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

[_Johnsy]

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.

Cheers mate.

I think you could say the same for QRL. NSWRL & ARL. Each have a vested interest. That is why the Independent in IC is so important.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The ARL will absolutely cease to exist under this proposal. Here it is in black and white. So for all your red type and accusations of self interest you clearly haven't even read what the clubs are proposing. Your quotes don't even come from Bob Abbott, they come from Gus Gould FFS.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2...re-outline.pdf

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

I can smell a sh*t fight a brewin'

 

[Smithtown]

There are no doubts about your passion ECT, and your concerns are obviously genuine.

However there is nothing anywhere to say that a new Commission won't be better for grassroots League. There's obviously a fair bit of either faith or naivety attached to that statement, but it doesn't mean things won't be better or at least the same, and more importantly people will be held more accountable.

I come from about 20 years worth of grassroots experience, and can honestly say that as a client of ARL Development (as every Junior Club is)their recent history has been the poorest I've ever seen in my neck of the woods. On the flip side I've seen ARL Development at it's very best as well - so you can obviously take the good with the bad.

Granted these are performance issues rather than structural issues. And they undoubtedly have some good systems and good programs in place, but they are not the panacea to all Development or its many ills. I think if a new commission is put in place then very little will change with grassroots league or personnel - and that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Loudstrat]

OK, you may be right about the commission, and about the ARL/NSWRL.QRL/CRL setup. These 4 organisations have been festooned with political differences, and the QRL attitude to the other 3 played a massive role in the ideological differences that spawned Super League.

Still, I have seen no outline of any plan by the IC promoters, so how can we throw everything into it lock, stock and barrell with confidence that it will guarantee to be better FOR ALL THE CODE'S STAKEHOLDERS?

We have had 4 models running the code in the l;ast 20 years: The ARL structure with the NSWRL running the elite comp, the ARL structure with the ARL running the elite comp, Super League and the NRL partnership. All have had criticism thrown at them. That doesn't mean that the commission will automatically be better.

Let's see substance. Like ECT, I am looking to see what the IC offers the code outside the NRL first grade teams. So far, it has offered nothing.

 

[m0nty]

LOL, in that same Telegraph story:

When we phoned Hadley to check the story, he would only reply: "Please don't quote me ... they'll think I've given you the story ... ring Gyngell." Which we did.

Rothfield and Wilson have no grasp of the meaning of the words "don't quote me". What a bunch of merkins.

 

[Green Machine]

F*ck off Gus. You have turned.

Well, I never thought I’d see the day,
:lol:

 

[Green Machine]

OK, you may be right about the commission, and about the ARL/NSWRL.QRL/CRL setup. These 4 organisations have been festooned with political differences, and the QRL attitude to the other 3 played a massive role in the ideological differences that spawned Super League.

That’s the biggest lie you’ve told on these forums so far. The QRL had nothing to do with Super League. The Broncos had a lot to Super League, not the QRL,

 

[East Coast Tiger]

There are no doubts about your passion ECT, and your concerns are obviously genuine.

However there is nothing anywhere to say that a new Commission won't be better for grassroots League. There's obviously a fair bit of either faith or naivety attached to that statement, but it doesn't mean things won't be better or at least the same, and more importantly people will be held more accountable.

I come from about 20 years worth of grassroots experience, and can honestly say that as a client of ARL Development (as every Junior Club is)their recent history has been the poorest I've ever seen in my neck of the woods. On the flip side I've seen ARL Development at it's very best as well - so you can obviously take the good with the bad.

Granted these are performance issues rather than structural issues. And they undoubtedly have some good systems and good programs in place, but they are not the panacea to all Development or its many ills. I think if a new commission is put in place then very little will change with grassroots league or personnel - and that's not necessarily a good thing.

I know what you're saying. The ARLD has a few staffing issues, largely due to a lack of funds, and you need a bit of luck to get the right people, which only goes to show how important it is to get them more funding. I don't neccessarily think things like ARL Development programs will change much either, but what about the support the clubs give to these sorts of things? In many areas NRL clubs simply don't do anything for the grassroots game at the moment and when they do it's mandatory efforts like the Community Carnival which they have to be part of, and even then some clubs don't make much of an effort. Trial games also used to be played all over the country during the old Country Carnival, but since the NRL let the clubs organise them themselves the number of trials players in country areas has dropped significantly, especially west of the divide. Basically, the NRL clubs have a terrible recent record when it comes to putting time, effort and money into grassroots football, especially in the bush, and I can't see how giving them power over the whole game will do anything other than diminish this further. Without the NRL forcing them to do the little work they do now, what are we likely to get? Also, I am aware of NRL clubs not paying country clubs money for taking their players in recent times. I have heard that a few clubs have not been forthcoming with the cash they are expected to pay country clubs when they sign one of their players. I believe the CRL are chasing this up with the NRL but, again, what happens when the clubs run the show? They can talk gaurantees all they like but ATEOTD the commissioners will be serving the people who put them on the board, like politicians serving their constituents, and in this case they are the NRL clubs.

 

[Big-Steve]

This argument keeps getting hi jacked with an anti ARL, Ribot, NRL Clubs whatever!

When the QLDRL came out with their 4 votes for ARL and 4 for the Clubs, what was interesting was that NO ONE in the media commented on the structure in comparison to the model from the Clubs, and the NRL Clubs made not comment they simply leaked stories of boycotting while the media continued on with the "stalling' accusations. The reason no comment was made I think, is because there is essentially nothing wrong with their argument.

Where is the public debate for a structure of RL?

2 or 3 pages ago I posted the following comment - nobody commented.

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.

To me the shoe should be on the other foot - Why should the NRL Clubs hold all the votes on a Structure that will run ALL of RL?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Well exactly. The whole debate is one-sided in the media. I can't believe no one at all has publically raised questions like the NZ Warriors contradiction etc, including the ARL and QRL. They need to put their case, even if the media doesn't want to hear their side of the story.

 

[Big-Steve]

Well exactly. The whole debate is one-sided in the media. I can't believe no one at all has publically raised questions like the NZ Warriors contradiction etc, including the ARL and QRL. They need to put their case, even if the media doesn't want to hear their side of the story.

Yep the Auckland issue is a good example of what is wrong with the structure.

I can understand that Warriors want a say in the running of the NRL competition but (and this goes for the other Clubs too) they should not have a say in the running of RL in Australia.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Correct. Some people jumped to the conclusion that I didn't want the Warriors involved in running the NRL when I questioned this earlier. Not true. They have as much right as the other clubs to have a say on the NRL. But clearly a situation where a foreign club could own part of the governing body Australian RL is just ludicrous.

 

[macavity]

To me the shoe should be on the other foot - Why should the NRL Clubs hold all the votes on a Structure that will run ALL of RL?

this!

 

[Quidgybo]

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.

I'm sorry, but in all honesty I can't agree with this position. It's wishful thinking. If the proposal on the table is better than what we currently have and the proposal is the best that can be achieved given the political reality of the factions involved then sure I could support it. Even if it is not everything I want, even if it's not the absolute best proposal for the game. I want more but I'll take less if less is still significantly better than what we have today and more can't be realistically achieved. Any option, no matter how good for the game, that is point blank unacceptable to one of the major factions involved in these negotiations isn't really an option at all. You can state otherwise all day but this simply isn't black and white. Every proposal that has a realistic chance of passing is going to be a shade of gray somewhere between the black of what we have now and the white of an unachievable fantasy.

Not that this alternative of yours makes any sense anyway.

Again it's just black and white from you. You seriously see no merit in anything I outlined? Try taking away the points you seem to find absolutely repugnant - such as the consolidation of the wasteful duplication in the ARL, NSWRL, CRL and QRL oligarchies. So we'll keep all the overhead around, but do you see no merit in guaranteeing the ARL x% of revenue so that the more successful the NRL, the more money the ARL gets? You see no merit in giving the NZRL a guaranteed one fifth of the ARL's take given the NRL draws around one fifth its revenue from NZ? You see no merit in guaranteeing the release of each NRL player for up to 8 ARL or NZRL sanctioned rep matches per year? You see no merit in giving the elite clubs 7 of 8 members on the NRL Commission and the Australian clubs 3 of 8 on the ARL Commission? And you see no merit in protecting these guarantees by ensuring the NRL constitution can't be changed without the agreement of the ARL and NZRL? Is it really this black and white to you?

Leigh

 

[marshall stalin]

i heard news ltd will only give up their 50% stake in the game if funding to the tune of 30 mill is provided to the storm over a 6 year period??

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You seem happy to accept that "political realities" mean that no alternative is even possible so why bother creating an alternative? What a waste of time. You seem to think that if a proposal has some benefits to some people it is acceptable, even though it is supposed to be the BEST thing for the game. The opportunity for a much better deal for the game still exists and it is actually the people claiming this is club-devised proposal is the only option, their way or the highway, that are preventing the best outcome.

 

[Loudstrat]

Tropuble is, Leigh, that the ARL gets decent coin from Origin and tests, and a bunus from the WC - the first ever to make a profit. This point is overlooked when people bag the ARL and Love.

As I understand it, the IC will absorb Origin and tests/4 nations/WC. Why? If they guarantee the same amount back to the ARL, the ARL by losing control, are in a worse position.

I'd argue that rep football has been run better than the NRL in the last decade anyway.

That’s the biggest lie you’ve told on these forums so far. The QRL had nothing to do with Super League. The Broncos had a lot to Super League, not the QRL,

I agree. That's not what I said.

 

[Quidgybo]

Tropuble is, Leigh, that the ARL gets decent coin from Origin and tests, and a bunus from the WC - the first ever to make a profit. This point is overlooked when people bag the ARL and Love.

It may be overlooked but it also pales next to the damage done by leaving the game short changed thru its major revenue sources - television rights, new media, competition sponsorship - being undersold. If the game is struggling to find the money to support the grassroots or keep star revenue attracting players in the NRL then it's the ARL's fault for not doing its job to look after the game's interests on the NRL Partnership Executive Committee by keeping the News Ltd pit-bull in check. You can't blame a dangerous dog for acting according to its nature but you *can* blame the guy who failed to keep it on a leash.

As I understand it, the IC will absorb Origin and tests/4 nations/WC. Why? If they guarantee the same amount back to the ARL, the ARL by losing control, are in a worse position.

Well no matter what spin has been put on it in recent days, the current proposal would see the ARL cease to exist and all its assets assigned to the new commission. So it wouldn't technically be a case of it being in a worse position but simply no longer being on the scene at all, the proposed IC would become responsible for all the current roles of the NRL and ARL combined. Again, before our friend blows his spout, all I'm doing here is pointing out that that's what is in the current proposal. I'm not expressing an opinion on its merits.

Leigh.

 

[Green Machine]

I agree. That's not what I said.

Tell us how the QRL's attitude to the other 3 played a massive role in the ideological differences that spawned Super League?