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

[East Coast Tiger]

You could have just said you've got nothing.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Go skeepe go!! Funny thing is I actually agree with you too.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Anyone got an answer to the Warriors question yet?




Thought not.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Anyone got an answer to the Warriors question yet?




Thought not.

You do realise they dont have a say in what the commision does?

They have a vote on who will be a commissioner, its like you voting in an election. You vote for they person you would like to get in but you have no say in what he does when he is at parliment.

I thought you cared about international football what would you like to happen to the warriors?

The warriors provide our competition with something like 10-12m dollars p.a. in tv revenue some of which would be spent on grassroots and the international game.

The ic is to be set-up as a not for profit organisation, the clubs wont get all the money they will get a larger grant though to cover the salary cap increases and maybe a more.

As it stands now the clubs only get 56m from the current agreements where do u think the rest goes?
So that roughly takes care of the money from fox that still leave 40m from 9, 12m from telstra plus other revenue streams there are to be spent on other parts of the game.

The elite level brings in over 90% of the revenue but only take around 50% maybe you should be asking where this money goes and why doesnt it filter down to the grassroots better?

Could it be that the enities setup to control our game at the moment are ripping of the grassroots? The ARL, CRL, NSWRL, QRL have alot to answer for

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

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?

Yes it is, News are there to make money, we all agree on this. The ARL is meant to look after league in Australia which they have failed to do.

Who knows what would have happened, did they try to block it?

My guess is what would have happened in 99% of negotiations, you decline the offer the other party either offers more or says take it or leave it but we are in the position of owning a product they need so they wouldnt walk away would they?

Our product is worth lot of money to them

 

[siv]

Yes it is, News are there to make money, we all agree on this. The ARL is meant to look after league in Australia which they have failed to do.

Who knows what would have happened, did they try to block it?

My guess is what would have happened in 99% of negotiations, you decline the offer the other party either offers more or says take it or leave it but we are in the position of owning a product they need so they wouldnt walk away would they?

Our product is worth lot of money to them

The issue here is no "who" is on a ARL or ARLC board - but what is the best structure for RL in Australia ging forward

A lot of people are getting hung up with the "who" factor

While you may not be happy with "who" has done/not done what in the existing ARL ranks - it is a structure that has servered RL in Australia relativey well but failed when the likes of News Ltd came along.

Thus a structural adjustment is needed to accomodiate the corparate needs of the modern era

100% ownership by the clubs is not the correct structure, and there are too many examples of this conflict of interests with RL in Australia verses the interests of the club

 

[Perth Red]

I think the clubs vote for no expansion gives an indication of where they see any extra $'s flowing into the game should go. The biggest fear it seems is how "independent" will the commision be. Will they make decisions for the good of "the game" even of it is detrimental to the NRL clubs? It's rare to see Turkeys voting FOR Christmas.

I agree the "who" is somewhat irrelevant at this stage as long as we get the right corproate governance structure in place with some safeguards that everyone can live with. The who will change regularly anyway.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

the people on the board are the board, if the people were not doing the job of looking after the game they should have been replaced or not re-elected.

But you are right the system is flawed, the clubs dont own the game they just vote the members of the commision in. Then the commission runs the game.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

I think the clubs vote for no expansion gives an indication of where they see any extra $'s flowing into the game should go. The biggest fear it seems is how "independent" will the commision be. Will they make decisions for the good of "the game" even of it is detrimental to the NRL clubs? It's rare to see Turkeys voting FOR Christmas.

I agree the "who" is somewhat irrelevant at this stage as long as we get the right corproate governance structure in place with some safeguards that everyone can live with. The who will change regularly anyway.

Think that was more the clubs following the company line, trying to seem as one so that they can get the commission over the line. No one thought they would agree to the melbourne package either but they did

 

[Quidgybo]

You could have just said you've got nothing.

This from a guy who's fallback position can basically be summarised as "I care more for the game, therefore I'm right." Hard to argue with the logic of that.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Anyone got an answer to the Warriors question yet?

Thought not.

Well while you're waiting how about you try to answer the basic logical proposition I raised several pages ago - because the clubs need the grassroots for their own survival (as you've stated), letting the grassroots die is not an option for the clubs, therefore the clubs will ensure the grassroots are funded.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

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

If you are under any delusion that News Ltd are here for anyone else's interests but their own, it's time to sit up and smell the roses. It's precisely because of that self interest that we all want them out of the game. But why are the ARL here if not to look out for the best interests of Rugby League? And if it can be shown to have failed in that duty, why should we support its continued existence? Don't confuse criticism of the ARL's failure to serve its purpose with support for News Ltd's role within the game. They are by no means the same thing. There is no conflict in both thinking that News Ltd is evil incarnate, and thinking that not only has the ARL failed to stand up and protect the game when we needed it most but also that the ARL is no longer the best vehicle for leading the game forward.

Leigh.

 

[Big-Steve]

You do realise they don't have a say in what the commission does?

They have a vote on who will be a commissioner, its like you voting in an election. You vote for they person you would like to get in but you have no say in what he does when he is at parliament.

I disagree with your summation.

Everybody that has a vote in this country has a right to ask questions of their local members and under legislation are entitled to a reply because they have a vote. And of course they have the ultimate power of the vote. You seem to imply that there is no such power in the vote that politicians can do whatever they want and that somehow the fact that they can be voted out will have no effect on what they do.

Let's stay with the political analogy for the moment. If we changed the Australian constitution so that the 3 most populous states (NSW, QLD and VIC) are the only populations that are allowed to vote in a parliament that will run the whole of Australia would you be in favour of that?

Can I humbly suggest that you would not, that nobody would, not even people living in the 3 main states.

 

[bartman]

The ARL didn't fail in its duties to the game before Super League came along (imo), and certainly since the peace deal, their hands have been massively tied by the structures and conditions put in place (by News) from that time forward.

News still controls the game, because it is dictating the terms of this independent commission and its looming withdrawal from the game. That isn't teh ARL's fault, and (imo) there is no need for the ARL to give up its "share" for the game to move forward. This is just NEws being petty and self interested - yet again. But people (including Gus Gould, for his own agenda) are swallowing the News stance hook, line and sinker...

 

[Loudstrat]

Yes it is, News are there to make money, we all agree on this. The ARL is meant to look after league in Australia which they have failed to do.

Who knows what would have happened, did they try to block it?

My guess is what would have happened in 99% of negotiations, you decline the offer the other party either offers more or says take it or leave it but we are in the position of owning a product they need so they wouldnt walk away would they?

Our product is worth lot of money to them

If you are under any delusion that News Ltd are here for anyone else's interests but their own, it's time to sit up and smell the roses. It's precisely because of that self interest that we all want them out of the game. But why are the ARL here if not to look out for the best interests of Rugby League? And if it can be shown to have failed in that duty, why should we support its continued existence? Don't confuse criticism of the ARL's failure to serve its purpose with support for News Ltd's role within the game. They are by no means the same thing. There is no conflict in both thinking that News Ltd is evil incarnate, and thinking that not only has the ARL failed to stand up and protect the game when we needed it most but also that the ARL is no longer the best vehicle for leading the game forward.

Leigh.

Ok, let me get this straight.

You want to kick out a party which sort of acts in the codes best iunterests, and hand control of the game to a party that does not act in the codes best interests, for the good of the code?

If you two were surgeons, you would but out the body to save the cancer!

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Ok, let me get this straight.

You want to kick out a party which sort of acts in the codes best iunterests, and hand control of the game to a party that does not act in the codes best interests, for the good of the code?

If you two were surgeons, you would but out the body to save the cancer!

The arl have not acted in the best interests of the game since the the game reunited.

I am saying news were always going to look after themselves if they were allowed and the arl board allowed them to take whatever they wanted.

I cant what to see news not have the ownership of our game but also dont want the guys that bent over and took it for the past 12 years have control either

 

[Loudstrat]

Did they have a choice? No.

And News will still have control because they fund 2 clubs!

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The ARL already do control the game. They are the officially recogniaed governing body of RL in Australia. Typically for club-centric people, you're confusing the NRL with the entire sport of rugby league in Australia. News only owns 50% of the NRL, they don't own a single bit of the non-NRL parts of rugby league. This proposal takes the game away from every stakeholder in the sport and hands it all to the 16 NRL clubs, including a foreign club. And people are under the delusion that this is not a massive conflict of interest and a recipe for disaster for the game outside the NRL, mostly people who don't seem to understand that there is a game outside the NRL.

 

[Loudstrat]

Very true.

This basically proves that the IC is a vehicle to take over the code.

When there is something written into the constitution preventing any involvement with News Ltd, we can move forward.

 

[Quidgybo]

Ok, let me get this straight.

You want to kick out a party which sort of acts in the codes best iunterests, and hand control of the game to a party that does not act in the codes best interests, for the good of the code?

Close but not quite. But seeing as you ask, I want to see News Ltd removed from any role in the governance of Rugby League. I want to see the duplicated and wasteful governance structures of the five major RLs in Australia (NRL, ARL, NSWRL, QRL and CRL) consolidated under one or at most two bodies. I want to see a governance structure that recognises the political reality of where the game generates most of its revenue so as to ensure the long term stability of the new arrangements. I want to see a structure that promotes long term strategic planning, and clear and responsive decision making free from the day to day influence of vested interests and board room power struggles. And I want to see a structure that encourages all stake holders to work towards a common goal of maximising the game's financial income and thus its competitive strength at all levels.

Note that at no point have I said the game must be run by a 100% club appointed Commission. I am not wedded to that proposal. While I recognise that many aspects of the proposal go a long way to addressing the points I have outlined above, I do not consider it perfect nor do I rule out that there are other approaches. For example it would still leave us with CEOs and boards of directors for three separate RL bodies in two states beneath the national body. In the age of jet planes and the internet, that's just a wasteful duplication of administration along arbitrary boundaries (state borders). Even if we keep it separate from the NRL and the elite clubs, do we really need more than one full time CEO, one board of directors, one finance department, one media and communications department etc etc to run the grassroots and representative football? Why can't every current QRL, NSWRL, CRL and ARL employee, volunteer and sub-ordinate body move under a single umbrella that eliminates the waste?

I've thought about the potential structure of the game a lot over the last couple of years and over that time my views have shifted several times. The big decision is the split between one body running everything (replacing all five existing RLs) or two bodies - one body to run the elite club competition and one body to run everything else. The choice really hinges on whether we can come up with a governance structure at the top of a single body that would be able to satisfy the demands of the elite clubs to control the money they generate with those of the the rest of the game. If you have a Commission at the top of a single body and the elite clubs are generating over 90% of the revenue then they will demand at the very least majority control which in effect gives them majority control of every part of the game. On the other hand if you have two bodies then the clubs can keep majority control of their part of the game without necessarily having control over anything else.

So while again stating that there is more than one way to skin a cat, one possible structure is two RLs - an NRL controlled by the clubs to run the elite club competition and a re-constituted ARL to run everything else directly (ie. no state RLs). The NRL Commission would consist of seven commissioners nominated and appointed by the member clubs along the lines proposed (75% majority) and one commissioner appointed by the ARL. The ARL Commission would consist of three Commissioners nominated and appointed by the *Australian* elite clubs (again 75% majority) and five Commissioners nominated and elected by vote of the grassroots membership. No Commissioner could hold any other position within the game while serving on a Commission, or have held another position within the game in the previous year. And no Commissioner could serve on both Commissions at the same time.

The NRL constitution would guarantee that x% of all revenue goes to the ARL and one fifth of x% goes to the NZRL (eg. x could be something like 5% or 10% or whatever initial value equated to current funding levels). The value of x could not be reduced below the prescribed level without the agreement of the ARL and such agreement would need to be renewed every five years. The NRL Commission would maintain control of the allocation of all remaining revenue. The constitution would also compel all member clubs to release each player to a maximum of eight ARL or NZRL sanctioned representative games per calendar year. The constitution could not be altered (eg. to permanently remove the funding to the ARL, change voting requirements or representative guarantees) without agreement of 100% of clubs minus 2, the ARL and the NZRL. The reconstituted ARL and the NZRL would remain the international representatives of their countries. They could contract with the NRL to run representative games but the profits from such games would remain with the respective authorities as would television and sponsorship rights.

Leigh.