they just have a vote on who is on the commission

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

I'm not sure whether it's a constitutional requirement for unanimity on such votes, or whether it is a simple majority and it's just generally assumed that both partners would always vote as block thereby effectively making it unanimous anyway. Roy Masters reported it as follows...

Lets just hope the ARL board dont need a unanimous vote to get this thing through

 

[skeepe]

Stick up for News Ltd as much as you like but we all know that the game in undersold because of News Ltd's influence on the NRL, most notably the CEO, whose job it is to negotiate these deals.

Perhaps. But the ARL had the power to block it. Clearly, they are not entirely blameless.

Once again I'll point out where the division in this argument lies. Those who know nothing about and don't care about the grassroots and international game swallow this commission line without question. Those who do know and care about the grassroots and international football have plenty of very real concerns about this plan. The credentials of the people on here who are questioning it proves to me that it is wrong. Only club-centric fans fail to recognise the serious issues this club-centric proposal raises.

What a load of arrogant tripe. How dare you assume whether I care about the grassroots of the game or not? Because I believe that this commission is the right way to go, you assume I don't care? My countless lost weekends every year would beg to differ.

It is because I care about the grassroots that I believe the ARL must go, and must go now. They do NOTHING for the game, nothing at all, unless you count wasting millions of dollars and making sure that nothing trickles through to the local associations.

I certainly can't speak for other NRL clubs, but the Raiders have been absolutely fantastic at supporting the local region, and I'd be willing to bet they've put far more money into grassroots rugby league in the region than any association with the suffix "RL" has done.

To top it all off, you have not produced one single fact to suggest that what you are claiming will happen is correct. Not a single one. Instead, all you have done is continue to repeat the same baseless claims with monotonous regularity in a ridiculous scare campaign of which George W. Bush would be proud.

When you can provide one skerrick of evidence that we have to fear anything you've said, maybe people will listen. Until then you come across as either an irrational lunatic with a conspiracy theory, or - and this is perhaps far more likely - someone with something to lose if the decrepit association is rightfully put to sleep.

 

[Mr Angry]

Fire up skeepe!!!

 

[Perth Red]

Gallop is hired and fired by the NRL Partnership Executive Committee. He marches to their orders. If the deal he presents isn't acceptable to the Partners then they don't have to accept it. As the acceptance of any deal requires both News Ltd and the ARL to vote it thru the Executive Committee, and given the ARL supposedly exists solely to look out for the game's best interests, if the ARL cast its votes to accept an under valued TV deal then the ARL failed in its duty to the game. There is simply no escaping that fact.

Leigh.

TBF that is just as bad imo. For any CEO to be happy to sit back whilst the board makes bad decisions for the company is just as bad as a CEO who makes the bad decisions. Having worked in companies with brilliant CEO's and terrible CEO's I know the value and importance a CEO brings. The board are there ratify strategic decisions, everything else the CEO should be responsible for. The fact Gallop has been happy to sit back (if he has) and allow the board to make sh*te decisions for the game tell us alot about the mans character and abilities.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

the thing is he keeps 3 board members pretty happy

 

[Quidgybo]

TBF that is just as bad imo. For any CEO to be happy to sit back whilst the board makes bad decisions for the company is just as bad as a CEO who makes the bad decisions. Having worked in companies with brilliant CEO's and terrible CEO's I know the value and importance a CEO brings. The board are there ratify strategic decisions, everything else the CEO should be responsible for. The fact Gallop has been happy to sit back (if he has) and allow the board to make sh*te decisions for the game tell us alot about the mans character and abilities.

I generally feel that Gallop is stuck in the middle of a very tough situation. He is not allowed the power or the freedom to have an honest go at leading the game forward and is left holding the can to defend the indefensible decisions reserved for those above him. But regardless of whether he is simply a News stooge and regardless how bad News Ltd try and extort the game, the party we have the right to demand stand up and use its power to protect the game's interests is the ARL. They've failed that duty on the most important funding decision of the past five years, they've failed it on the radio rights, they've failed it on the major sponsorship and internet rights. If you believe Gallop is nothing more than a News stooge then you could argue they've failed the game on the appointment of Gallop too. None of these decisions could be passed by the NRL Partnership Executive Committee without the agreement of the ARL. If any or all of these decisions were damaging for the game then the ARL has forfeited the right to be considered safe hands for the game's future.

Leigh.

 

[The Observer]

Yes they have a bigger international game but the players are only leaving because of the dollars on offer. Gasnier, Gower have gone to a french comp and never been seriously considered for the Wallibies

Players that move to Union don't merely leave due to the pay on offer, there are often a variety of reasons. Players like Gasnier and Gower sought anonymity just as much as money, Gower especially so. Gower wasn't considered for the Wallabies because he opted to play for Italy, and is now their first choice flyhalf and playmaker. However the ARU doesn't consider overseas based players for the Wallabies, so neither he nor Gasnier were in the frame.

and all but one of the other defectors have come back.

Most defectors do not return to League:
* the ARU sacked Wendell Sailor and would not have authorised a contract with any Super Rugby team.
* the ARU sacked Lote Tuqiri, and did not allow the Waratahs to register him on their own, he is now playing for Leicester in English club RU.
* Brad Thorn is back at the Crusaders and All Blacks,
* Mark McLinden is the QLD Reds fullback
* Former GB captain Andrew Farrell moved from Wigan to Saracens and England RU, just retired and is now coaching there. His son Owen is now playing for Saracens in the centres.
* Clinton Schifcofske moved from the Reds to Ulster Rugby in Ireland.

The list on Wikipedia, the majority stayed in Union or returned there. Some players like Chev Walker, Gareth Raynor, Nathan Blacklock did not get regular gametime in Union and thus went back to League to get a pro opprtunity. However Blacklock last turned out in club Rugby in the ACT
anyway.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Perhaps. But the ARL had the power to block it. Clearly, they are not entirely blameless.



What a load of arrogant tripe. How dare you assume whether I care about the grassroots of the game or not? Because I believe that this commission is the right way to go, you assume I don't care? My countless lost weekends every year would beg to differ.

It is because I care about the grassroots that I believe the ARL must go, and must go now. They do NOTHING for the game, nothing at all, unless you count wasting millions of dollars and making sure that nothing trickles through to the local associations.

I certainly can't speak for other NRL clubs, but the Raiders have been absolutely fantastic at supporting the local region, and I'd be willing to bet they've put far more money into grassroots rugby league in the region than any association with the suffix "RL" has done.

To top it all off, you have not produced one single fact to suggest that what you are claiming will happen is correct. Not a single one. Instead, all you have done is continue to repeat the same baseless claims with monotonous regularity in a ridiculous scare campaign of which George W. Bush would be proud.

When you can provide one skerrick of evidence that we have to fear anything you've said, maybe people will listen. Until then you come across as either an irrational lunatic with a conspiracy theory, or - and this is perhaps far more likely - someone with something to lose if the decrepit association is rightfully put to sleep.

When people who never ever show any signs of any interest in the grassroots or international but bang on about NRL issues all the time it's pretty plain to see where their priorities lie. But when people on here who I know have a real and serious interest in bush footy, or Test footy also raise the same concerns I have, I know I'm on the right track.

And when some idiot who supports a particular club tries to suggest their club does all this wonderful work for grassroots football I see it for what it is, bias. And then tries to suggest they know what the ARL does and doesn't do. The ARL runs ARL Development, which does a million times more for grassroots football than all the NRL clubs put together. No one is suggesting the ARL is perfect but I'd trust them to do the right thing for the WHOLE game over NRL CEOs any day. The ARL is effectively independent of any business or club anyway. Not only that they run international football and represent Australia on the RLIF. This commission proposes that the New Zealand Warriors vote on an organisation that will represent Australia. It makes no sense and the fact that no one can come up with any reason to explain this ridiculous situation proves how farcical it is.

I have no affiliation with any RL organisation and the fact that some people are scratching their heads wondering how a supporter can have such concerns only shows how ignorant they must truly be about the state of the game outside the NRL. Anyone with any real interest in the game outside the NRL would see the problems with this proposal, just as a number of other posters have, posters I know to have a real interest in other parts of the game. The only people lapping up this commission nonsense are people who have never shown the slightest bit of interest in the game outside the NRL. NRL-centric, club bias "fans".

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Anyone with any real interest in the game outside the NRL would see the problems with this proposal, just as a number of other posters have, posters I know to have a real interest in other parts of the game. The only people lapping up this commission nonsense are people who have never shown the slightest bit of interest in the game outside the NRL. NRL-centric, club bias "fans".

Well at least its good to learn you dont hold any position in a RL association. You lose support for your argument with statements like the above.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Why? Anyone who knows or cares about the grassroots or international football can see the problems with this club-centric proposal. If you can't see the reason for concern you don't understand grassroots or international football or the realities of NRL clubs' attitudes toward these parts of the game. There's no way anyone with an informed interest in the non-NRL parts of the game couldn't have serious doubts about it.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Warriors can have a say in how Australian RL is run. This issue is indicative of the lack of thought put into the non-NRL implications of this proposal.

 

[Bluebags1908]

When people who never ever show any signs of any interest in the grassroots or international but bang on about NRL issues all the time it's pretty plain to see where their priorities lie. But when people on here who I know have a real and serious interest in bush footy, or Test footy also raise the same concerns I have, I know I'm on the right track.

And when some idiot who supports a particular club tries to suggest their club does all this wonderful work for grassroots football I see it for what it is, bias. And then tries to suggest they know what the ARL does and doesn't do. The ARL runs ARL Development, which does a million times more for grassroots football than all the NRL clubs put together. No one is suggesting the ARL is perfect but I'd trust them to do the right thing for the WHOLE game over NRL CEOs any day. The ARL is effectively independent of any business or club anyway. Not only that they run international football and represent Australia on the RLIF. This commission proposes that the New Zealand Warriors vote on an organisation that will represent Australia. It makes no sense and the fact that no one can come up with any reason to explain this ridiculous situation proves how farcical it is.

I have no affiliation with any RL organisation and the fact that some people are scratching their heads wondering how a supporter can have such concerns only shows how ignorant they must truly be about the state of the game outside the NRL. Anyone with any real interest in the game outside the NRL would see the problems with this proposal, just as a number of other posters have, posters I know to have a real interest in other parts of the game. The only people lapping up this commission nonsense are people who have never shown the slightest bit of interest in the game outside the NRL. NRL-centric, club bias "fans".

100% spot-on. You talk about the ARL's vested interests and people protecting their jobs. But you couldn't get a bigger example of vested interest than 16 CEO's voting for an IC proposal that ... wait for it ... the CEO's had drawn up, and, wait for it... the CEO's have all the power to vote the 8 Commissioners!

To have CEO's which represent privately-owned clubs (they will be in the majority in future) means that the clubs making a buck will come first before anything else - and less $$ for grassroots or international football, etc.

And when do you think we will next expand the comp if the clubs get to vote in the Commissioners? The current 16 CEO's have already said they don't want expansion and they wont 99% of the time because someone else is getting a piece of the pie.

People keep talking about the AFL and how great their Commission is. Well let me tell you something about the AFL -

1. It has no international football to worry about
2. None of it's clubs are privately-owned, so the clubs will take more of an interest spending money on grass roots.
3. AFL State Of Origin - it's dead. I wonder why?
4. The be-all-and-end-all of AFL is the AFL clubs. This is not the case with Rugby League.

This is my proposal:

8 Commissioners

ARL is disbanded and the Commission to be called the ARL Commission
No-one involved with ARL/Clubs/News Limited in last 3 years is eligible
4 Commissioners voted in by the 16 clubs
1 Commissioner voted in by the NSWRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the QRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the CRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the Affiliated States (Vic/WA/SA/NT/Tas)

Each club has a vote + 1 vote each for NSWRL, QRL, CRL, Affiliated States = 20 votes in total. This way the clubs still get a lot of clout with 16 of the 20 votes (much, much, more clout than they do have now). But any proposal must have 18 of the 20 votes for the proposal to be passed through. This way, the clubs can't vote as a block to pass something through because there are 16 clubs and 18 votes are required. Likewise, the NSWRL/QRL/CRL/Affiliated States can't get anything through without the clubs.

Also, having an Affiliated States nominee will give the rest of Australia outside of NSW and Qld a say and potentially have this representative to push hard the case for the other states, for e.g. the inclusion of WA Reds. It is the 'Australian' Rugby League Commission after all,

 

[Knownothing]

Players that move to Union don't merely leave due to the pay on offer, there are often a variety of reasons. Players like Gasnier and Gower sought anonymity just as much as money, Gower especially so. Gower wasn't considered for the Wallabies because he opted to play for Italy, and is now their first choice flyhalf and playmaker. However the ARU doesn't consider overseas based players for the Wallabies, so neither he nor Gasnier were in the frame.



Most defectors do not return to League:
.

Ryan McGoldrick is playing for Castleford.

Luke Rooney is doing okay.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

100% spot-on. You talk about the ARL's vested intersts and people protecting their jobs. But you couldn't get a bigger example of vested interest than 16 CEO's voting for a IC proposal that ... wait for it ... the CEO's had drawn up, and, wait for it... the CEO's have all the power to vote the 8 Commissioners!

To have CEO's which represent privately-owned clubs (there will be in the majority in future) means that the clubs making a buck will come first before anything else - and less $$ for grassroots or international football, etc.

And when do you think we will next expand the comp if the Clubs get to vote in the Commissioners? The current 16 CEO's have already said they don't want expansion and they wont 99% of the time because someone else is getting a piece of the pie..

People keep talking about the AFL and how great their Commission is. Well let me tell you something about the AFL -

1. It has no international football to worry about
2. None of it's clubs are privately-owned, so the clubs will take more of an interest spending money on in grass roots.
3. AFL State Of Origin - it's dead. I wonder why?
4. The be-all-and-end-all of AFL is the AFL clubs. This is not the case with Rugby League.

This is my proposal:

8 Commissioners

ARL is disbanded and the Commission to be called the ARL Commission
No-one involved with ARL/Clubs/News Limited in last 3 years is eligible
4 Commissioners voted in by the 16 clubs
1 Commissioner voted in by the NSWRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the QRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the CRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the Affiliated States (Vic/WA/SA/NT/Tas)

Each club has a vote + 1 vote each for NSWRL, QRL, CRL, Affiliated States = 20 votes in total. This way the clubs still get a lot of clout with 16 of the 20 votes (much, much, more clout than they do have now). But any proposal must have 18 of the 20 votes for the proposal to be passed through. This way, the clubs can't vote as a block to pass something through because there are 16 clubs and 18 votes are required. Likewise, the NSWRL/QRL/CRL/Affiliated States can't get anything through without the clubs.

Also, having an Affiliated States nominee will give the rest of Australia outside of NSW and Qld a say and potentially have this representative to push hard the case for the other states, for e.g. the inclusion of WA Reds. It is the 'Australian' Rugby League Commission after all,

Good points. And good to see people putting some thought into this issue, instead of just swallowing any old tripe.

The most critical issue being expansion. Everyone wants expansion in the NRL but, as you say, it is almost certainly not going to happen if existing clubs run the show. They won't share their cash with more new clubs.

 

[Loudstrat]

Ummm, the ARL has three votes on the NRL Partnership Executive Committee the same as News Ltd has three votes. Gallop has no vote. A unanimous vote of the NRL Partnership Executive Committee is required for "the entry into, amendment or termination of any contracts in relation to Key Revenue Rights’ (cl 5.8(d))." This covers TV rights. If the TV deal was not the best deal the game could get then the ARL should've blocked it by not supporting it in the NRL Partnership Executive Committee. We can't expect News Ltd to look after the game's interests. News Ltd can be reliably trusted to do one just thing - look after the interests of News Ltd. But the ARL supposedly exists for no other purpose than to look out for the interests of the game. Yet they've failed the fans, the grassroots, the juniors and every other part of the game on the biggest decision of the last five years by not using the power they have to ensure the game didn't settle for less money than it was worth. It's time for the ARL to step aside in favour of a body that won't settle for less.

Leigh.

So it's all the ARL's fault and not the corrupt News Ltd element?

What would News have done if the ARL blocked the move?

It is because I care about the grassroots that I believe the ARL must go, and must go now. They do NOTHING for the game, nothing at all, unless you count wasting millions of dollars and making sure that nothing trickles through to the local associations.

Where's your proof of that?

This crap about looking after the grass roots - there is no guarantee of that. Anyone in the fruit and vege production industry knows how well Woolies and Coles look after the producers. Screw 'em down as hard as they can. In 20 years fruit and veg wholesale prices have not moved, and a similar story exists across all farming sectors.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Thats like comparing apples and oranges.

;-) Couldnt help it.

 

[Noa]

100% spot-on. You talk about the ARL's vested interests and people protecting their jobs. But you couldn't get a bigger example of vested interest than 16 CEO's voting for an IC proposal that ... wait for it ... the CEO's had drawn up, and, wait for it... the CEO's have all the power to vote the 8 Commissioners!

To have CEO's which represent privately-owned clubs (they will be in the majority in future) means that the clubs making a buck will come first before anything else - and less $$ for grassroots or international football, etc.

And when do you think we will next expand the comp if the clubs get to vote in the Commissioners? The current 16 CEO's have already said they don't want expansion and they wont 99% of the time because someone else is getting a piece of the pie.

People keep talking about the AFL and how great their Commission is. Well let me tell you something about the AFL -

1. It has no international football to worry about
2. None of it's clubs are privately-owned, so the clubs will take more of an interest spending money on grass roots.
3. AFL State Of Origin - it's dead. I wonder why?
4. The be-all-and-end-all of AFL is the AFL clubs. This is not the case with Rugby League.

This is my proposal:

8 Commissioners

ARL is disbanded and the Commission to be called the ARL Commission
No-one involved with ARL/Clubs/News Limited in last 3 years is eligible
4 Commissioners voted in by the 16 clubs
1 Commissioner voted in by the NSWRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the QRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the CRL
1 Commissioner voted in by the Affiliated States (Vic/WA/SA/NT/Tas)

Each club has a vote + 1 vote each for NSWRL, QRL, CRL, Affiliated States = 20 votes in total. This way the clubs still get a lot of clout with 16 of the 20 votes (much, much, more clout than they do have now). But any proposal must have 18 of the 20 votes for the proposal to be passed through. This way, the clubs can't vote as a block to pass something through because there are 16 clubs and 18 votes are required. Likewise, the NSWRL/QRL/CRL/Affiliated States can't get anything through without the clubs.

Also, having an Affiliated States nominee will give the rest of Australia outside of NSW and Qld a say and potentially have this representative to push hard the case for the other states, for e.g. the inclusion of WA Reds. It is the 'Australian' Rugby League Commission after all,

You make good points Bluebags, unlike ECT who types alot but says nothing.

However on your points about AFL and SOO, the commission wont turn there backs on $100m, just not going to happen. And they wont turn there backs on international football as the fans and the players will revolt. Particulary when the team that ECT thinks shouldnt have a say, would argue vehemently against any move to scrap test match football.