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

[Bluebags1908]

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

100% spot-on. And I can see plenty on power-grab agendas here, but it's not from the QRL or ARL - it's from the clubs. I am in favour of handing the clubs 50% control, but heaven help us if they get 100% control of the game.

 

[Bluebags1908]

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


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


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

Gutless coward. Name yourself.

This coming from a club CEO - one of the 16 proposed "leaders' of our game that is set of gain power under their own IC proposal drafted by the clubs for the clubs. A proposal that has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

 

[Perth Red]

seems to me that there are really only two fears or objections to the proposal:
1. Funding doesn't find its way down to grass roots
2. Rep fotball is damaged

I would think it realatively easy to include a couple of guarantees/policies around both points to remove these objections.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

3. A New Zealand club owning part of Australian RL.
4. How NRL expansion can happen.
5. How a commission can truly be independent when it is elected by clubs only.
6. How the clubs can change any constitution once they gain control.

I'd rate these as other major concerns. Also, the grassroots issue is not just one of funding.

The only way to gaurantee that there is no conflict of interest is to ensure representation from all the stakeholders.

 

[Loudstrat]

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.

No, you shoot the dog and then inquire as to weather the owner was at fault. You don't kill the owner and let the dog eat the rest of the person it mauled!

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.

Rubbish - you are launching a case as to why the ARL should die! I'm glad to know that death is not a bad position ffs!

Leigh.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/nrl/story/0,26746,26634505-5003409,00.html

QRL, ARL on collision course over rugby league commission

Steve Ricketts | January 26, 2010 12:00am

QUEENSLAND'S image as the major roadblock to an Independent Commission for Rugby League has set the scene for a fiery meeting of the ARL in Sydney.

QRL managing director Ross Livermore said yesterday he was confident league supporters would come to realise the Queenslanders were not the "bad boys" in the commission saga.

Livermore said it was the QRL who had called for next week's ARL meeting to speed up the process towards the establishment of the eight-man commission.

The last ARL meeting was held on December 8 when directors from NSW also supported the concept of the ARL having the right to nominate four commissioners.

The 16 NRL clubs have unanimously backed the commission and they want it up and running before the season kicks off on March 12, and they also want the power to nominate all eight members.

Former NSW State of Origin coach Phil Gould, one of the ARL's troubleshooters in the Super League war of the mid-1990s, claimed at the weekend the QRL was on a power trip.

Gould said some comments by Livermore "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," Gould said. "Everyone can see the QRL is on a power trip here."

Livermore said one of the reasons the QRL had called for an urgent meeting of the ARL was because it was worried it had been kept in the dark on some matters.

"We keep hearing that the driving forces behind the commission have kept the ARL informed, but if that is the case that information is not flowing on to Queensland," Livermore said.

Livermore and fellow directors John McDonald, Peter Betros and Terry Mackenroth want a complete update of events since the last ARL meeting in December with the Queenslanders feeling they have been kept in the dark by ARL chairman Colin Love.

North Queensland Cowboys chief executive Peter Parr met off-contract club captain Johnathan Thurston's manager Sam Ayoub in Port Douglas yesterday and hopes to hold formal talks before the end of the week.

"We're getting to the stage where we're struggling to to do any better than what we have on the table," Parr said. "If we formalise it, then it's a matter of seeing how it goes alongside expressions of interest Johnathan has from elsewhere."

Former North Queensland coach Graham Murray has been appointed coach of the Australian women's side for this year's Tests against England and New Zealand.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/nrl/story/0,26746,26634505-5003409,00.html

QRL, ARL on collision course over rugby league commission

Steve Ricketts | January 26, 2010 12:00am

QUEENSLAND'S image as the major roadblock to an Independent Commission for Rugby League has set the scene for a fiery meeting of the ARL in Sydney.

QRL managing director Ross Livermore said yesterday he was confident league supporters would come to realise the Queenslanders were not the "bad boys" in the commission saga.

Livermore said it was the QRL who had called for next week's ARL meeting to speed up the process towards the establishment of the eight-man commission.

The last ARL meeting was held on December 8 when directors from NSW also supported the concept of the ARL having the right to nominate four commissioners.

The 16 NRL clubs have unanimously backed the commission and they want it up and running before the season kicks off on March 12, and they also want the power to nominate all eight members.

Former NSW State of Origin coach Phil Gould, one of the ARL's troubleshooters in the Super League war of the mid-1990s, claimed at the weekend the QRL was on a power trip.

Gould said some comments by Livermore "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," Gould said. "Everyone can see the QRL is on a power trip here."

Livermore said one of the reasons the QRL had called for an urgent meeting of the ARL was because it was worried it had been kept in the dark on some matters.

"We keep hearing that the driving forces behind the commission have kept the ARL informed, but if that is the case that information is not flowing on to Queensland," Livermore said.

Livermore and fellow directors John McDonald, Peter Betros and Terry Mackenroth want a complete update of events since the last ARL meeting in December with the Queenslanders feeling they have been kept in the dark by ARL chairman Colin Love.

North Queensland Cowboys chief executive Peter Parr met off-contract club captain Johnathan Thurston's manager Sam Ayoub in Port Douglas yesterday and hopes to hold formal talks before the end of the week.

"We're getting to the stage where we're struggling to to do any better than what we have on the table," Parr said. "If we formalise it, then it's a matter of seeing how it goes alongside expressions of interest Johnathan has from elsewhere."

Former North Queensland coach Graham Murray has been appointed coach of the Australian women's side for this year's Tests against England and New Zealand.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Id like to see the ARL get 4 nominees, but only if the QRL and the NSWRL are abolished. But News wont agree to any deal that leaves the ARL with any sort of power. Truely are in a screwed up position.

 

[bartman]

100% spot-on. And I can see plenty on power-grab agendas here, but it's not from the QRL or ARL - it's from the clubs. I am in favour of handing the clubs 50% control, but heaven help us if they get 100% control of the game.

Well said.

50% I can live with. It would then be run just like thinks in England/Super League are.

But to give the NRL clubs 100% of the Australian game (beyond NRL) is just ludicrous. It won't change a thing in terms of the betterment of the "game", but will just make those running the clubs happier, with no guarantees that they will look after the development of the game (eg English Premier League soccer and the demise of the juniors/rep/international performances in the face of what's best for the clubs).

 

[Moffo]

3. A New Zealand club owning part of Australian RL.
4. How NRL expansion can happen.
5. How a commission can truly be independent when it is elected by clubs only.
6. How the clubs can change any constitution once they gain control.

I'd rate these as other major concerns. Also, the grassroots issue is not just one of funding.

The only way to gaurantee that there is no conflict of interest is to ensure representation from all the stakeholders.

that won't stop there being conflicts of interest

 

[Knownothing]

seems to me that there are really only two fears or objections to the proposal:
1. Funding doesn't find its way down to grass roots
2. Rep fotball is damaged

I would think it realatively easy to include a couple of guarantees/policies around both points to remove these objections.

Guarantees are usually worth about as much as the paper they are written on, unless there is some sort of binding legal agreement with penalties and provisions to make restitution if there is a material transgression. Okay when you are buying a frig.

Policies can, and will, change. Otherwise, what is the point of having an "independent" commission? Independence means that there would be, and should be, change in policies as circumstances change.

The big question is, in which direction would the commission take the sport at the grass-roots, and international, levels - given that the commission would essentially be a creature of the 16 NRL clubs? As Paul Keating once said, something along these lines, "if you want to know which horse is going to win, look for self-interest". Yes, the NRL clubs are interested in the grass-roots, but only so far as it suits their immediate interests. Are the clubs with larger catchment areas going to subsidise the clubs which fewer junior teams and other resources?

Will a genuine international programme be established and promoted? How much money will be diverted from the NRL revenues for the international aspects of the game?

Your guess is probably better than mine - what do you think?

 

[bartman]

Will the 16 clubs ever instruct their "independent" commissioners to cut the potential salary cap, to allow room for a 17th and 18th club to share the spoils?

 

[Perth Red]

The devil's in the detail I guess and whilst clubs will always want what's best for themselves hopefully the "independent" part of the commision will choose what's right for the game. I too am unsure that will be a reality and would prefer to see some representation of grass roots and affiliated states on the commision.

In answer to your question bartman, clearly not as the clubs have already voted for no expansion in 2013 without even knowing what sort of $'s we are talking about for the next deal.

The clock is ticking as we have to be opening media rights negotiations in the next 12 months and they won;t want a change of ownership mid season so it's either now or at the end of the year.

 

[bartman]

I've liked the reasons the QRL guy (Livermore) has put forward when quoted about why they aren't rushing into it.

I'm more than happy for this to happen at the end of the year, when they've had time to nut out a better more representative and equal model for the Commission, and perhaps also a proposed structure for the ARL and related bodies going forward.

It's only really News Ltd plus Gus plus the power hungry clubs clamouring for this change of governance to happen in the next month, which is massively unrealistic no matter which organisation we're talking about.

 

[m0nty]

Will the 16 clubs ever instruct their "independent" commissioners to cut the potential salary cap, to allow room for a 17th and 18th club to share the spoils?

You mean like the AFL independent commission has been able to introduce 17th and 18th teams without much of a peep from the existing clubs, despite it meaning that some clubs (North Melb, Carlton et al) have almost gone to the wall?

 

[m0nty]

All this talk of a 50% split between the clubs and the ARL shows a complete lack of understanding of what an independent commission should be. An IC is not supposed to be factionalised like that. The commissioners are not the lackeys of those who appointed them and do not vote on party lines. They act purely on the basis of their charter which is, in short, the overall good of the game. Decisions are not supposed to be negotiated with votes here and there, everyone should be on the same page with a workable consensus on ongoing policy.

Splitting the appointment of the commissioners just leads to the new body being hopelessly politicised just like the existing committee, with the ARL controlling half the votes and skewing the agenda towards the petty, corrupt empire-building bulltish of the Loves and Ribots of the world. In fact, it would be inferior because at least News had oodles of money behind it to apply as a power base, whereas the clubs are mostly destitute at this stage with no assets and no cash in reserve. It would lead to the ARL taking over the organisation all over again, and the game would regress back to the bad old days.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The AFL commission give more money to some of these clubs than they do to the others as well so that should keep them quiet.

Imagine if the NRL commission brought in Perth but gave Cronulla and the Roosters more cash than all other NRL clubs. There would be the biggest sh*t-fight ever. The only outcome could be equal cash for everyone and if that amount is lowered to allow for new clubs the existing clubs wouldn't be happy and what happens when they come to election time? As has been said, the clubs have already said they don't want any new clubs so we know what their agenda is on this topic. I don't know of any such agenda from AFL clubs. We know how deluded the Victorians are about the size of their sport and how desperate they are to grow their game. There is, unfortunately, no such sign of such aspiration among our elite clubs.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

All this talk of a 50% split between the clubs and the ARL shows a complete lack of understanding of what an independent commission should be. An IC is not supposed to be factionalised like that. The commissioners are not the lackeys of those who appointed them and do not vote on party lines. They act purely on the basis of their charter which is, in short, the overall good of the game. Decisions are not supposed to be negotiated with votes here and there, everyone should be on the same page with a workable consensus on ongoing policy.

Splitting the appointment of the commissioners just leads to the new body being hopelessly politicised just like the existing committee, with the ARL controlling half the votes and skewing the agenda towards the petty, corrupt empire-building bulltish of the Loves and Ribots of the world. In fact, it would be inferior because at least News had oodles of money behind it to apply as a power base, whereas the clubs are mostly destitute at this stage with no assets and no cash in reserve. It would lead to the ARL taking over the organisation all over again, and the game would regress back to the bad old days.

What a contradiction. You claim the commission will be independent and not vote on party lines, so why do you have a problem with the parties that elect them? If the ARL elected commissioners are just as independent from the ARL as the club elected commissioners are from the clubs then there can't be a problem. It just goes to show that no one really believes the commission will be independent of the NRL clubs, some people just don't care if the clubs run the game to suit their agenda.

And then you come up with this nonsense about the ARL taking over somehow, which seems to have no basis that I can understand. The clubs have more money than the ARL, certainly collectively. And yet again it contradicts the idea that this commission will be free from agendas and power battles with one power displacing another. This paranoia that the ARL will take over the game for its own purposes has to be the most ridiculous concern ever. The ARL is not privately owned and its interests are in the betterment of RL in general so it's hardly something to worry about. Even the clubs can't say that, especially those who are privately owned. The game was in a far better shape when run by the ARL prior to SL anyway so going back to the "bad old days" really wouldn't be that bad.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

OMG. Care to elaborate on these accusations?

The side willing to commit is only offering its own agenda. It's their way or the highway. They're not removing vested interests, their just ensuring it's their vested interests that take over.

 

[m0nty]

OMG. Care to elaborate on these accusations?

The side willing to commit is only offering its own agenda. It's their way or the highway. They're not removing vested interests, their just ensuring it's their vested interests that take over.

Apparently I can't elaborate, ECT, since I got an infraction for making them.