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

[East Coast Tiger]

That's convenient.

 

[bartman]

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?

Don't follow AFL, but I do know they haven't had a code-splitting war with embedded factions that have left that code at a standstill making up lost ground for the past 13 years...

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.

It's not supposed to be, but in Rugby League at the moment they will be. News need to step out of the game/NRL, and step out of the setting up of an IC on their own terms. After that, the clubs and the body/ies that are left (let's call them the ARL) can get on with sorting out the best structure for an IC for the game in Australia as a whole (not just based on the wishes of NRL clubs).

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.

Those days weren't actually that bad, pre-1996... before greedy merkins like News Ltd and Ribot stepped in.

The only comparison should be to rugby league in England, where the Super League clubs get 50% of the votes, and the RL gets the other 50% (and a casting vote I believe), so it can rightly prioritise development and rep interests over clubs' self interest.

Anything more than 50% to the clubs in the IC, and the game as we've known it risks becoming more like the elitist soulless disaster that News pushed on us here in the first place, and about which they haven't learnt their lessons.

 

[Loudstrat]

I cannot cop how one competition can make decisions over the remaiing few hundred competitions without their input?

As I said before, if it becomes a choice between sending $100k to fund Group 6, or topping up an offer to Thurston, Group 6 will miss out. Is that hard to comprehend?

 

[m0nty]

Don't follow AFL, but I do know they haven't had a code-splitting war with embedded factions that have left that code at a standstill making up lost ground for the past 13 years...

This is true. Though there was a lot of upheaval in the 80s when the AFL IC was established with the forced relocation and merger of the Swans and Lions respectively. It's too simplistic to say the NRL is 20 years behind the AFL and I hope it doesn't take league 20 years to get to that stage.

It's not supposed to be, but in Rugby League at the moment they will be. News need to step out of the game/NRL, and step out of the setting up of an IC on their own terms. After that, the clubs and the body/ies that are left (let's call them the ARL) can get on with sorting out the best structure for an IC for the game in Australia as a whole (not just based on the wishes of NRL clubs).

This is the crux of the argument, I think. Those who have been mired in the aftermath of the Super League war find it very hard to lift their eyes and see the vision for a future where the ARL/News axis does not dominate the sport. There is a lot of mistrust on all sides, and only blokes like Gus Gould who have no power to lose can see how damaging it is for enmities that have lasted 15 years or more to continue to limit the league's ability to grow.

Only when the entire power structure changes, where neither the ARL or News "win", can the Super League debacle be put to rest. The clubs have been the pawns in the middle for too long, pushed and pulled by forces outside their control. They want to set up an IC for the overall good of the game, not to line their own pockets - or, if you want to be cynical about it, yes they do want to line their pockets as an eventual consequence, but it's not at the expense of other parts of the game, it's from growing the game as a whole.

If you believe that the clubs' real agenda is to destroy grassroots footy, or undermine Origin, or abolish international tournaments - all of which would be self-defeating for the clubs - then that only highlights that you're another continuing victim of Super League. Try to see that this is not a zero-sum game where the smart move is to white-ant your opponents. By working together the game can achieve so much more.

Those days weren't actually that bad, pre-1996... before greedy merkins like News Ltd and Ribot stepped in.

The only comparison should be to rugby league in England, where the Super League clubs get 50% of the votes, and the RL gets the other 50% (and a casting vote I believe), so it can rightly prioritise development and rep interests over clubs' self interest.

Anything more than 50% to the clubs in the IC, and the game as we've known it risks becoming more like the elitist soulless disaster that News pushed on us here in the first place, and about which they haven't learnt their lessons.

Those days were doomed, let's be honest. Many clubs were folding or flat broke. With the AFL and soccer eventually invading, plus union expanding internationally, if the league had continued the way it was it might even be in worse condition than it is now.

I don't think the English Super League should be the model to follow either. They have half a dozen big clubs, who have filled all 24 grand final spots in the past 12 years. Can you imagine the NRL asking clubs to reapply to stay in the league every five years?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The clubs were pawns? Please. Had the eight clubs not jumped ship Super League wouldn't have ever happened at all. They helped cripple the game for their own self interest and gave 50% control of the game away to others with even more harmful self interests. Now we're expected to let some of these very same clubs, and club interests in general, finish the job and take 100% control away from the game's governing body and keep it for themselves.

And trying to portray concerns about this proposal as paranoia about clubs wrecking grassroots and rep football is just twisting the argument. No one is saying the clubs will willfully destroy these parts of the game. The concern is that they will simply neglect and mismanage these parts of the game due to their far greater concern for their own issues. I doubt the NRL clubs even KNOW what is best for grassroots football but one thing is for sure, on current evidence they certainly don't show much concern for it. That goes double for international football. Yet we're supposed to believe that these self interested organisations (privately owned businesses in some cases) are going to change their spots once they have total control of the game. Based on past and present evidence it just doesn't stack up.

 

[Ziggy the God]

And trying to portray concerns about this proposal as paranoia about clubs wrecking grassroots and rep football is just twisting the argument. No one is saying the clubs will willfully destroy these parts of the game. The concern is that they will simply neglect and mismanage these parts of the game due to their far greater concern for their own issues. I doubt the NRL clubs even KNOW what is best for grassroots football but one thing is for sure, on current evidence they certainly don't show much concern for it. That goes double for international football. Yet we're supposed to believe that these self interested organisations (privately owned businesses in some cases) are going to change their spots once they have total control of the game. Based on past and present evidence it just doesn't stack up.

:lol:

We know that you don't like the structure that is being proposed, but that is a load of bollocks and you know it.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Really? What do the NRL clubs do for grassroots football, or international football and more importantly what do they do without being co-opted by the ARL? I can certainly tell you about all the ways in which the NRL clubs fail to do their bit in these areas at present.

 

[m0nty]

I guess what it comes down to, ECT, is that you fail to believe that an independent commission made up of NSW/Qld businessmen and league lovers can ever be independent in practice, due to the long history of league being run by incompetent and/or compromised officials. I have some sympathy with that position, I really do.

It's going to take some bitter, wounded, cynical people to voluntarily give up their decades-old vendettas for any sort of hope to emerge from the whole sorry mess.

 

[Ziggy the God]

Really? What do the NRL clubs do for grassroots football, or international football and more importantly what do they do without being co-opted by the ARL? I can certainly tell you about all the ways in which the NRL clubs fail to do their bit in these areas at present.

I guess bush footy is doing so well under the current arrangements. They are doing a spiffing job.

Why would the Commission not look to strengthen junior competitions? What are they going to do in 10 years time if they don't, sign AFL players?

In terms of International Football, what makes you think that they would scuttle it? They don't run it now, the ARL does, so what do you want the clubs to do now that they don't?

I guess you believe that the Directors on the Commission, all of them likely to be high profile, will compromise themselves (including legally), by destroying the game.

Argue for safeguards to be put in the Commissions charter to cover these aspects, but quit peddling your BS line that the clubs and players want to destroy the fabric of the game.

 

[Jankuloski]

The problem is that a couple of people basically peddling the same argument hijacked this thread, and by now if someone were to read it would look like it's the worst thing to happen to RL in years.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I guess bush footy is doing so well under the current arrangements. They are doing a spiffing job.

Why would the Commission not look to strengthen junior competitions? What are they going to do in 10 years time if they don't, sign AFL players?

In terms of International Football, what makes you think that they would scuttle it? They don't run it now, the ARL does, so what do you want the clubs to do now that they don't?

I guess you believe that the Directors on the Commission, all of them likely to be high profile, will compromise themselves (including legally), by destroying the game.

Argue for safeguards to be put in the Commissions charter to cover these aspects, but quit peddling your BS line that the clubs and players want to destroy the fabric of the game.

Really didn't answer the question did you? In fact all you've done is regurgitate the same old line. That is the commission will be the best thing for the game because it has to be. Well these clubs don't do the right thing by the game on a regular basis now so that is why there is reason for concern if they were to run the entire sport in Australia. NRL clubs rely on the grassroots NOW and they fail it. Why should we believe they will change. And you want to peddle the same line that suggests people with concerns are paranoid that the NRL clubs will deliberately and willfully damage the game outside the NRL. Which is utter rubbish. No one is saying "the clubs and players want to destroy the fabric of the game" and to claim that is just twisting the argument. The reason people who question this club-written proposal is that they will follow their own agenda and that the grassroots and international game will be a vicarious victim of this. It won't be deliberate, but it will happen just as soon as there is a conflict between doing the right thing by themselves or doing the right thing by other parts of the game. We already see it now. NRL clubs have the resources to help in many areas of the game, but they choose instead to look after themselves. There are plenty of examples of this from pre-season trials, to the community carnival to the World Sevens and many more.

The only safeguard for the non-NRL parts of the game is to give the non-NRL parts of the game a say. This proposal does not do that. And the big question is, why? Why are the clubs so keen to keep the traditional governing bodies of the game under their thumb? If they are so keen for a commission why have they drawn up a proposal for the control of all of rugby league without including all the stakeholders of rugby league?

 

[Loudstrat]

The problem is that a couple of people basically peddling the same argument hijacked this thread, and by now if someone were to read it would look like it's the worst thing to happen to RL in years.

Feel free to allay our fears.

Some of the comments on record re rep games by clubs/ceo's are as follows:

Origin should be played on weekends when the comp is suspended - so we don't lose player x - and lose to the low ranked club (on the year they won the comp!)

Dead rubber Origins should not be played.

Tests against developing nations should not be played, because our injured star will miss the trials.

The WCC should be canned as it will interfere with our trials.

What do you think will happen when we throw them the keys?

 

[Jankuloski]

Feel free to allay our fears.

What do you think will happen when we throw them the keys?

I would bother to if you point to one example ever on this forum where a well constructed argument has changed your mind. This thread got to bein this long with everyone putting in their two cents, including you, and when people argued to counter it, a couple of you just kept on going and going and patting yourselves on the back of how right you are, and frankly everyone else was just too tired of the same points to argue. The Liegh-man being the last example. However my backing down would probably be interpreted as you being right, sooo

I'll try to make it clear for you one more time: You're not handing them the keys to the game. The comission memebers are only ellected by the clubs, they don't control them. The members have a duty to do what's best for the code. Think of how much you control your local mayor you vote into office every four years. Or think of it like this: you can choose your own doctor. That doesn't mean your doctor will prescribe morphine to you because you ask him to if you don't need it.

SOO is a cash cow and anyone dismissing it would be insane. International footy is what gives RL credibility as an actual sport, rather than an australian past time that the rest of the world just looks at funny such as the AFL. With changes in elligibility rules and such it could be also made into a cash cow.
Increased revenue for the game will bring more money back into the clubs, and they don't care weather it came from their games or SOO or Internationals. Some club CEOs are too stupid to see this and make stupid statements, but at the end of the day all the IC needs to do is produce an increased profit and shut those people up.

Not funding grassroots would be RL shooting itself in the foot. Appart from the logical question of where would the clubs get new players there is also the aspect that the people playing RL on an amateur level are the most loyal supporters and get people to games.

News Ltd must leave the game, because the conflict of interest is blatantly obvious, as well as their rellentless robbing of the game.

Regional leagues will still appeal to the IC for funds just like they do now to ARL. I don't know how do people in the ARL get ellected and mooted, but what is evident thus far is that even if that process assures they have the game's good interest in heart, it does not ensure that they are good businessman. IC members are ellected without connection to any club, to a job of doing good for RL on grounds that they have shown themselves to be sucessful business people. If we go by the argument that all that the ARL is doing for the game is based on the kindness of their own hearts, and all their shortcomings are because of their lack of business savvy, than I'll take someone who is business savvy and instead of the kindness of it's heart has a job obligation to have the RL best interest in heart. Weather they are working in RL best interest is an easily measurable thing: income, TV deal, participation levels, attendences and tv ratings.

 

[nadera78]

What do you do about an NZ club effectively owning a share in the game of RL in Australia?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What do you do about an NZ club effectively owning a share in the game of RL in Australia?

I wouldn't bother asking. I've asked for an explanation of how this can possibly occur throughout the thread and a week later not one person has been able to give an answer. It really is emblematic of how ill-conceived this plan is.

 

[Knownothing]

I wouldn't bother asking. I've asked for an explanation of how this can possibly occur throughout the thread and a week later not one person has been able to give an answer. It really is emblematic of how ill-conceived this plan is.

I suppose the complementary question is, would the commission control and fund rugby league in New Zealand, as well as in Australia?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

And the answer would be an unequivocal NO. The NZRL is completely independent of any Australian organisation and nothing the NRL clubs can do will change that. The NRL could help RL in NZ in a practical fashion but they would never have control over the governing body of that country and I can't imagine them volunteering to fund it when no such thing happens now.

 

[skeepe]

I'll try to make it clear for you one more time: You're not handing them the keys to the game. The comission memebers are only ellected by the clubs, they don't control them. The members have a duty to do what's best for the code. Think of how much you control your local mayor you vote into office every four years. Or think of it like this: you can choose your own doctor. That doesn't mean your doctor will prescribe morphine to you because you ask him to if you don't need it.

I've tried to refrain from this thread due to certain arrogant f**ksticks with agendas, but this is 100% spot on and I just had to comment.

It seems like everyone who is against the commission thinks the clubs will be running things and making the decisions, but they won't. They will elect the decision makers, this is true. But they won't have a say in what those people do once they're in office.

The commission is being proposed to look after the whole of rugby league in this country. Those that make the most money for the game are the ones who get to vote who is on the commission, but they do not run the commission, nor are they able to make any decisions on funding, expansion, international games or other matters. The commissioners make those calls completely independent of the clubs.

Those seeking to have us believe that the clubs will run the game into the ground are doing two things.

The first: running an unfounded scare campaign based entirely on ZERO evidence and, worse, outright lies.

The second: missing the entire point of the commission by a HUGE margin.

In actuality, they are arguing against something that has never been proposed. They haven't made a single argument against the independent commission being proposed, instead preferring to waste their time arguing against something that has never and will never be proposed: a commission that is run by the clubs.

It's madness.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So why not allow the stakeholders in the game to elect the commission? If it's independent the clubs shouldn't have a problem with handing the vote to someone else. The fact that their proposal does no such thing is telling.

BTW, those analogies are crap. You can elect a mayor and if he doesn't do what you want you can kick has ass out. And as for a doctor prescribing drugs, fair dinkum, that is rubbish. You're not voting for him to be a doctor so it's not even close to appropriate.

But then again apparently I have an agenda. Other than doing the best thing for RL, I'm not sure what it is.

 

[Bluebags1908]

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.

You've got it the other way around - the NSWRL and QRL must exist to service the game at a locaised level in each state. The ARL should be disbanded but the name will live on as the Independent Commission would be called the 'ARL Commission'.