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

[Loudstrat]

holy spelling mistake Bratman

OOps!

"... this is not caused by, nor the fault of, the ARL. It comes from one factor - Super League..." What a load of crap. "We (rugby league, best represented by the ARL)..." Codswallop. "The ARL has a record of seeking sustainable expansion..." My shiny metal butt.

News Ltd was not the only instigator of the Super League war. I doubt clubs would have been so eager to jump ship if the ARL/NSWRL hadn't threatened to drop up to six Sydney clubs from the league according to spurious financial requirements, and then started doing so with Newtown Western Suburbs (edit).

:lol:
SL wanted only 3 WSydney clubs. Canterbury jumped first - looking for power. Cronulls followed the promise of $. Penrith went months later after much negotiation. Anyway, the influence for SL came from outside Sydney, not inside.

And do you forget that all those non-Sydney sides came into existance because the ARL and Sydney clubs pushed for expansion?

BTW, Newtown went broke.

It is true that the likes of the Warriors support the concept of the IC because it means that they are far more likely to be a permanent part of the league. The experience under similar structures in the NFL and AFL is that it is almost impossible for clubs to be dropped even if they are trading insolvently, e.g. North Melbourne and Carlton. This situation is preferable, however, to the ARL's last bright idea of an invitation-based competition where a club gets no assurances that it will be allowed back into the league on a semi-annual basis.

Problem?

One consequence of the IC will be to lock in a certain number of Sydney teams, I think. If the ARL is allowed to push its agenda, there will be further rationalisation of Sydney clubs. Which do you want: the league to try to retain all existing clubs and grow the pie so that everyone can survive and thrive, or for the league to prune the competition and alienate fans during a time of positive growth in the game?

Huh? SL was the one that had the knife - demanding a 12 team comp and the death of 8 teams - remember?

Besides, you are focusing on only ONE comp. There are hundreds that the ARL administers. No ARL - no comps. Simple.

 

[m0nty]

:lol:
SL wanted only 3 WSydney clubs. Canterbury jumped first - looking for power. Cronulls followed the promise of $. Penrith went months later after much negotiation. Anyway, the influence for SL came from outside Sydney, not inside.

And do you forget that all those non-Sydney sides came into existance because the ARL and Sydney clubs pushed for expansion?

BTW, Newtown went broke.

Which came first, the Bradley Report or Super League? Which came first, the NSWRL/ARL pushing out teams like Western Suburbs or Super League?

Problem?

I would think an invitation-based competition would be a problem, yes. Would you like the NRL to be run that way?

Huh? SL was the one that had the knife - demanding a 12 team comp and the death of 8 teams - remember?

Besides, you are focusing on only ONE comp. There are hundreds that the ARL administers. No ARL - no comps. Simple.

The ARL was waving around its knife before News came on the scene.

That "No ARL - no comps" stuff is a load of horsemanure. The lower comps under the QRL/NSWRL et al will all be unaffected by this in an operational sense. If anything, they would get more money through elimination of wasteful duplication of management layers.

 

[Loudstrat]

I hope our tangent out there is nice, but I fail to see how the bradley report from the 1980's has anything to do with an IC.

Like suggesting the ARL was carving up the comp. It tried to cull Wests who were, like Newtown, on the financial brink. But it did include Illawarra, Canberra, Newcastle, Gold Coast (versions 1, 2 and 3) Brisbane, North Queensland, South Queensland, Auckland and Perth, while taking games to Parkes, Wagga anbd Melbourne, and encouraged clubs to take games to Adelaide, Darwin, Napier, Christchurch, Wellington and Gosford.

Some stupid morons suggest the the ARL is against expansion. :lol:

Some stupid morons reckon News Ltd want to grow the game - they have a 12 team comp in their dreams ffs.

 

[siv]

If you're trying to claim the ARL's "agenda" will be to cull Sydney clubs you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. It was News Ltd that wanted that and got it under the 1997 deal and then promptly killed off two of its expansion clubs as well. Newton were booted in what? 1983? 12 years before the ARL ran the national comp. I wonder who Skeepe's scaremongering tag fits best now? And has there been a more baseless claim ever?

Lets get the facts right

1982 NSWRL expansion to include Illawarra and Canberra (after Newcastle did no twant to enter)
1983 Newtown going bust and relocation to Campbelltown did not work

1984 Newtown step dow for financial reason and yes the NSWRL axed Wests from the comp. But Wests faught in court and remained in the league. On final conclusion Wests we asked to move fdrom the Ashfiled / Libcombe based out to Campbelltown.

1988 Newcastle and Brisbane (first ever privately owned club) added to the comp and Gold Coast last (to make it a even number of teams once again)

1995 2 teams were to be added but with the advent of the SL war all 4 were added (Perth, Auckalnd, Nth Qld, Sth Qld) With Sth Qld a QRL direct response to the issues occuring with the Broncos. Whole there was a desire for Melbourne even at this stage between the ARL and VRL, VRL was not ready.

1997 SL season - Hunter Mariners, Adelaide added (to make up teh numbers in the SL 10 team comp. ARL had a 12 team comp)

1998 - as part of the compromise between ARL and News - Melbourne born

 

[m0nty]

The Bradley report was in 1992, actually. In '94 the ARL started the invitation bulltish.

The point is that the ARL has form in this area, in that the last time they controlled the comp their stated agenda was to rationalise the competition by kicking out clubs. Sure, News did that too, no one's asking for them to return. They are both guilty of it.

What the IC represents is a chance to declare a pox on both their houses, and build a new future without any of the protagonists from the SL war "winning".

 

[siv]

Lets not forget why the Pay-TV became a RL SL war

IUn 1993 - a consortium PMT ( Packer / Murdoch (ie News Ltd) / Telstra ) went to the government to setup Foxtel

Oz government rejected them saying they would be a monopoly - and foced Packer / Murdoch to split

Murdoch went with Telstra and Packer joined up with the new company Optus

Packer had the TV and Pay-TV rights to the ARL, Murdoch had nothing

SL war started to force the ARL / Packer to surrender these TV rights. It was supposed to be over in a week or so

But it dragged on

SL could not get clubs to shift across because they had contracts with the ARL that were binding. So they went for the players

Ribot was a pawn for Murdoch in this game with his infamous vision the marketing campaign

 

[Green Machine]

I hope our tangent out there is nice, but I fail to see how the bradley report from the 1980's has anything to do with an IC.

The Bradley Report was tabled by the Premiership Policy Committee of the NSWRL on the 9th April 1992, 2 years before Super League,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war#The_Bradley_Report

 

[Green Machine]

OOps!

And do you forget that all those non-Sydney sides came into existance because the ARL and Sydney clubs pushed for expansion?

BTW, Newtown went broke.

No, along with Wests Newtown were actually voted out by their fellow NSWRL Clubs in September 1983 by a vote of 29-12. Newtown Secretary Frank Farrington called it a “stacked deck” and Ken Arthurson described the decision as “the toughest ever to confront the League”.

 

[Green Machine]

Lets not forget why the Pay-TV became a RL SL war

IUn 1993 - a consortium PMT ( Packer / Murdoch (ie News Ltd) / Telstra ) went to the government to setup Foxtel

Oz government rejected them saying they would be a monopoly - and foced Packer / Murdoch to split

That is incorrect. The Government never opposed the PMT consortium. Packer and Murdoch fell out and Optus induced Packer to their consortium. In 1996, the Howard Government never opposed Packer joining the Foxtel consortium either, after he stabbed the ARL in the back,

Murdoch went with Telstra and Packer joined up with the new company Optus

That bit is true

Packer had the TV and Pay-TV rights to the ARL, Murdoch had nothing

No he never. He had a last rights of refusal, but never the rights.

SL war started to force the ARL / Packer to surrender these TV rights. It was supposed to be over in a week or so

The war started when the ARL awarded those rights to PBL without seeking an offer from News Ltd

But it dragged on

That's true

SL could not get clubs to shift across because they had contracts with the ARL that were binding. So they went for the players

Clubs had signed letters of intent to play in Super League, which they did in 1997,

Ribot was a pawn for Murdoch in this game with his infamous vision the marketing campaign

Funny way of looking at it,

 

[Green Machine]

That was News Ltd and the Broncos you dense f*ck!!!!!!!

News Ltd and Bronocs opposed the Titians?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/09/1092022407812.html?from=storyrhs
Richardson calls for vote on expansion
By Steve Mascord
August 10, 2004

South Sydney chief executive Shane Richardson has called for a vote to be taken by clubs today on expansion - and said the fact the result could be ignored was "a joke".
The NRL partnership will meet on Monday to discuss applications from the Central Coast, Gold Coast and Wellington to be the 16th team in 2006. There will almost certainly be no immediate decision.
Although today's chief executives' summit in Sydney is the final summit of the existing clubs before the meeting, the issue doesn't even figure on the agenda.
Under the structure of the league, the partnership can - and often does - make decisions that fly in the face of the clubs.
"I'll tell you what I think about it, I think it's a joke," said Richardson. "The 15 clubs' opinions, I don't believe they are fully taken into account when we are considering something as massive as this change. When you're losing $25 million a year, how the hell can you talk about expansion? What business does that? I'm an expansionist but we need to have a look at the game itself and say 'where is it financially going?', not just make a decision about expansion because it's the flavour of the month."
Wests Tigers chief executive Steve Noyce, who also opposes expansion, said he expected the matter to come up in general business this afternoon.
Richardson believes there should be a vote but when asked if he would move for one, he answered: "I don't want to come out and say that in your article."
In polls conducted by various media outlets over the past 12 months, as many as 13 clubs have indicated they are opposed to a 16th team. And while all of them have had the opportunity to submit papers on the subject, there is no formal vote on record.
"I'm dirty about that because it's our business," said Richardson. "We're the ones losing $25 million a year, not the partnership. They haven't lost a penny, they make a profit every year. We lose money every day.
"The game needs a million dollars per club more in television money."
Canberra chief executive Simon Hawkins and Brisbane's Bruno Cullen said last night they would not be pushing their views on the issue and supported the partnership's right to make decisions in the interests of the game.
The NRL's report on whether to admit a 16th team, and who it should be, to be tabled on Monday, runs to more than 130 pages.
Fighting against this tide will be a delegation from the West Australian Rugby League, which will formally invite clubs to play games in Perth in what they hope will be the first step along the track to reviving the Reds.
"Unless we're, on a semi-regular basis, playing rugby league at the top level at all the capital cities, we don't have a national rugby league," said WARL general manager Bill Nosworthy.

 

[Green Machine]

Lets get the facts right


1995 2 teams were to be added but with the advent of the SL war all 4 were added (Perth, Auckalnd, Nth Qld, Sth Qld) With Sth Qld a QRL direct response to the issues occuring with the Broncos. Whole there was a desire for Melbourne even at this stage between the ARL and VRL, VRL was not ready.

Lets get the facts right. The Warriors, Reds, Crushers and Cowboys applications to enter the 1995 Winfield Cup were accepted in 1992. Super League's first mention in the press was 1994,

 

[East Coast Tiger]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?from=storyrhs
Richardson calls for vote on expansion
By Steve Mascord
August 10, 2004

South Sydney chief executive Shane Richardson has called for a vote to be taken by clubs today on expansion - and said the fact the result could be ignored was "a joke".
The NRL partnership will meet on Monday to discuss applications from the Central Coast, Gold Coast and Wellington to be the 16th team in 2006. There will almost certainly be no immediate decision.
Although today's chief executives' summit in Sydney is the final summit of the existing clubs before the meeting, the issue doesn't even figure on the agenda.
Under the structure of the league, the partnership can - and often does - make decisions that fly in the face of the clubs.
"I'll tell you what I think about it, I think it's a joke," said Richardson. "The 15 clubs' opinions, I don't believe they are fully taken into account when we are considering something as massive as this change. When you're losing $25 million a year, how the hell can you talk about expansion? What business does that? I'm an expansionist but we need to have a look at the game itself and say 'where is it financially going?', not just make a decision about expansion because it's the flavour of the month."
Wests Tigers chief executive Steve Noyce, who also opposes expansion, said he expected the matter to come up in general business this afternoon.
Richardson believes there should be a vote but when asked if he would move for one, he answered: "I don't want to come out and say that in your article."
In polls conducted by various media outlets over the past 12 months, as many as 13 clubs have indicated they are opposed to a 16th team. And while all of them have had the opportunity to submit papers on the subject, there is no formal vote on record.
"I'm dirty about that because it's our business," said Richardson. "We're the ones losing $25 million a year, not the partnership. They haven't lost a penny, they make a profit every year. We lose money every day.
"The game needs a million dollars per club more in television money."
Canberra chief executive Simon Hawkins and Brisbane's Bruno Cullen said last night they would not be pushing their views on the issue and supported the partnership's right to make decisions in the interests of the game.
The NRL's report on whether to admit a 16th team, and who it should be, to be tabled on Monday, runs to more than 130 pages.
Fighting against this tide will be a delegation from the West Australian Rugby League, which will formally invite clubs to play games in Perth in what they hope will be the first step along the track to reviving the Reds.
"Unless we're, on a semi-regular basis, playing rugby league at the top level at all the capital cities, we don't have a national rugby league," said WARL general manager Bill Nosworthy.

I think if anything that is a pretty worrying sign for any future expansion if the clubs set the agenda. The financial conditions may never be exactly the same as that again but it does show clubs put themselves ahead of growing the game. It's pretty bad when you consider the News Ltd/ARL partnership made a great decision (in allowing the Titans in) that the clubs wouldn't have allowed had it been their choice. On the expansion front we might be better off keeping News Ltd as a 50% owner based on that evidence, which is pretty sad.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Also an interesting read in the country version of the Sunday Tele about NRL turning its back on bush footy with only three trial games played in regional NSW this year. The only one west of the divide is being underwritten to the tune of $80k by the local Group in the hope it will turn a profit which can be returned to the local clubs. So the NRL clubs are at no risk of losing any money from these games and still they are few and far between. Not that many Groups could come up with $80k to underwrite these games.

 

[Loudstrat]

The Bradley Report was tabled by the Premiership Policy Committee of the NSWRL on the 9th April 1992, 2 years before Super League,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_war#The_Bradley_Report

That's very good.

Now, can you tell me what the hell that or anything else you posted yesterday has anything to do with the mooted IC?

 

[griff]

The Bradley Report is often mentioned, but all it was was an external consultants review of how the game might be conducted, not necessarily NSWRL/ARL policy. It was also based on some false assumptions.

Reading extracts from the report, the main reason it gives for proposing rationalisation in the number of teams is that you shouldn't have a competition of more than 12 or 14 teams, because otherwise teams wouldn't be able to play each other home and away. But really, who cares. From 1988-1996, 1998-1999, and 2002-present teams didn't play each other twice and no one minded.

 

[Green Machine]

That's very good.

Now, can you tell me what the hell that or anything else you posted yesterday has anything to do with the mooted IC?

Hang on Misty, you are the one who deliberately told a f**ken lie (not to mention the long list of others) that the Bradley Report was commissioned in the 80’s.

I wonder if you will ever get back to me about your other great f**ken lie about, quote:

“These 4 organisations have been festooned with political differences, and the QRL attitude to the other 3 played a massive role in the ideological differences that spawned Super League.”

 

[Green Machine]

The Bradley Report is often mentioned, but all it was was an external consultants review of how the game might be conducted, not necessarily NSWRL/ARL policy. It was also based on some false assumptions.

Reading extracts from the report, the main reason it gives for proposing rationalisation in the number of teams is that you shouldn't have a competition of more than 12 or 14 teams, because otherwise teams wouldn't be able to play each other home and away. But really, who cares. From 1988-1996, 1998-1999, and 2002-present teams didn't play each other twice and no one minded.

Is that so? Did you read this bit:

"...to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process.

 

[Goddo]

I think if anything that is a pretty worrying sign for any future expansion if the clubs set the agenda. The financial conditions may never be exactly the same as that again but it does show clubs put themselves ahead of growing the game. It's pretty bad when you consider the News Ltd/ARL partnership made a great decision (in allowing the Titans in) that the clubs wouldn't have allowed had it been their choice. On the expansion front we might be better off keeping News Ltd as a 50% owner based on that evidence, which is pretty sad.

True, but the expectation of the new board would be that it acts in the games best interest, like the AFL's commission does.

From what I understand, a lot of the AFL clubs in Melbourne are against the new Sydney side, as it may mean one of them goes under, but the AFL is doing it anyway.

I guess the new Independent ARL commission would work in a similar dictatorial way doing whats in the games best interest. If it does go that way, the new commission may pressure current Sydney clubs to relocate, much like the way Fitsroy and the Swans were forced to move in the 80s afl.

The clubs would wield power in terms of who they vote in. I would rather see fewer elections and positions on the board being for longer to counter the power of the vote clubs will have. The commission could work very well, they just need to be careful about loop holes and think out possible weaknesses and build redundancy into the system. thats sort of what I am hoping for. we will really need a strong chairman to assert his authority initially to make it work.

 

[Loudstrat]

Hang on Misty, you are the one who deliberately told a f**ken lie (not to mention the long list of others) that the Bradley Report was commissioned in the 80’s.

I wonder if you will ever get back to me about your other great f**ken lie about, quote:

“These 4 organisations have been festooned with political differences, and the QRL attitude to the other 3 played a massive role in the ideological differences that spawned Super League.”

Deliberately told a lie :lol: FMD you are desperate for a fight.

Not being wrapt up in the Bradley Report as you are, I was unaware of the publish date. Stiff sh*t - it's irrelevant anyway.

As for the QRL - to promote Origin they promoted a hate against NSW - and led it with a hostile attitude toward anything south of the border. Others took it to the extreme, and SL started from that extremitism.

I expect you with go and stab the cat, and your missus will have to use the tranquiliser gun to calm you down and maybe prevent you kicking all the bins over at Belconnen shops after reading my post. Take a chill pill, and calm down, and stick to the topic. Or cuddle the Bradley report if it makes you feel better.

True, but the expectation of the new board would be that it acts in the games best interest, like the AFL's commission does.

From what I understand, a lot of the AFL clubs in Melbourne are against the new Sydney side, as it may mean one of them goes under, but the AFL is doing it anyway.

I guess the new Independent ARL commission would work in a similar dictatorial way doing whats in the games best interest. If it does go that way, the new commission may pressure current Sydney clubs to relocate, much like the way Fitsroy and the Swans were forced to move in the 80s afl.

The clubs would wield power in terms of who they vote in. I would rather see fewer elections and positions on the board being for longer to counter the power of the vote clubs will have. The commission could work very well, they just need to be careful about loop holes and think out possible weaknesses and build redundancy into the system. thats sort of what I am hoping for. we will really need a strong chairman to assert his authority initially to make it work.

Just wondering, whas there an national Australian Rules body or just the states before AFL's IC?

 

[Loudstrat]

Look, I think there is a big merry go round here. Essentially ECT is arguing that there is no guarantee that an independent commission - whose power base lies solely in the hands of only 16 elite clubs - will guarantee that all other clubs and teams be looked after to an acceptable standard.

With few exceptions - the response is to bag the ARL.

That still does not prove that an independent commission will look after the whole code.

Pointing to AFL's commission may be an indicator, but it isn't proof.

Saying that it's better than the NRL structure also isn't proof.

I'd back the commission if there was something built into it that provided representation for the stakeholders that are not NRL clubs or their players.

Let's see that proof.