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

[Bluebags1908]

If the clubs believe the 8 Commissioners will be truly independent, then what's the problem of having the NSWRL, QRL, CRL voting in 4 Commissioners? The clubs proposal truly shows who is on the power trip - the clubs.

The bottom line is that everyone involved with the ARL will be demoted as they can't sit on the Independent Commission - they will be handing in their blazers. However, they still have jobs working at a state level which I see no problem with, as every sport has state governing bodies serving under the national body.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If the clubs believe the 8 Commissioners will be truly independent, then what's the problem of handing having the NSWRL, QRL, CRL voting in 4 Commissioners? The clubs proposal truly shows who is on the power trip - the clubs.

The bottom line is that everyone involved with the ARL will be demoted as they can't sit on the Independent Commission - they will be handing in their blazers. However, they still have jobs working at a state level which I see no problem with, as every sport has state governing bodies serving under the national body.

Correct.

 

[skeepe]

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.

I actually don't think that would be such a bad thing, but the ARL (or more likely QRL) have chosen their words poorly if that is what they want.

They stated that they want the power to appoint four of the eight commissioners, not vote for them. In other words, they want to dictate 4 people to be on the commission who would be beholden to them and serve only their interests.

Not going to happen.

I would, however, have no problem with the QRL and NSWRL being given an equal vote along with the clubs when it comes time to elect commissioners, but they shouldn't be permitted to dictate terms.

 

[skeepe]

If the clubs believe the 8 Commissioners will be truly independent, then what's the problem of handing having the NSWRL, QRL, CRL voting in 4 Commissioners? The clubs proposal truly shows who is on the power trip - the clubs.

The bottom line is that everyone involved with the ARL will be demoted as they can't sit on the Independent Commission - they will be handing in their blazers. However, they still have jobs working at a state level which I see no problem with, as every sport has state governing bodies serving under the national body.

They don't want to vote them in, they want to appoint them. It's an important distinction, and would completely nullify the "independent" in independent commission.

Oh and having two blocs of four commissioners? Sorry, but that introduces a level of factionalism that this commission simply doesn't need. As I said above, if they had an equal vote along with the clubs when it came to electing commissioners, well I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[m0nty]

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.

It is telling in that nobody trusts the ARL not to elect party men who will vote along party lines. The ARL's aim is to use its votes to push its factional agenda, this can not be disputed. This goes against what an IC is supposed to be about. The ARL would have to drop the politics altogether to rejoin the process.

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.

What does it really mean for the Warriors to be part of the IC? Do they actually "own" anything? Can they sell it off for profit? Can they band together with an aggressive investor for a hostile takeover of the sport? Do they get any more returns than 1/16th of the club dividends? Tell me one bad consequence that could realistically accrue from this, other than your ideological whinge about nationalist pride. You're the one who has to prove your case, ECT.

 

[babyg]

If the clubs believe the 8 Commissioners will be truly independent, then what's the problem of handing having the NSWRL, QRL, CRL voting in 4 Commissioners? The clubs proposal truly shows who is on the power trip - the clubs.

The bottom line is that everyone involved with the ARL will be demoted as they can't sit on the Independent Commission - they will be handing in their blazers. However, they still have jobs working at a state level which I see no problem with, as every sport has state governing bodies serving under the national body.

I'm with you bluebags. What is the problem with the state leagues being given an equal vote along with the clubs when it comes time to elect commissioners. I really is not worth the risk to have just the clubs voting the commission in. I'm also in favour of closing down the ARL and only having the state leagues.

 

[Big-Steve]

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.

Below is a post I made about 5 pages ago and this is the second time I have repeated it. No one has replied to it yet except people who agree with me.

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.

To suggest that the voter has no sway in what a poly does is to suggest anarchy.

Representative voting is the basis of any democracy why are we not applying it to the structure of RL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So it seems to me that we're supposed to believe the NRL clubs can be trusted to appoint truly indedendent people who will be truly independent and do the right thing by the game. But the ARL, which is already comprised of representatives from the states and clubs, will appoint factional stooges to suit their own evil purposes.

Which is another point. What the hell do people think the ARL is going to do that is so bad. It's a non-profit organisation that governs rugby league in Australia and represents it at international level, and has done for decades. Yet some people are backing a plan drawn up by privately owned clubs and backed by News Ltd and are claiming that these people aren't going to look after their own interests. It just doesn't add up.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What does it really mean for the Warriors to be part of the IC? Do they actually "own" anything? Can they sell it off for profit? Can they band together with an aggressive investor for a hostile takeover of the sport? Do they get any more returns than 1/16th of the club dividends? Tell me one bad consequence that could realistically accrue from this, other than your ideological whinge about nationalist pride. You're the one who has to prove your case, ECT.

You can't have a foreign club owning part of Australian rugby league. The NZRL would never accept an Australian club owning part of it. The RFL would never accept Catalans owning part of it. The NRL clubs already show little interest in assisting the grassroots game in Australia, how little will a New Zealand club care.

What this proposal does is it actually hands more ownership to a foreign club than it does to the actual stakeholders of the game in Australia like the ARL, the QRL or the WARL. It is unjustifiable.

 

[m0nty]

You can't have a foreign club owning part of Australian rugby league. The NZRL would never accept an Australian club owning part of it. The RFL would never accept Catalans owning part of it. The NRL clubs already show little interest in assisting the grassroots game in Australia, how little will a New Zealand club care.

What this proposal does is it actually hands more ownership to a foreign club than it does to the actual stakeholders of the game in Australia like the ARL, the QRL or the WARL. It is unjustifiable.

In other words, you can't answer the question because you have no justification for your argument other than misplaced nationalist outrage. There are no bad consequences for the Warriors being a part of the IC.

 

[Big-Steve]

So it seems to me that we're supposed to believe the NRL clubs can be trusted to appoint truly indedendent people who will be truly independent and do the right thing by the game. But the ARL, which is already comprised of representatives from the states and clubs, will appoint factional stooges to suit their own evil purposes.

Which is another point. What the hell do people think the ARL is going to do that is so bad. It's a non-profit organisation that governs rugby league in Australia and represents it at international level, and has done for decades. Yet some people are backing a plan drawn up by privately owned clubs and backed by News Ltd and are claiming that these people aren't going to look after their own interests. It just doesn't add up.

Another thing that we have not discussed in detail is the fact that some clubs (and more to come) are privately controlled. The members of these clubs will not have a say in how their clubs/private business votes.

So the whole "giving it back to the people" slogan is a fallacy. And so the list of faults in their proposal goes on and on and on…

 

[Big-Steve]

There are no bad consequences for the Warriors being a part of the IC.

Yes there is - Australians loosing their right to control their sport created and played in their country to a foreign body.

The Warriors have a right to a say in the running of the NRL not Australian RL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

In other words, you can't answer the question because you have no justification for your argument other than misplaced nationalist outrage. There are no bad consequences for the Warriors being a part of the IC.

Of course there is. We're asking an organisation who doesn't give a toss about Australian RL to own part of it. Why is that hard to understand.

 

[m0nty]

Below is a post I made about 5 pages ago and this is the second time I have repeated it. No one has replied to it yet except people who agree with me.

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.

To suggest that the voter has no sway in what a poly does is to suggest anarchy.

Representative voting is the basis of any democracy why are we not applying it to the structure of RL.

This is another fallacy that league people need to get their heads around. An independent commission is not a representative democracy. It is, if it works as planned, a benevolent dictatorship.

Roger Goodell doesn't need to take most of his policy decisions to the 32 NFL franchise owners. Andrew Demetriou doesn't have to consult the 16 AFL clubs about most issues. That's not to say that there aren't checks and balances, especially on the larger decisions, but the commissioner and the commission in general are not micromanaged by the byzantine processes of democracy.

The NRL commissioner won't need to work the votes. He won't need a Graham Richardson style number-cruncher. There will be no factions, or wet/dry tendencies, or any other personality-based skewing of policy. There is only the charter, and how the commission interprets the charter. The clubs and other stakeholders may wail about this or that decision but if the commissioner can point back at the charter and say he's only doing his job as it was given to him, there's not much that those who appointed him can do.

In practice, a commissioner will never be voted out because he won't act that stupidly. He will act within his remit, which is the overall good of the sport. That is the system working as designed.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

He will act within the agenda of his masters, which is the clubs, or he will be out on his arse.

 

[m0nty]

Yes there is - Australians loosing their right to control their sport created and played in their country to a foreign body.

The Warriors have a right to a say in the running of the NRL not Australian RL.

Of course there is. We're asking an organisation who doesn't give a toss about Australian RL to own part of it. Why is that hard to understand.

Those are merely ideological arguments. Of course, the Warriors will not agitate for a single less cent of money to go where it is needed in the Australian rugby league grassroots. There would be an uproar if that happened, and rightly so. Only the most blinkered and close-minded would assert that anything like that would actually happen. They are one out of 16, for Pete's sake! It will not have any tangible effect on anything, other than your easily-bruised egoes.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

He will act within the agenda of his masters, which is the clubs, or he will be out on his arse.

So the clubs have an agenda ? What specifically is that agenda ?

I guess if you dont respond to that simple question then that would lend credence to the scaremongering claim.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It is ludicrous to allow a privately owned foreign club to own part of the game but not allow any of the non-profit stakeholders of the sport in this country to get a say. No other sport in any other country would do it but we're expected to allow it simply because the whole thing hasn't been thought through properly. This proposal was written by the clubs and for the clubs and these contradictory issues were clearly never considered. Just give everyone in the game a say FFS. The NRL is not the be all and end all of rugby league in Australia and the whole process should reflect that. So far it is nothing but a club-run agenda from start to finish. If they realised the concerns of many, many true supporters of the game and the stakeholders themselves and they were that keen on an independent commission they'd change their tune and include the stakeholders in the process. But they haven't.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So the clubs have an agenda ? What specifically is that agenda ?

I guess if you dont respond to that simple question then that would lend credence to the scaremongering claim.

It's already been discussed at length. Their agenda is to get as much money as they can. That in itself threatens other areas of the game that need funding. Their agenda is to everything and anything that betters their bottom line and premiership chances. That could mean anything for the rest of the sport if issues conflict with this need. As has been pointed out by others there are threats to the timing and structure of SOO. There are threats to international football. There are concerns over how an already neglectful NRL will service the grassroots game. Basically their agenda is to look after themselves. We're talking about privately owned businesses in many cases. Yet people won't even give non-profit governing bodies whose job it is to look after rep and grassroots football a share in the ownership of the game. The big question is why? Why keep the traditional owners of the sport out? People are trying to suggest that anyone who questions this proposal is "scaremongering". Well what is the supposed motive for this "scaremongering"? I'd like to know. I've already had one or two people say I must work for the ARL or something, which is not true. So what can my motive possibly be other than wanting what's best for ALL of RL.

 

[m0nty]

It's already been discussed at length. Their agenda is to get as much money as they can. That in itself threatens other areas of the game that need funding. Their agenda is to everything and anything that betters their bottom line and premiership chances. That could mean anything for the rest of the sport if issues conflict with this need. As has been pointed out by others there are threats to the timing and structure of SOO. There are threats to international football. There are concerns over how an already neglectful NRL will service the grassroots game. Basically their agenda is to look after themselves. We're talking about privately owned businesses in many cases. Yet people won't even give non-profit governing bodies whose job it is to look after rep and grassroots football a share in the ownership of the game. The big question is why? Why keep the traditional owners of the sport out? People are trying to suggest that anyone who questions this proposal is "scaremongering". Well what is the supposed motive for this "scaremongering"? I'd like to know. I've already had one or two people say I must work for the ARL or something, which is not true. So what can my motive possibly be other than wanting what's best for ALL of RL.

It is ludicrous to allow a privately owned foreign club to own part of the game but not allow any of the non-profit stakeholders of the sport in this country to get a say. No other sport in any other country would do it but we're expected to allow it simply because the whole thing hasn't been thought through properly. This proposal was written by the clubs and for the clubs and these contradictory issues were clearly never considered. Just give everyone in the game a say FFS. The NRL is not the be all and end all of rugby league in Australia and the whole process should reflect that. So far it is nothing but a club-run agenda from start to finish. If they realised the concerns of many, many true supporters of the game and the stakeholders themselves and they were that keen on an independent commission they'd change their tune and include the stakeholders in the process. But they haven't.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You'd be okay with the Warriors being a part of the IC if the ARL also got to appoint 50% of the commissioners. In that case, the Warriors would still own a percentage of "the game". In both cases, it would be an insignificant part of the game, not able to influence policy in an individual, un-Australian manner in any fashion. Yet somehow you think that the ARL needs to be there to counterbalance any negative effects of the Warriors, thus the ARL-appointed commissioners by definition would be factionalised in an anti-Warriors, anti-private-club faction. Do you realise how divisive that sounds?

What you want is for the ARL to set itself and its appointees up on the commission as a political opposition to the clubs. The politics of the league would thus be set in stone: instead of ARL vs News, it's now ARL vs the clubs. Gee, what an improvement. You have been stuck so long in the dialectic mode where two sides bash each other endlessly that you can't see a future where the game is united.

You ask "why keep the traditional owners of the sport out?" Because they have failed. Super League was a massive failure. The executives at the ARL continue to fail to do their job. Time for them to withdraw and let someone new take over with none of the baggage of failure that both News and the ARL carry.