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

[East Coast Tiger]

He's saying the same thing as me champ. The clubs already ensured the World Sevens was scrapped, and that was when they didn't run the game. What hope will we ever have of getting the Sevens back, or any other new international events for that matter, when we hand the international game to the NRL CEOs. Clubs running international football is a conflict of interest, just like News Ltd owning the NRL and the TV rights.

And still no one answers the question about the Warriors. The silence on that issue is deafening.

 

[LESStar58]

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.

Gower went to union because he was acting like a first class tit and the Panthers stripped him of the captaincy. He was linked to just about everyone, including the Storm, after he was punted. He didn't get his own wayso he farked off and, you know what, good feckin' riddance.

Maybe now Karmichael Hunt will be able to get a blow job in a public toilet without media attention now that he's in the AFL fold.

 

[m0nty]

He's saying the same thing as me champ. The clubs already ensured the World Sevens was scrapped, and that was when they didn't run the game. What hope will we ever have of getting the Sevens back, or any other new international events for that matter, when we hand the international game to the NRL CEOs. Clubs running international football is a conflict of interest, just like News Ltd owning the NRL and the TV rights.

And still no one answers the question about the Warriors. The silence on that issue is deafening.

To be brutally honest, Sevens should be the last thing on anyone's mind at the moment. The NRL is the core of the game and it has been bleeding for many years. I think the majority of fans would trade Sevens for a surety of no club closures or forced relocations, plus Adelaide and Perth brought online. If that's the trade-off that has to be made, an independent commission will make it for the overall good of the game.

As for the Warriors, they contribute a lot to the game, why shouldn't they get their fair share of power?

 

[m0nty]

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,

Um... what? You have eight commissioners and presumably a chairman with a deciding vote on the board... but then they are all non-voting on policy proposals??? And the actual decision making reverts back to the clubs and RLs???!?! Do you understand the concept of an independent commission? Do you even understand the concept of corporate board structure?

The way it works is that once the commissioners are nominated and accepted by the clubs and RLs, they don't represent the vested interests of those who nominated them. They think only about the game as a whole. They are the only ones to have a vote on policy proposals. No club or RL gets a direct or indirect vote. Sure, if things get out of hand the clubs and/or RLs can vote out a commissioner mid-term through an 18/20 vote, but that's most likely never going to happen.

There is a lot of ignorance in this debate.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

No one is suggesting the NRL clubs shouldn't run the NRL. But why do they think they can take over the entire sport in this country at the same time? The World Sevens was an important development tool for the international game, you only have to look at the nations that it kick-started, and the NRL clubs ruined it. It's a case in point. Let them run the NRL by all means but keep them away from non-NRL football.

The Warriors have every right to have a say on the NRL. But they cannot possibly share in the ownership of RL right across Australia. That would be a farce. A New Zealand club would have more power over Australian RL than the QRL or NSWRL under this proposal.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Um... what? You have eight commissioners and presumably a chairman with a deciding vote on the board... but then they are all non-voting on policy proposals??? And the actual decision making reverts back to the clubs and RLs???!?! Do you understand the concept of an independent commission? Do you even understand the concept of corporate board structure?

The way it works is that once the commissioners are nominated and accepted by the clubs and RLs, they don't represent the vested interests of those who nominated them. They think only about the game as a whole. They are the only ones to have a vote on policy proposals. No club or RL gets a direct or indirect vote. Sure, if things get out of hand the clubs and/or RLs can vote out a commissioner mid-term through an 18/20 vote, but that's most likely never going to happen.

There is a lot of ignorance in this debate.

The problem is, these commissioners are being elected by the clubs. They can say they are independent from that point onwards as much as they like, but the fact remains they will only keep their job if the clubs let them. If they don't serve the existing clubs' interests they'll be out the door. And you suggest the RLs can vote out a commissioner. Well the proposal says they don't have a vote at all and in fact the ARL will cease to exist at all. So not only are they taking the power they are ensuring the ARL can't take it back. Plus, this "acting in the best interests of the game" doesn't stack up because what an NRL CEO reckons is in the best interests of the game will often differ from what someone else will think. But it's the clubs who vote for these commissioners so we know which master they will serve.

 

[Dogs Of War]

No one is suggesting the NRL clubs shouldn't run the NRL. But why do they think they can take over the entire sport in this country at the same time? The World Sevens was an important development tool for the international game, you only have to look at the nations that it kick-started, and the NRL clubs ruined it. It's a case in point. Let them run the NRL by all means but keep them away from non-NRL football.

The clubs didn't ruin the World Sevens. Super League and the resulting discontent ruined it. If it was brought back now, I am sure it would be embraced. Just at the time Colin Love I am sure wasn't prepared to put his money into something which could very easily go pear shaped.

 

[m0nty]

No one is suggesting the NRL clubs shouldn't run the NRL. But why do they think they can take over the entire sport in this country at the same time? The World Sevens was an important development tool for the international game, you only have to look at the nations that it kick-started, and the NRL clubs ruined it. It's a case in point. Let them run the NRL by all means but keep them away from non-NRL football.

The Warriors have every right to have a say on the NRL. But they cannot possibly share in the ownership of RL right across Australia. That would be a farce. A New Zealand club would have more power over Australian RL than the QRL or NSWRL under this proposal.

The Sevens was ruined by Nine as well as the clubs, don't forget. Plus the crowds weren't there. Leaving the RLIF to resurrect the Sevens as a non-NRL event featuring countries, not teams, seems like a better idea to me, and perhaps it will happen if Colin Love gets shut out of the new commission.

On the Warriors, by the same token, why should Australian clubs own 100% of rugby league in New Zealand? Are you going to give 100% of the revenue from NZ broadcast rights straight to the Warriors? Fair suck of the lamb shank, as they would say.

The problem is, these commissioners are being elected by the clubs. They can say they are independent from that point onwards as much as they like, but the fact remains they will only keep their job if the clubs let them. If they don't serve the existing clubs' interests they'll be out the door. And you suggest the RLs can vote out a commissioner. Well the proposal says they don't have a vote at all and in fact the ARL will cease to exist at all. So not only are they taking the power they are ensuring the ARL can't take it back. Plus, this "acting in the best interests of the game" doesn't stack up because what an NRL CEO reckons is in the best interests of the game will often differ from what someone else will think. But it's the clubs who vote for these commissioners so we know which master they will serve.

It is not currently clear whether the RLs will be disbanded. After all, the WAFL and SANFL are still going great guns in the AFL system, so it's not as if there's an ideological need for it per se.

In practice, commissioners are never turfed out by vote. Although this is rugby league, I suppose, so anything ridiculous could happen if the politics get poisonous enough. The theory is that the commissioners, chairperson and CEO all act morally and correctly, according to their duties. The problem is that we can't find nine people in NSW and Queensland who aren't corrupt. :sarcasm:

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It was well after SL. It came back for two years and was scrapped again because clubs, like the Bulldogs as it happens, refused to let their best players play, both for them and for international teams. Love even pointed to this factor when the Sevens were dropped. More power to clubs has a very serious risk of resulting in more decisions like this when the interests of the international game conflicts with the interests of NRL clubs.

 

[Dogs Of War]

It was well after SL. It came back for two years and was scrapped again because clubs, like the Bulldogs as it happens, refused to let their best players play, both for them and for international teams. Love even pointed to this factor when the Sevens were dropped. More power to clubs has a very serious risk of resulting in more decisions like this when the interests of the international game conflicts with the interests of NRL clubs.

It was a better comp when it was international teams, like the World 9's Super comp showed. The fact is that you can have 20 teams this way, even allowing for some special teams like a Maori and Aboriginal invitational teams to appear.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The Sevens was ruined by Nine as well as the clubs, don't forget. Plus the crowds weren't there. Leaving the RLIF to resurrect the Sevens as a non-NRL event featuring countries, not teams, seems like a better idea to me, and perhaps it will happen if Colin Love gets shut out of the new commission.

On the Warriors, by the same token, why should Australian clubs own 100% of rugby league in New Zealand? Are you going to give 100% of the revenue from NZ broadcast rights straight to the Warriors? Fair suck of the lamb shank, as they would say.




It is not currently clear whether the RLs will be disbanded. After all, the WAFL and SANFL are still going great guns in the AFL system, so it's not as if there's an ideological need for it per se.

In practice, commissioners are never turfed out by vote. Although this is rugby league, I suppose, so anything ridiculous could happen if the politics get poisonous enough. The theory is that the commissioners, chairperson and CEO all act morally and correctly, according to their duties. The problem is that we can't find nine people in NSW and Queensland who aren't corrupt. :sarcasm:

One of the reasons the crowds dropped at the Sevens was precisely because the best players weren't all on show because their clubs wouldn't let them play. I can't see the RLIF resurrecting the Sevens if the NRL clubs not only take control of the domestic game but also takes our seats at the RLIF.

Australian clubs don't own ANY of New Zealand Rugby League. I don't know what you mean there. The NZRL is completely independent of the NRL, the ARL, the Warriors or any other organisation. NZ companies pay the NRL for their media rights but that has nothing to do with the NZRL because it's not their product.

The proposal is that the ARL will disappear while the other RLs will have to be subservient to the commission, on which they have no say. The other RLs, especially the affiliated states rely on the ARL as the top of the structure but the clubs want to chop the head of that structure and place itself there instead, except that even the QRL and NSWRL get to vote to elect the ARL, they won't elect the commission.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It was a better comp when it was international teams, like the World 9's Super comp showed. The fact is that you can have 20 teams this way, even allowing for some special teams like a Maori and Aboriginal invitational teams to appear.

I agree. It'd be great to see it back in one form or another. But the clubs would probably kick up a stink if the ARL or RLIF tried to bring it back just like they did when it was last held. Imagine how likely it would be then if there was no ARL and the clubs controlled the commission.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I agree. It'd be great to see it back in one form or another. But the clubs would probably kick up a stink if the ARL or RLIF tried to bring it back just like they did when it was last held. Imagine how likely it would be then if there was no ARL and the clubs controlled the commission.

Has to be better than the current situation of having club CEO's on the NRL board.

The idea of the Independant Commision is that they can make decisions in the best interests of the game, without beign controlled by the clubs (just elected by them, you obviously think it will be another case of jobs for the boys). Given that most of us aren't privy to all the fine print, it's very hard to argue whether the IC has the right format or not. But I do believe it will.

 

[Bluebags1908]

Um... what? You have eight commissioners and presumably a chairman with a deciding vote on the board... but then they are all non-voting on policy proposals??? And the actual decision making reverts back to the clubs and RLs???!?! Do you understand the concept of an independent commission? Do you even understand the concept of corporate board structure?

The way it works is that once the commissioners are nominated and accepted by the clubs and RLs, they don't represent the vested interests of those who nominated them. They think only about the game as a whole. They are the only ones to have a vote on policy proposals. No club or RL gets a direct or indirect vote. Sure, if things get out of hand the clubs and/or RLs can vote out a commissioner mid-term through an 18/20 vote, but that's most likely never going to happen.

There is a lot of ignorance in this debate.

What I am referring to here is the power to change the consititution. Yes the 8 Commissioners (once voted in) have the power. But the change of the constitution is what I am referring to when I talk about 18 votes from 20 required in passing a motion.

 

[Bluebags1908]

I agree. It'd be great to see it back in one form or another. But the clubs would probably kick up a stink if the ARL or RLIF tried to bring it back just like they did when it was last held. Imagine how likely it would be then if there was no ARL and the clubs controlled the commission.

The sevens should be back with international teams only. No clubs. So that means Australia will be playing Morocco, Jamaica, Serbia, and Ireland at the sevens. Wigan, Leeds, etc would not play at the 7's either it would be the England national side. We could easily get 30 national teams to play at the sevens. As it stands there are 21 countries with domestic comps and about 15 others that have some activity. Sure, Australia would flog many countries at sevens, but the shorter form of the game is a leveller and minnow countries could get fired up and give the big boys a go in a sevens game that only lasts 14 minutes.

They could even have a quota of one player per club for the Australia sevens team as you only need a squad of 12.

 

[m0nty]

Australian clubs don't own ANY of New Zealand Rugby League. I don't know what you mean there. The NZRL is completely independent of the NRL, the ARL, the Warriors or any other organisation. NZ companies pay the NRL for their media rights but that has nothing to do with the NZRL because it's not their product.

Right, so you want to exclude the Warriors from having equity in the NRL-replacement body. Do the Australian clubs take 100% of the NZ media rights money for themselves? The NRL is taking money out of the NZ market. Where do the Warriors get their funding from, if not equity in the new non-profit body that runs the league? Do they continue to get grants despite not actually being a full partner in the league?

The proposal is that the ARL will disappear while the other RLs will have to be subservient to the commission, on which they have no say. The other RLs, especially the affiliated states rely on the ARL as the top of the structure but the clubs want to chop the head of that structure and place itself there instead, except that even the QRL and NSWRL get to vote to elect the ARL, they won't elect the commission.

The VFL, WAFL and SANFL do alright for themselves within the AFL structure due to getting money directly from AFL clubs in their states, which they then pour back into their local player development via grassroots clubs. The QRL and NSWRL have a similar powerbase and revenue stream in Origin which, despite many protestations, is not going to be sidelined in league the way it was in Australian football. They will retain a lot of clout, never mind about that.

 

[The Observer]

The Sevens was ruined by Nine as well as the clubs, don't forget. Plus the crowds weren't there.

The crowds at the last event were 25,000 each day in a 42,000 seat SFS, which is respectable. Sydney's support for representative games generally isn't as strong as other cities because there are so many NRL games held here and fans are overloaded. The fact that the tournament was held pre-season meant that it was always at risk from the clubs fearing pre-season injuries. The same fate awaits the All Stars game, and Craig Bellamy is already concerned at the prospect of injuries to his Storm contingent.

Leaving the RLIF to resurrect the Sevens as a non-NRL event featuring countries, not teams, seems like a better idea to me, and perhaps it will happen if Colin Love gets shut out of the new commission.

IMO a southern hemisphere World Sevens featuring nations, and replacing the clubs with City, Country, QLD and an Indigenous team, would work better than the club event. It could be staged on a bye weekend before/after ANZAC Day which should allow the Aus-NZ test to be held on ANZAC Day.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Right, so you want to exclude the Warriors from having equity in the NRL-replacement body. Do the Australian clubs take 100% of the NZ media rights money for themselves? The NRL is taking money out of the NZ market. Where do the Warriors get their funding from, if not equity in the new non-profit body that runs the league? Do they continue to get grants despite not actually being a full partner in the league?

When did I say any of that? The Warriors have every right to vote on an NRL commission with a 1/16 stake, but there is no way they can have a say in the running of Australian RL, just as no Australian clubs can tell the NZRL what to do. The Warriors get their money from the same place the Aussie clubs do, the NRL, and that will continue. If the Warriors feel they are not getting as much money from the NRL for the dollars NZ media brings in they should take it up with the NRL, not the ARL.

The VFL, WAFL and SANFL do alright for themselves within the AFL structure due to getting money directly from AFL clubs in their states, which they then pour back into their local player development via grassroots clubs. The QRL and NSWRL have a similar powerbase and revenue stream in Origin which, despite many protestations, is not going to be sidelined in league the way it was in Australian football. They will retain a lot of clout, never mind about that. They will retain no clout if the NRL clubs alone vote for the commission. The NSWRL and QRL will be totally subservient to the commission. They will have to hope the commission does the right thing by them because they will have no vote and no say themselves.

 

[Loudstrat]

To be brutally honest, Sevens should be the last thing on anyone's mind at the moment. The NRL is the core of the game and it has been bleeding for many years. I think the majority of fans would trade Sevens for a surety of no club closures or forced relocations, plus Adelaide and Perth brought online. If that's the trade-off that has to be made, an independent commission will make it for the overall good of the game.

Who says that trade off has to be made?

It was a better comp when it was international teams, like the World 9's Super comp showed. The fact is that you can have 20 teams this way, even allowing for some special teams like a Maori and Aboriginal invitational teams to appear.

Crap. Who remembers the World 9's?

Right, so you want to exclude the Warriors from having equity in the NRL-replacement body. Do the Australian clubs take 100% of the NZ media rights money for themselves? The NRL is taking money out of the NZ market. Where do the Warriors get their funding from, if not equity in the new non-profit body that runs the league? Do they continue to get grants despite not actually being a full partner in the league?

The Warriors play clubs from which country again?

 

[skeepe]

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".

You f**king arrogant wanker.

Who the f**k are you to say whether I care about grass roots league or not. And you're judging it by posts on a forum?

I have no interest in debating this any further with you due to your sheer arrogance and single-mindedness that you are right and anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot. You are not trying to debate any issues, you're trying to ram them down everybody's throats from up there on your high horse.

As long as you continue with your arrogant, holier-than-thou tone, I have nothing to say to you on this issue.