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

[Big-Steve]

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.

Its not a fallacy, its just not what the NRL clubs have come up with.

An IC shopuld be represenative that is what we should be aiming for not just accepting a model which we know has faults.

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.

Under the Clubs model acting "stupidly" is not making decissions in line with the interests of the NRL Clubs.

You cannot rely on a direction or constitution alone, the ability of the clubs to nominate and replace will over ride that.

 

[skeepe]

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.

I for one call it scaremongering because, despite repeated requests, you cannot furnish one skerrick of evidence that any of this will occur.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Find me evidence that it won't. Maybe you have a crystal ball, I don't. It's such a stupid line of argument to just say "prove it" when it hasn't happened yet. And also, that's not a motive. Look it up in the dictionary.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

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? No, they would own a part of the NRL, which is and would continue to be separate from the ARL. And the rest is just nonsense, "an anti-Warriors faction", please. Plus I've never said the ARL should nominate 50% of the commission. You seem to have just assumed that. Try dealing with the facts, not things you've dreamed up.

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. Why would they be in absolute opposition? You're the one who seems to think that if two different organisations are represented on the one commission that they must somehow be polarised. Again, you're just dreaming this stuff up.

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. They have not failed. The last time the ARL ran the game it was the healthiest it has ever been. Their job now is the run ARL Development and rep football and they do that quite sccessfully. Meanwhile the clubs fail on many fronts. They fail grassroots football by neglecting it. They fail international football by preventing players from turning out, like in the World Sevens. They fail their own fans on a regular basis by making stupid decisions like playing finals in small venues. And in any event they are the same clubs that started Super League, so if you want to lay blame for past failures the clubs have as much baggage as anyone.[/QUOTE]

 

[Knownothing]

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.



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.

Neither the NFL nor the AFL has an international dimension, at least not a serious one. Rugby League needs an international programme, and because the game in Australia is far stronger here than it is in any other developed country, Australia needs to do more than a fair share to develop and promote the international dimension. The "overall good of the sport" looks very different when you standing in England than it does from, say, Suncorp Stadium.

"The overall good of the sport" is much easier to discern for the NFL and AFL commissioners, than it would be for RL in Australia. Rule changes for one - who else cares if the NFL and AFL change their rules? Nobody. But in RL it matters a lot, because the other countries, and lower levels, that play the game are affected.

Does the NFL commissioner have any interest in, or responsibility for, the lower levels of the game? None, as far as I know.

The AFL is far too deeply entrenched in its grass-roots for a commissioner to make incompetent/biased decisions that affect juniors and seniors for that matter playing below the elite level. Not sure that this would apply in RL, time would tell, but given the current ill-feeling between certain bodies that run sections of the game in Australia, it is hard to be sure. I know somebody who works for the CRL - they seem to be struggling for funding now, it is hard to see that situation improving just because the NRL take de facto control.

 

[Big-Steve]

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".

Don't blame East Coast for the situation we are in - not being able to have the best model for the Commission. So we are forced to look at comprimises - not our fault!

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.

Imagine your model where your decissions would be skewed in favour of the Clubs or you're out.

The point is that the elected officials of the QLD/NSW/C are the only institions that represent grass roots footy. It's not a perfect system no, but it's ours and it's not privatly owned.

Remember the Super League war? it was about private ownership (News) versus public administration (ARL).

 

[Noa]

Remember the Super League war? it was about private ownership (News) versus public administration (ARL).

No it wasnt.

 

[siv]

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.

Agreed

But I would revoke the Warriors voting rights and ownership status, so to not cause a conflict of interest with the NZRL

They can be invited to particpate - but cannot own or dictate how junior or international RL in Australia should be run or financially supported

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Agreed

But I would revoke the Warriors voting rights and ownership status, so to not cause a conflict of interest with the NZRL

They can be invited to particpate - but cannot own or dictate how junior or international RL in Australia should be run or financially supported

Oh ffs, they wouldnt be able to, the only thing that ANY club can do is vote and nominate who is on the commission. That is all they can do, they dont get to run anything, they dont get to decide where funding goes, they dont have to attend any meeting except for consititutional and election matters, THATS IT!

The Warriors mean as much to the NRL as Nth Qld, Newcastle, Parramatta and Canberra do.

 

[Bluebags1908]

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.

I'd much rather have 2 blocks of 4 Commissioners than have 8 Commissioners appointed by the clubs - especially privately-owned clubs.

 

[Bluebags1908]

I can't find the article, but didn't Ross Livrermore say that the 1997 ARL-Super League Agreement has a clause in the contract that stipulates that when News Limited withdraws from the game that News Limited's 50% share must be handed to the clubs? If that's the case then the ARL just needs to stand their ground - News Limited signed the Agreement so it's their bad luck. They can't expect the ARL to hand back their 50% share (which will effectively be NSWRL/QRL's share as the ARL will be disbanded).

Is there any way of getting a copy of the actual 1997 ARL-Super League Agreement? It would make interesting reading.

 

[Noa]

Oh ffs, they wouldnt be able to, the only thing that ANY club can do is vote and nominate who is on the commission. That is all they can do, they dont get to run anything, they dont get to decide where funding goes, they dont have to attend any meeting except for consititutional and election matters, THATS IT!

The Warriors mean as much to the NRL as Nth Qld, Newcastle, Parramatta and Canberra do.

Thank you.

Warriors will have no say whatsoever in the running of the game in Australia. When they put forward the motion to syphon off an extra $20million to NZ, im pretty sure it will be defeated.

NSW Rl managed to survive once the Broncos and GC were let into the comp in 88. This scenario is no different.

 

[bartman]

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.

No, it would be the ARL alongside the clubs, powersharing. Just because the post-hostile takeover News v ARL peace deal hasn't worked, doesn't mean that once News is out of the picture that any "sides" (read: stakeholders) in the game won't get along fine. It works for rugby league in England.

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.

Super League was a massive failure. But that should only count News out of being part of the future, or dictating terms for it. The ARL isn't to blame for the effects of News' hostile takeover all of those years ago, it's been hamstrung ever since. Having the administrtation of the game in safe hands, sharing their power with the clubs by jointly appointing members of the Independent Commission is the best outcome.

At the moment the clubs want it all in terms of dictating the Independent Commission, and don't realise that the game's best interests are only going to be served through sharing the power among the entire range of stakeholders, not just the NRL clubs.

 

[bartman]

I can't find the article, but didn't Ross Livrermore say that the 1997 ARL-Super League Agreement has a clause in the contract that stipulates that when News Limited withdraws from the game that News Limited's 50% share must be handed to the clubs? If that's the case then the ARL just needs to stand their ground - News Limited signed the Agreement so it's their bad luck. They can't expect the ARL to hand back their 50% share (which will effectively be NSWRL/QRL's share as the ARL will be disbanded).

Is there any way of getting a copy of the actual 1997 ARL-Super League Agreement? It would make interesting reading.

This could be exactly why the News Ltd journos are pushing the Independent commission down our throats, with pressure to accept a model for it before the thing is even incubated.

Gus Gould (non-News Ltd) has his own agenda and since the clubs have come together strongly behind it too, it doesn't take Einstein to work out what's going on there and who one of the clubs' appointees to the Commission will be...

It pays to look behind the hype and identify the agendas, before gulping down the load of hot, warm nectar :sarcasm: being offered en masse by the self-serving media (and clubs, and others...), before you've had a chance to realise that there's no mouthwash nearby...

 

[Noa]

, before gulping down the load of hot, warm nectar :sarcasm: being offered en masse by the self-serving media (and clubs, and others...), before you've had a chance to realise that there's no mouthwash nearby...

Gayest analogy Ive ever read.

 

[bartman]

And that's my point Noa... this is all a bit ghey.

I support an Independent Commission ready for 2012, but only one where the game (ie the ARL and/or its component stakeholders representing representative league and developing/below-NRL level league) and the NRL clubs share equally in its creation.

News Ltd and self-interested guys like Gould have whipped the clubs - and some of the fans - up into a frenzy at the need to doo this now, and for the clubs (including those NEws still own) to try and take a grab at the power. It isn't going to happen that way. And nor should it.

 

[skeepe]

I can't find the article, but didn't Ross Livrermore say that the 1997 ARL-Super League Agreement has a clause in the contract that stipulates that when News Limited withdraws from the game that News Limited's 50% share must be handed to the clubs? If that's the case then the ARL just needs to stand their ground - News Limited signed the Agreement so it's their bad luck. They can't expect the ARL to hand back their 50% share (which will effectively be NSWRL/QRL's share as the ARL will be disbanded).

Is there any way of getting a copy of the actual 1997 ARL-Super League Agreement? It would make interesting reading.

This doesn't happen for another 8 years or so. If the ARL stand their ground like you're suggesting, all the problems that we have now, that we have all complained about, will be in place until 2018 or so - hardly a desirable solution.

 

[skeepe]

Find me evidence that it won't. Maybe you have a crystal ball, I don't. It's such a stupid line of argument to just say "prove it" when it hasn't happened yet. And also, that's not a motive. Look it up in the dictionary.

:lol:

Are you serious?

"I'm going to make wild baseless claims that I don't have to prove, but unless you can find evidence that they're wrong then they must be right."

I have a rock that you might be interested in. It keeps bears away.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

:lol:

Are you serious?

"I'm going to make wild baseless claims that I don't have to prove, but unless you can find evidence that they're wrong then they must be right."

I have a rock that you might be interested in. It keeps bears away.

Gold just gold. See skeepe, when your not being a bias know nothing, your actually a productive member of the forums. Keep it going.


Canberra for the spoon

 

[Big-Steve]

No it wasnt.

Is that it?

It is the reason most people sided with ARL because they were the elected officials V Rupert. For Rupert no doubt it was about controlling League so he could charge people to see it on pay TV but the rest of us just wanted our sport to be independent from that IMHO.

You think differently obviously?