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

[East Coast Tiger]

: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.

You can't prove something that hasn't happened yet. Are you a bit simple?

But the best predictor of future behaviour is past (and present) behaviour.

* A decade ago the NRL clubs were given control of playing pre-season trials where and when they like. Since then the number of games taken to country areas has dropped dramatically.

* The NRL's community carnival was supposed to include matches between whole NRL sides and local sides. The clubs didn't like it and it was reduced to just a visit by a handful of players. Many clubs still only send their fringe frist graders or under 20s.

* NRL clubs are supposed to compensate country clubs when they sign their players. In recent times many clubs have failed to come up with the money and when they do it's only when complaints are made to the NRL.

* Clubs have already voted against expansion at a time when every other code is expanding around us and when the fans are crying out for it.

* In the past we've seen clubs like Brisbane have bans placed on any other club being set up in their territory.

* All but two clubs opposed South Sydney's participation in the competition after they were booted out.

* Clubs have lobbied for changes to State of Origin, such as weekend games so their players don't miss club games.

* The World Sevens was scrapped because several NRL clubs refused to allow their best players to particpate, robbing the game of an important international development tool.

* Clubs continue to force players into post-season surgery, especially non-Australian representatives, forcing them to miss internationals just so they don't miss a few weeks of training or a couple of club games.

* Clubs whinged about their players having to play in internationals like the 2004 USA game which has forced the ARL to cut back on such attempts to grow the game and opt for shorter tours.

* And just this week it emerged there were secret plans to boycott the Anzac Test unless the clubs get their way.

And that's just off the top of my head. And it doesn't even go into things like player behaviour and club complicity and all the other dramas that club football has thrown up in recent times. It's pretty clear that giving the clubs 100% ownership of the entire game is asking for trouble based on the attitudes and practices they have displayed previously and in many cases continue to display.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Tiger I take your points. Interesting read. The fact is players, and obviosuly the top ones especially are playing too many matches, and what the clubs have done is right in reducing their work load. However as we all know there is no answer to this as we don't attract loads and loads of wealthy people to take a keen interest in Rugby League.

So we just have to keep our heads down and keep going until rugby union finally realises that it's game is totally rubbish to watch and that people are losing interest, and they then come and join the best sport in the world.

Then we'll have more money, the players will be able to play less matches for more money. And what a match that Kiwis v Kangaroos would be at Eden Park, with three referees, two in the defensive line and the other where he is today.

 

[Fairfax]

* All but two clubs opposed South Sydney's participation in the competition after they were booted out.

For the record ECT, who were the two clubs?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

For the record ECT, who were the two clubs?

Newcastle and, somewhat surprisignly, the Bulldogs, although I think there was some sort of deal done there between Piggins and the Dogs, which helped deliver Souths juniors like Anasta (Piggins' nephew) to the Dogs. The Cowboys were neutral. Even the other old ARL clubs didn't back them, including the other clubs affected by the rationalisation. The likes of Wests Tigers basically said, they can to suffer the consequences of the 14-team deal so it was tough luck for Souths. It was all pretty sh*tty and shows how clubs will look after their own interests first and worry about what's good for the game second. It also shows that the "politics" that some claim the ARL bring to the game is just as alive in and between clubs.

 

[meltiger]

The likes of Wests Tigers basically said, they can to suffer the consequences of the 14-team deal so it was tough luck for Souths. It was all pretty sh*tty and shows how clubs will look after their own interests first and worry about what's good for the game second.

Hold up, why should Balmain & Western Suburbs / Wests Tigers have given a sh*t about Souths plight after essentially having guns to their heads and being forced to merge?


FWIW, I personally was staunchly in favour of South Sydney returning but to suggest that the Balmain or Western Suburbs clubs should have seen South Sydney being retained as a stand alone outfit as something to support, essentially placing Souths as a more important club to the game than themselves is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Bluebags1908]

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.

Well don't blame the ARL for that. News Limited could walk away and hand their 50% share to the clubs tomorrow. All the more season why a media company shouldn't be involved in owning and running a sport. If News Limited are that desparate to pull out then no-one is holding them back.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

I wish I was in Oz to have experienced the 'war', anyway but people forget quickly, and the past becomes the past very quickly.

It must have been a very emotional time for everyone and peoples judgement would have been slightly out because of it I guess. Also do we know the real story ?

Are you sure bro that there were only two franchises in favour of the Rabbitohs returning ? How can you be so certain ? Also as I said there must have been quite a few people within those organisations who were in favour of the Rabbitohs coming back into the NRL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I wish I was in Oz to have experienced the 'war', anyway but people forget quickly, and the past becomes the past very quickly.

It must have been a very emotional time for everyone and peoples judgement would have been slightly out because of it I guess. Also do we know the real story ?

Are you sure bro that there were only two franchises in favour of the Rabbitohs returning ? How can you be so certain ? Also as I said there must have been quite a few people within those organisations who were in favour of the Rabbitohs coming back into the NRL.

It was well publicised at the time. All clus were asked their opinion and their official lines were reported in the press. The Knights and Dogs said let them back in, the Cowboys (and maybe Warriors) said don't care, and the rest said no. No doubt not all people involved with those clubs agreed with the official line of their clubs but that's the way it was. I think it was very much about keeping their share of the pie and not giving up some for another club. Others had different motives too no doubt. EDIT: On reflection I think the Northern Eagles (as they were then) also agreed that Souths should return so it was actually three clubs that backed them, but still a vast majority that didn't.

The Tigers had the sh*ts because they had to merge so they didn't want Souths getting back in as a stand alone club after that. Of course if Wests and Balmain (although Balmain would have made the 14 anyway) had stood their ground the way Souths did and/or fought it in the courts the way Souths did they would be stand alone too. Whether that would be good or not is open to argument.

 

[The Observer]

You can't prove something that hasn't happened yet. Are you a bit simple?

But the best predictor of future behaviour is past (and present) behaviour.

* A decade ago the NRL clubs were given control of playing pre-season trials where and when they like. Since then the number of games taken to country areas has dropped dramatically.

* The NRL's community carnival was supposed to include matches between whole NRL sides and local sides. The clubs didn't like it and it was reduced to just a visit by a handful of players. Many clubs still only send their fringe frist graders or under 20s.

These are fair concerns. People such as NRL Operations officer Graham Annesley and Phil Gould cited a brawl in a trial in Port Macquarie in February 2008 between a young Dunghutti Broncos player and Roosters forward Roosters forwards Frank-Paul Nuuausala and Anthony Cherrington as grounds to propose scrap any future trials between NRL clubs and country teams.

Roosters in spotlight after brawl

Rooster hit with ban but bush boys will pay the price

There might have been 'cheap shots', 'niggle and provocation', but you can get that in NRL games too. Arguably, trials against country Group representative teams might promote and develop the game in the bush, and give NRL clubs a cleaner tougher hit-out. NRL clubs plays more trials outside cities than other sports like the AFL and Rugby Union, but I'd argue that nearly all trial games should be staged outside the capital cities and outside major regions like Newcastle and the Illawarra that already serve as home bases for NRL teams.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

These are fair concerns. People such as NRL Operations officer Graham Annesley and Phil Gould cited a brawl in a trial in Port Macquarie in February 2008 between a young Dunghutti Broncos player and Roosters forward Roosters forwards Frank-Paul Nuuausala and Anthony Cherrington as grounds to propose scrap any future trials between NRL clubs and country teams.

Roosters in spotlight after brawl

Rooster hit with ban but bush boys will pay the price

There might have been 'cheap shots', 'niggle and provocation', but you can get that in NRL games too. Arguably, trials against country Group representative teams might promote and develop the game in the bush, and give NRL clubs a cleaner tougher hit-out. NRL clubs plays more trials outside cities than other sports like the AFL and Rugby Union, but I'd argue that nearly all trial games should be staged outside the capital cities and outside major regions like Newcastle and the Illawarra that already serve as home bases for NRL teams.

And I know people who were as the Dunghutti game. There were three or four country sides that played against the Roosters that day and only one team caused any trouble, and even then it was apparently just a typical league skirmish. No one was king hit or attacked, it was just a regular dust-up. There have been many, many more games played like this that saw no incidents whatsoever.

NRL clubs do still play games outside the metro areas, but fewer than before and even fewer in areas that could really do with them. Most are on the coast in the same places every year. Incidentally the Waratahs are playing Fiji in Orange this weekend so there's an example of a rival code not only helping country footy but international footy in their code too. More and more NRL trials are being played bang in the middle of areas that already get plenty of games, like Brisbane, Sydney or Gosford.

 

[The Observer]

OK, ECT, cheers for the info about the game and good point regarding the Fiji Warriors game, requiring the NRL clubs to play a touring international residents side in a game would be a fantastic way of developing players from emerging nations, exposing them to top level football, giving them a chance to be recruited by professional or semi pro clubs in Australia. Imagine the likes of PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, even South Africa and Russian international residents teams being able to have a tour of the bush, culminating in a game against Parramatta, Newcastle or North Queensland? It shows how the clubs could engage bush football more, to assist in developing and promoting it. I'd like to see two separate competitions for clubs, one of which concurrently with representative football, and a season structure there could allow a gap between competitions where non-international players from up to 14 of the 16 NRL first grade and Toyota Cup teams (non Grand Finalists) would have a window where they could make a guest appearance or two with a country club, which would be mid season for them. That could boost the game in the bush enormously, but its a topic for another debate.

Anyway, so far, the following models for electing the commissioners have been proposed. The 16 NRL clubs vote for:
1) all 8 commissioners
2) 4 commissioners, with the ARL getting 4
3) 4 commissioners, with the NSWRL, QRL, CRL and emerging states each voting for 1 commissioner.

What about an alternative to the ARL being the independent body in models 2 or 3? It could be
* 16 NRL clubs for 4 commissioners
* The Community Sport division of the Australian Sports Commission votes for 2 commissioners. This could inject a body whose interest lies in developing community sport at junior, senior and amateur level, the grassroots of the game
* Either the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) division of the ASC, the Sport Performance and Development division of the ASC, or Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) could vote for 2 commissioners. One of these organisations could have more interest in developing strong international competition than the clubs.

Perhaps the intervention of government in the administration of the game might worry some people, but we do ask three tiers of government for millions to fund stadium upgrades and grassroots football. Its probably not perfect or ideal, but it might be better than a commission elected solely by (increasingly privately owned) clubs.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

It may sound good to say "the clubs vote" - but, similar to current politicians, this will end up in corruption on an unprecedented level as egocentric lightweights use their club connections to get a seat.

 

[Loudstrat]

Anyway, so far, the following models for electing the commissioners have been proposed. The 16 NRL clubs vote for:
1) all 8 commissioners
2) 4 commissioners, with the ARL getting 4
3) 4 commissioners, with the NSWRL, QRL, CRL and emerging states each voting for 1 commissioner.

What about an alternative to the ARL being the independent body in models 2 or 3? It could be
* 16 NRL clubs for 4 commissioners
* The Community Sport division of the Australian Sports Commission votes for 2 commissioners. This could inject a body whose interest lies in developing community sport at junior, senior and amateur level, the grassroots of the game
* Either the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) division of the ASC, the Sport Performance and Development division of the ASC, or Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) could vote for 2 commissioners. One of these organisations could have more interest in developing strong international competition than the clubs.

Perhaps the intervention of government in the administration of the game might worry some people, but we do ask three tiers of government for millions to fund stadium upgrades and grassroots football. Its probably not perfect or ideal, but it might be better than a commission elected solely by (increasingly privately owned) clubs.

The AOC has nothing to do with RL, and would have no interest in wether the game thrived or died.

The AIS is a political animal, and would mean RL was suddenly tied to politics. No thanks - a potential change of ownership every few years would be wrong.

The ARL has vested interest in the sport - why replace them?

 

[The Observer]

The AIS is a political animal, and would mean RL was suddenly tied to politics. No thanks - a potential change of ownership every few years would be wrong.

RL has been tied to politics for 100 years. Giving the AIS a vote would just give a direct link.

The ARL has vested interest in the sport - why replace them?

The clubs and other parties want to remove what they see as the ARL members' vested interest in their own position.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I think News Ltd just wants to sink the ARL once and for all and they've co-opted the clubs to do it by offering them the whole pie.

 

[siv]

Again

I have no issue with 8 commisioners

I have no issue that 75% vote needs to be obtained to be elected

ARL should have 50% of the voting rights - made up of appropriate people
(eg NSWRL 5 votes, QRL 5 votes, RLIF-rep, WA, SA, NT, VIC one vote) [CRL is cosidered to be part of NSWRL]
Australian based Clubs have the remaining 50% of voting rights

So if the clubs don;t want a ARL rep on the commission they can boycott - eg boycott a Ribot appointment

 

[bartman]

You can't prove something that hasn't happened yet. Are you a bit simple?

But the best predictor of future behaviour is past (and present) behaviour.

* A decade ago the NRL clubs were given control of playing pre-season trials where and when they like. Since then the number of games taken to country areas has dropped dramatically.

* The NRL's community carnival was supposed to include matches between whole NRL sides and local sides. The clubs didn't like it and it was reduced to just a visit by a handful of players. Many clubs still only send their fringe frist graders or under 20s.

* NRL clubs are supposed to compensate country clubs when they sign their players. In recent times many clubs have failed to come up with the money and when they do it's only when complaints are made to the NRL.

* Clubs have already voted against expansion at a time when every other code is expanding around us and when the fans are crying out for it.

* In the past we've seen clubs like Brisbane have bans placed on any other club being set up in their territory.

* All but two clubs opposed South Sydney's participation in the competition after they were booted out.

* Clubs have lobbied for changes to State of Origin, such as weekend games so their players don't miss club games.

* The World Sevens was scrapped because several NRL clubs refused to allow their best players to particpate, robbing the game of an important international development tool.

* Clubs continue to force players into post-season surgery, especially non-Australian representatives, forcing them to miss internationals just so they don't miss a few weeks of training or a couple of club games.

* Clubs whinged about their players having to play in internationals like the 2004 USA game which has forced the ARL to cut back on such attempts to grow the game and opt for shorter tours.

* And just this week it emerged there were secret plans to boycott the Anzac Test unless the clubs get their way.

And that's just off the top of my head. And it doesn't even go into things like player behaviour and club complicity and all the other dramas that club football has thrown up in recent times. It's pretty clear that giving the clubs 100% ownership of the entire game is asking for trouble based on the attitudes and practices they have displayed previously and in many cases continue to display.

Well said.

I find it amazing that people have forgotten these incidents, or fail to acknowledge that clubs will act - or instruct the commissioners (that they want exclusive power in appointing and reappointing) to act - in their own self interest.

And I find it amazing that people have just swallowed News Ltd's agenda in all this, hook line and sinker...

 

[bartman]

Well don't blame the ARL for that. News Limited could walk away and hand their 50% share to the clubs tomorrow. All the more season why a media company shouldn't be involved in owning and running a sport. If News Limited are that desparate to pull out then no-one is holding them back.

Exactly. There is no need - or right - for them to dictate terms of the future of the game they tried to break.

I think News Ltd just wants to sink the ARL once and for all and they've co-opted the clubs to do it by offering them the whole pie.

Yep, that's what's going on. Just that some people (including clubs and fans) are too blind to see it...

Anyway, so far, the following models for electing the commissioners have been proposed. The 16 NRL clubs vote for:
1) all 8 commissioners
2) 4 commissioners, with the ARL getting 4
3) 4 commissioners, with the NSWRL, QRL, CRL and emerging states each voting for 1 commissioner.

I'm yet to read anything that has convinced me that this one isn't the best model, or that it's not workable.

ARL should have 50% of the voting rights - made up of appropriate people
(eg NSWRL 5 votes, QRL 5 votes, RLIF-rep, WA, SA, NT, VIC one vote) [CRL is cosidered to be part of NSWRL]
Australian based Clubs have the remaining 50% of voting rights

Exactly.

 

[nadera78]

I am yet to see any details about the mechanisms that will be put in place regarding expansion of the NRL and/or how to deal with failing clubs. A report in the Kiwi press the other day had quotes from the Warriors saying they were in favour of the IC because it meant they could not be thrown out of the competition no matter what they did because they would own a share in the NRL.

So basically, it seems as if a club could fall away year after year after year but nothing be done about removing them or replacing with a vitally important club in an area like Perth or southern NZ.

 

[Jankuloski]

This topic has become so nonsensical and ludicrous that it should be moved to a fantasy stories forum.

I am sure that's what it said in the statement: "Love this IC thing, we can do anything we want now, we can ruin ourselves and everyone will bail us out." In fact, I have it on reliable source that the Sharks are planning to sign the entire Serbian national team to field so they don't have to pay their current players. The Panthers are not going to bother printing tickets under the IC because they own the game and now they can't be punted...

The Broncos decided to shoot any kids coming near their junior programs 'cause they hate the grassroots, and Wally Lewis is contemplating a return to international footy as the clubs now won't release their players. I have also read in some newspaper/blog/twitter account that in fact the Warriors will own the entire RL in Aus, and that their powers now extend to choosing the Australian Prime Minister.