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

[East Coast Tiger]

So you don't support this propsal after all. That's what you're now saying.

Not that your proposal is much more acceptable because it shows a complete lack of understanding of how grassroots football works, and would have to continue to work under whatever structure is in place.

This myth that there are too many governing bodies needs to be done away with once and for all. Every single sport in the world has local, district, regional and provincial authorities that fall under national bodies. It's the same in union, soccer, AFL, hockey, cricket and any other sport you can name. RL is no different and there's a reason for that. It's the best way to serve every level of the game from localised low level competition and development right up to elite level international competition. The people who cling onto this simplistic "there's too many RLs" nonsense are people who just don't understand the way the structure works. None of these organisations are in competition with each other, in fact they generally co-operate. So the idea that they are thwarting the game with in-fighting etc is rubbish. The claim that there is duplication and it's a waste of resources also doesn't stack up. You could do away with the CRL or QRL but you'd still have to employ just as many people to properly serve the interests of the entire game from the very bottom up, especially from a headquarters that is now remote from many of the areas it is supposed to serve. Every district or region would have to have their say and one national body just means they'd have to travel, on average, much further to do so.

 

[m0nty]

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.

Horse hockey. Would the IC own Newtown Jets and the myriad other city clubs? Would the IC own any of the RARA clubs? Would the IC own schoolboys competitions? There is a significant grassroots segment of rugby league which the ARL itself doesn't own. It may pump money into parts of it, but it doesn't own it. And the IC wouldn't cut off funding from these bodies, because it would be acting in the best interests of rugby league, which is served by keeping the grassroots strong.

While the funding itself is safe, it may be tied more directly to individual NRL clubs by aligning more lower grade teams overtly to top-level clubs, as happens in the AFL. But there's a lot of that that goes on already AFAIK. And it's hardly something to derail the whole IC concept.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The clubs would own Australian Rugby League. It's as simple as that. Currently the ARL owns half of the NRL and News owns the other half. The rest of the game belongs to the stakeholders, those who make up the NSWRL, QRL, CRL and any number of other organisations. All rugby league in this country is sanctioned under the ARL. This proposal by the NRL clubs is that they will not only own 100% of the NRL but they would also control the rest of the sport in the absence of the traditional governing body of the sport, the ARL. That is the proposal. It means privately owned clubs, and therefore their owners, will own more of the game than the NSWRL or the QRL. It will mean a foreign club will own more of the game than the NSWRL or the QRL. The reason there is a conflict of interest is because the "best interests of rugby league" and the best interests of NRL clubs are not one and the same. This gaurantee that funding to other parts of the game (not that funding is the only issue) is assured isn't worth the paper it's written on (or is that not written on because there are no details as to how it will work). The only gauarntee is that the whole game will be given to 16 clubs, some of which are privately owned, one of which is not from Australia, and there may be no way of ever ensuring the traditional stakeholders of the game will ever get it back again if and when it fails to serve the game in the way this special interest group of 16 clubs claims it will.

 

[Quidgybo]

So you don't support this propsal after all. That's what you're now saying.

No, I've outlined what I want out of the new structure and the current proposal meets many (but not all) of those aims, as would other proposals to varying extents. At no stage have I ever said I back the current proposal to the exclusion of all others. That seems to be just something you've assumed based on the fact that you were too stupid to pause and ask before jumping in head first in a fundamentalist crusade against the ignorant heathens who don't care about the game.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So why spend thousands of words defending a proposal when you don't support it.

Your utter ignorance of how grassroots football works was plain to see from the start when you claimed the ARL did little for grassroots football even though it operates the single biggest grassroots development organisation in the country. Why would I care what your proposal for grassroots football is when faced with that kind of lack of understanding. And now having seen it I know I was right not to think much of your opinion on the matter. It only displays even more ignorance of how grassroots football works. I have never said people don't care about the game, I've said they don't care or don't know. I'd say you fall into the second category, people who simply don't know much about the game outside the NRL because a complete lack of connection to it.

 

[Quidgybo]

Oh so you're back to "I care more for the game, therefore I'm right" or at least some variation that asserts because you are who you say you are, you're right.

Arguing against your logical fallacies (such as a Commission appointed by clubs that need the grassroots to survive would let the grassroots die) or pointing out what the proposal actually contains in the face misrepresentation or a claim that it can't be the real thing does not equal unqualified support for the proposal. Your problem is you can't stand back and examine the situation or other peoples positions in all their varied colour, or even in shades of gray. It's all black and white to you - if I don't agree with your assessment of a point, I must support the proposal totally and without reservation.

Leigh

 

[m0nty]

The clubs would own Australian Rugby League. It's as simple as that. Currently the ARL owns half of the NRL and News owns the other half. The rest of the game belongs to the stakeholders, those who make up the NSWRL, QRL, CRL and any number of other organisations. All rugby league in this country is sanctioned under the ARL. This proposal by the NRL clubs is that they will not only own 100% of the NRL but they would also control the rest of the sport in the absence of the traditional governing body of the sport, the ARL. That is the proposal. It means privately owned clubs, and therefore their owners, will own more of the game than the NSWRL or the QRL. It will mean a foreign club will own more of the game than the NSWRL or the QRL. The reason there is a conflict of interest is because the "best interests of rugby league" and the best interests of NRL clubs are not one and the same. This gaurantee that funding to other parts of the game (not that funding is the only issue) is assured isn't worth the paper it's written on (or is that not written on because there are no details as to how it will work). The only gauarntee is that the whole game will be given to 16 clubs, some of which are privately owned, one of which is not from Australia, and there may be no way of ever ensuring the traditional stakeholders of the game will ever get it back again if and when it fails to serve the game in the way this special interest group of 16 clubs claims it will.

You keep on saying the IC will "control the sport". This is not true. The RLIF will continue to have control over the rules of the game. The grassroots clubs will not be taken over, they will stay independent. State of Origin will still be controlled by the NSWRL and QRL. Schoolboys comps will continue to be run by schools. The IC will not own the World Cup, or the Four Nations, or whatever the Sevens/Nines becomes, or 100% of the World Club Challenge.

Who is the ARL, anyway? Love and Ribot? If that's the best they can offer then good riddance to them and their entire level of management. They are holding back the sport.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Oh so you're back to "I care more for the game, therefore I'm right" or at least some variation that asserts because you are who you say you are, you're right.

Arguing against your logical fallacies (such as a Commission appointed by clubs that need the grassroots to survive would let the grassroots die) or pointing out what the proposal actually contains in the face misrepresentation or a claim that it can't be the real thing does not equal unqualified support for the proposal. Your problem is you can't stand back and examine the situation or other peoples positions in all their varied colour, or even in shades of gray. It's all black and white to you - if I don't agree with your assessment of a point, I must support the proposal totally and without reservation.

Leigh

I never said the commission would let grassroots football die. Find where I did. But the proposal removes the power of independent governing bodies and gives it to elite level clubs. That has to be a major concern, especially considering these very same clubs are presently just as reliant on the survival of grassroots football and have the capabilities to support it but are completely negligent in that role and have been for years. Meanwhile the current bodies that DO support grassroots football are to be either scrapped or made impotent by a commission run by those clubs, one of whom is not even Australian.

The thing is actually thought about this proposal BEFORE I started arguing its merits. I didn't swallow the lot and then come back days later and pretend I actually had an alternative all along, one based on years of deep thought, but kept quiet and argued for the proposal instead. Not that this alternative of yours makes any sense anyway. If you don't support this proposal, if you don't think it's the best thing for rugby league, then you can't possibly support it. The issues might have shades of grey but that fact is black and white. If this proposal is not the best thing for the game then it must be opposed. There can be no 1997-style compromises. That would only mean the future of the game is compromised. You cannot argue in favour of this proposal if you don't think it's right. That was my attitude from the start and I've stuck to it. There are facets of the proposal that I do support and will be advantageous, but that's not good enough. It must be the best thing for the game without contradiction and it is not.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You keep on saying the IC will "control the sport". This is not true. The RLIF will continue to have control over the rules of the game. The grassroots clubs will not be taken over, they will stay independent. State of Origin will still be controlled by the NSWRL and QRL. Schoolboys comps will continue to be run by schools. The IC will not own the World Cup, or the Four Nations, or whatever the Sevens/Nines becomes, or 100% of the World Club Challenge.

Who is the ARL, anyway? Love and Ribot? If that's the best they can offer then good riddance to them and their entire level of management. They are holding back the sport.

Oh dear. The RLIF have little control of the rules as is. The NRL and RFL and even some other bodies are free to alter rules as and when they choose, and they do so. So that line or argument is moot. Of course grassroot clubs will be independent, why wouldn't they be, but they will not longer be part of a structure in which they ultimately have a say and will be reliant on self-serving clubs seeting an agenda that includes serving the needs of the grassroots. That cannot be gauranteed, whatever Searle says, once the ownership and power is completely handed to the NRL clubs. State of Origin will also be at the mercy of the clubs and their agenda, because while the other RLs may still run their state sides they have no power over decisions affecting the series. Internationals involving Australia will also be the same, except that there won't even be an ARL to pick the team and organise games or tours, that will fall to the club-based commission. Remember one of these clubs in not even Australiam. Even at RLIF level there will be no indepedent Australian body represented, we will be represented by club interests - a complete conflict of ineterets. Schoolboy comps are rarely run by schools. The Arrive Alive Cup is run by the NSWRL for example, but you clearly have no idea anout this aspect of the game either.

And the fact that you don't understand the structure of the game below the ARL board pretty much sums it up for me. FFS, if you're going to argue such a complex matter know what you're talking about. The ARL structure is far, far more independent than this commission will be because it represents all of the stakeholders in the game from the grassroots up while the commission will represent only the 16 clubs.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/arl-should-listen-to-abbott-20100123-mrk4.html

ARL should listen to Abbott
PHIL GOULD
January 24, 2010

Please read the open letter to ARL chairman Colin Love, penned by former top ARL official Mr Bob Abbott AM.

Reading this, you can sense his obvious passion for the game. More importantly, his words demonstrate the wisdom of his experience.

His calm, common-sense acceptance of the winds of change and his plea for former colleagues at the ARL to do the same are an example for others to follow.

No agendas; nothing for personal gain; Abbott simply expresses the feelings of many in rugby league when he asks for the ARL to move with the times.

This letter is typical of the mountain of correspondence I've received over the past 18 months regarding moves towards an independent commission to take rugby league into the future. Passionate people wanting a better future for the game they love.

Everyone wants the independent commission to happen; and to happen now. Unfortunately, self-interest and thirst for power have again reared their ugly heads.

ARL leaders have gone to ground this week hoping the results from last Monday's meeting of the 16 NRL clubs simply blow away and they can somehow seize control of negotiations with News Ltd to get themselves a better deal.

Comments delivered by QRL CEO Ross Livermore this week defied belief. Firstly he claimed his organisation was not an obstacle to the new management structure; then in the next breath he explained why the QRL and ARL were against the composition of the commission.

Everyone can see the QRL is on a power trip here. Securing the services of former Super League boss John Ribot to sit on the QRL Board and drive their initiatives has not helped their cause in the eyes of rugby league people either. Ribot's ambitions to be chairman of the QRL and his push for the ARL/QRL to appoint four members to the eight-man commission is an obvious attempt to again secure a foothold in the corridors of power. He had chance and blew it.

The game needs to send the ARL/QRL and John Ribot the strongest possible message that they will not compromise on the what is best for rugby league in this country.

READ THE PLAYThe champion players and the wonderful leaders who have graced the field throughout the history of our great game have all had one special quality that set them apart; the ability to read the game.

It's time our off-field officials learned to do the same.

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN

ARL officials need to read the landscape and immediately cease their resistance to much-needed change.

Honestly, this childlike assertion by the ARL and QRL that they must retain ownership of the game is a huge waste of everyone's time and energy. Any continuation of this self-indulgent behaviour can only be seen as damaging to the code.

News has shown common sense and great goodwill in their acceptance of the inevitable. The ARL now needs to do the same.

ARL Chairman Colin Love needs to show some leadership and deliver what everyone in the game knows is right.

Our game should not be subjected to another drawn out battle over control of the game.

The Super League war was tremendously damaging to the sport. Our game has also been put through the wringer in recent years with negative publicity on a number of issues.

Our fans and the business community simply won't tolerate another senseless power struggle between the old world management ways of the ARL and the truly independent governing body rugby league needs and so richly deserves.

The NRL clubs have spoken with their unanimous support this week for the formation of a new independent commission to govern our game. Their united stance at Monday's historic meeting was the most positive move I've seen in this sport for 15 years.

Their demand for the new commission to be formed and in place prior to kick off 2010 makes perfect sense.

I was particularly buoyed by their insistence that the commission should be ''truly independent'' from day one, eliminating the chances of any annoying settling in period where the new body would be hand-cuffed by past loyalties.

The fans are very much in favour of change. Lord knows they've been through enough. They need to see some positive leadership.

In fact, everyone with a genuine love of rugby league and a desire to see our game succeed sees the logic behind this advancement and has thrown their support behind the initiatives proposed.

There is life for the ARL under an independent commission.

It's not as though the ARL and the various affiliate leagues will cease to exist under the new model.

The ARL, NSWRL, QRL and CRL will all still operate in the same capacities and with the same responsibilities they have today.

These various leagues will always remain an integral part of rugby league. They provide the development pathways for hopeful kids to emerge from junior football and country areas and make it to higher honours.

Under the management structure these various league will be more than adequately funded by the new commission providing employment and security for many people; plus acting as the all-important support system for the thousands of volunteers who keep rugby league going at the grassroots level.

It's just that everything survives on the success and financial viability of the major national competition; and it's in this area where the management of our game has been severely restricted.

Quite simply, the ARL as a governing body has not shown anywhere near the necessary capabilities to administer our major competition or to maximise revenue.

TIME FOR PEACE

Come on - give it up. We don't need another fight here. If you genuinely love the game you will do what's right.

Lay down the guns; accept the wishes of the clubs and let's get on with making this the best football code in the country.

 

[Loudstrat]

You keep on saying the IC will "control the sport". This is not true. The RLIF will continue to have control over the rules of the game. The grassroots clubs will not be taken over, they will stay independent.

INDEPENDENT? They are very much dependent on whatefver scraps come their way - which is meagre to say the least. But it comes BECAUSE there is a controlling body who ensures that it happens.

Which controlling body will ensure it happens unde an independent commission?

Even Quidgey instsis the ARL must stay simply for that porpose.

Who is the ARL, anyway? Love and Ribot? If that's the best they can offer then good riddance to them and their entire level of management. They are holding back the sport.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, then good riddance to you and your level of intelligence, which is holding back this debate!

Lay down the guns; accept the wishes of the clubs and let's get on with making this the best football code in the country. l

Which clubs? I bet the following clubs DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS PROPOSAL:
Wingham Tigers
Picton Magpies
Toowoomba Clydesdales
Moree Boomerangs
Orara Valley Axemen
Hills District Bulls
And a thousand other clubs who sit helpless while 16 teams with more interest in a TV deal than a bush grandstand decide their fate?

F*ck off Gus. You have turned.

Anyone got a quote from Arthur Beetson on this issue?

 

[m0nty]

I see Gus has made the argument against the smallmindedness of East Coast Tiger and Loudstrat better than any of us could.

 

[bartman]

So Gus seems to be campaigning for his own relevance and the hope that 75% of clubs will nominate him onto their IC... at last his agenda in this is becoming clear.

 

[Loudstrat]

I see Gus has made the argument against the smallmindedness of East Coast Tiger and Loudstrat better than any of us could.

Obviously better than you, seeing you haven't bothered to address my points.

 

[m0nty]

INDEPENDENT? They are very much dependent on whatefver scraps come their way - which is meagre to say the least. But it comes BECAUSE there is a controlling body who ensures that it happens.

Which controlling body will ensure it happens unde an independent commission?

Even Quidgey instsis the ARL must stay simply for that porpose.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, then good riddance to you and your level of intelligence, which is holding back this debate!

It's still not clear whether the ARL itself would be abolished. There's every chance it could be retained under an IC, but the change would be that they don't hold the overall purse strings anymore, just the portion that is allocated to them by the IC to deal with ARL matters.

The non-profit organisation which the IC would head up would have a charter/constitution which would ensure that its officebearers have the responsibility to do what is good for the game as a whole. Is the NSW/Qld political and business scene so corrupt that you don't believe that there's anyone in the two states who could honourably fulfil those duties? You must have a poor opinion of the level of moral fibre of the men and women of the east coast of Australia.

 

[Loudstrat]

`I just cannot understand how the ARL is to control the game if it isn't good enough to be part of the elite comp.

The other thing that really worries me is that Super League's original plan was for News Ltd to run the elite comp, and the ARL to run anything else.

This model, therefore, ushers in Super League's ultimate victory. F*Ck that - if there is one organisation in the sport that has proved to be inept and corrupt, it's News Ltd.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...oycott-kiwi-test/story-e6freye0-1225822902308

Oh dear, it's starting already.

From those saying the commission "will do the best thing for the game" and here they are planning a major blow to the game before they even get their hands on 100% control of the sport. This is indicative of the kind of self interest we'll see when the clubs own the game. The first sign that they won't get their way and they're willing to harm the international game. And News Ltd is willing to give this air as part of its own agenda thinking a threat to the Test will actually help their cause.

 

[_Johnsy]

It seems either Mr Bob Abbott AM, or ECT is lying.

There is life for the ARL under an independent commission. It's not as though the ARL and the various affiliate leagues will cease to exist under the new model. The ARL, NSWRL, QRL and CRL will all still operate in the same capacities and with the same responsibilities they have today.

These various leagues will always remain an integral part of rugby league. They provide the development pathways for hopeful kids to emerge from junior football and country areas and make it to higher honours.

Under the management structure these various league will be more than adequately funded by the new commission providing employment and security for many people; plus acting as the all-important support system for the thousands of volunteers who keep rugby league going at the grassroots level.

I asked a question earlier of ECT and it was not answered, so I'll ask it again.

ECT, are you in the employment of the ARL, NSWRL in any capacity ?

 

[_Johnsy]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...oycott-kiwi-test/story-e6freye0-1225822902308

Oh dear, it's starting already.

From those saying the commission "will do the best thing for the game" and here they are planning a major blow to the game before they even get their hands on 100% control of the sport. This is indicative of the kind of self interest we'll see when the clubs own the game. The first sign that they won't get their way and they're willing to harm the international game. And News Ltd is willing to give this air as part of its own agenda thinking a threat to the Test will actually help their cause.

ARL chief executive Geoff Carr confirmed he had heard rumours of clubs wanting to boycott the event and said it had been discussed last week at a marketing planning meeting for the Test. A number of club CEOs spoke privately after last Monday's get-together at the Sheraton on the Park about tactics to put pressure on the ARL to give up their half-share of the NRL for the independent commission.

"Boycotting the Test match is a definite option," said one chief executive, who asked not to be identified.

So we have a "rumour" and an alleged quote from an unnamed Club CEO. This is the telecrap remember.

Well no it's not "they" as you state. Here are your words

"they are planning a major blow to the game before they even get their hands on 100% control of the sport."

Who exactly, more scaremongering from a person who has obviously has a vested interest, that is clear.

"This is indicative of the kind of self interest we'll see when the clubs own the game. "

How is it so, from a rumour and again, a unnamed CEO. More opinion from you I see. I hope you are applying the same self interest "test" to the QRL.

Nothing you have stated in this thread is fact, it is all opinion, and clearly biased at that. I'd happily take Mr Bob ABOTT's view over yours

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I said ages back in the thread that I have no affiliation with any RL organisation. In fact I've never had any affiliation with any RL organisation at all. There are people on here who know me and know that to be the case. So I have absolutely no agenda other than wanting the best for rugby league, especially grassroots and international RL. The likes of News Ltd, Gus Gould and the NRL club bosses can't say the same.