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

[Goddo]

Dunno Loudy. Don't follow that game...

I think it might have been states, and the AFL grew out of the Victorian one much like our comp grew out of the NSWRL. Man I used to love watching the NSWRL on Saturaday afternoons as a kid on ABC.

There will be problems with any system they come up with. The trick is, whatever they decide, so long as they try to build balance into the system, it will be okay. The IC will work if done right. Its got to be better than the limbo we are currently stuck in.

I can't see much progress being made on TV rights while we are half owned by one of the main TV broadcasters. I can't see much progress on expansion while we have no money. I can't see much improvement in regional footy while we have peope in it for the junket. We do need to get rid of News and at the very least the ARL needs massive reform.

 

[griff]

Is that so? Did you read this bit:

Yes but the whole premise of the need to reduce the number of Sydney teams in the report is predicated not on some kind of assessment of viability, but on the desirability of playing two complete rounds.

While there was well founded concern about the long term viability of Sydney clubs, and a belief that there were too many Sydney clubs, there is no evidence that the ARL had plans to reduce the number of Sydney clubs, except through natural attrition (ie Cronulla were on notice that they wouldn't get bailed out).

 

[m0nty]

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.

Would you also back the commission if it had a charter that locked in the commissioners to support the interests of stakeholders that are not NRL clubs or their players? Because that is what the plan is. Maybe when the charter is released, you'll understand.

Or are you like ECT, who refuses to believe that any sports administrator in rugby league could be professional enough as to obey that charter when it conflicts with the short-term interests of club?

Rugby league fans have had to put up with pissant shopkeepers and pissweak lawyers masquerading as sports administrators for too long. Some of you don't seem to know what a good one looks like. Some seem to have lost all faith in the profession. It's not hard to see why.

I think if there was someone credible who would be a good candidate for a commissioner, it would help enormously. Someone who wouldn't take crap from any stakeholder, including the clubs themselves. Someone not associated with any faction in the war. Does such an animal exist?

 

[Loudstrat]

Dunno, but I believe the do. I also believe people are fashioned by the institutions they serve, and the best admin the game has seen was the ARL between Humphreys and Super League. Before that there was corruption driven by clubs competition for power and individuals competition for power within the clubs. Post that we had a massive compromise driven by the greed of a media company.

I'd like to see the charter - and the legal force behind it, before I make my decision.

And I suspect that this commission is coming from a different place than the AFL commission did, and will therefore be a different animal that the AFL one (whether that's good or bad!)

 

[griff]

Would you also back the commission if it had a charter that locked in the commissioners to support the interests of stakeholders that are not NRL clubs or their players? Because that is what the plan is. Maybe when the charter is released, you'll understand.

Or are you like ECT, who refuses to believe that any sports administrator in rugby league could be professional enough as to obey that charter when it conflicts with the short-term interests of club?

Rugby league fans have had to put up with pissant shopkeepers and pissweak lawyers masquerading as sports administrators for too long. Some of you don't seem to know what a good one looks like. Some seem to have lost all faith in the profession. It's not hard to see why.

I think if there was someone credible who would be a good candidate for a commissioner, it would help enormously. Someone who wouldn't take crap from any stakeholder, including the clubs themselves. Someone not associated with any faction in the war. Does such an animal exist?

The obvious problem with that is that the definition of what is in the best interest of the game is sometimes a different thing to different people.

For example some people think that it is in the best interests of the game to play a World Sevens, and have a Pre-season cup to take games to country areas. Others (the clubs) think it is in the best interests of the game to not have those things.

In terms of who should run things, there is a difference between the CEO and people on the Commission. The Commission is really just about changing governance arrangements, so members of the Commission don't really run things. The Commission should be prominent people, the CEO needs to be an astute and experienced sports administrator.

For what its worth, here is an interesting blast from the past:

On 12 May 1993, Mr Arthurson, who was chairman of both the League and ARL, sent a minute to the board of the ARL relating to the organisation of the national competition. In this minute he expressed his opposition to the clubs gaining direct representation on the board. He said that he could not accept that individual clubs participating in only one aspect of the national body's activities should have any say in matters not associated with that activity, be they national or international.

 

[m0nty]

Dunno, but I believe the do. I also believe people are fashioned by the institutions they serve, and the best admin the game has seen was the ARL between Humphreys and Super League. Before that there was corruption driven by clubs competition for power and individuals competition for power within the clubs. Post that we had a massive compromise driven by the greed of a media company.

I'd like to see the charter - and the legal force behind it, before I make my decision.

And I suspect that this commission is coming from a different place than the AFL commission did, and will therefore be a different animal that the AFL one (whether that's good or bad!)

It was said earlier that the AFL commission is different because it doesn't have an international component. This is true. The SANFL and WAFL are left to administer the SA and WA grassroots by themselves through ownership of local clubs, while the AFL runs the VFL. This situation is not terribly different in practice to lopping off the top of the ARL power structure and having all the state RLs under the aegis of the IC.

Effectively, expansion areas like NSW/Qld are the AFL's international component. However, of course, they are investing in NSW/Qld not just for its own sake but on behalf of future clubs.

Everything that the AFL does comes back to the good of the game, and it is undeniable that "the good of the game" is viewed mostly through the prism of how it benefits and strengthens the existing clubs. This would not necessarily be a bad thing if applied in roughly the same way to rugby league. Internationals are good for building the game in foreign countries, which then provide a wider selection pool of potential players for NRL clubs and viewers for their games. Sevens, if run at somewhere near a profit, opens the game up to new audiences and brings some of the T20 vibe to the sport which encourages innovation and higher scoring at NRL level. Most of the parts of rugby league can be justified as bolstering the club game at some level or another.

The other major difference between the two leagues is that the AFL has no competition for its player base, whereas the NRL is surrounded on all sides by rapacious rivals keen to poach their assets. This is where the IC can shine, I think, by taking it back up to Super League, union and AFL. Most of the reason that the AFL was able to secure cutie was the intervention by the commission to break its own salary cap rules and pour in its own money into his contract. The NRL currently doesn't have the money or the balls to do this sort of thing itself.

 

[Loudstrat]

I did some digging around about the AFL commission. From what I learned:

• The AFL arose from the VFL - and controlled the elite comp.
• It pressured the Australian National Football Council - the overriding body of the game - to disband, so it could take it's place as the peak body controlling the sport.
• The Australian national football council, whilst controlling the international game (lol), was made up of representatives of the state bodies
• The state bodies had little power over the VFL
• The AFL commission took control of the laws of the game
• The AFL commission controls development funding
• None of this funding goes to regional - or semi professional state comps - believing them to be self sufficient
• When the ANFC was disbanded - Origin lasted 3 years

The essential differences between the ANFL and the ARL:

• The ARL controlled the elite comp
• The ARL had greater power as the overseer of the laws of an international game, as it had to consider it's counterparts in France, NZ and the UK
• The ARL had an effective representative program driven by competetive test series between the 3 top nations (and France in the 1950's) and the World Cup. This exercised considerable prestige for players above club loyalties, where the ANFL did not have this.

So the two are coming from different situations.

Plus, the AFL commission has no provision for other competitions outside of the 16 elite clubs.

That's why I am worried.

 

[bartman]

We do need to get rid of News and at the very least the ARL needs massive reform.

I'm up for that. But to do one (ARL reform), you have to do the other first (News exit). Not together... get us back to pre-super league arrangements (with News Ltd exiting), and then everyone left can work together to reform that. News haven't earnt the right to dictate how the ARL is reformed, or indeed for them to surrender their half of the current arrangement.

And massive ARL reform doesn't mean no longer having any input or having less than equal input than the 16 current NRL clubs are seeking to the governance of the game in all its aspects.

 

[Big-Steve]

Or are you like ECT, who refuses to believe that any sports administrator in rugby league could be professional enough as to obey that charter when it conflicts with the short-term interests of club?

Its not about individuals it's about having the proper structure that does not put individuals in a conflicting situation.

The Clubs proposal puts people in 2 minds. Do they risk potentially being voted out or do they temper their decisions to remain.

A vote that includes representation from other levels of footy would allow an IC commission member to get on with his job and not worry about the interests of the Clubs becoming an issue.

Why when we have an opportunity for a new model are we creating one with this built in conflict?

 

[Green Machine]

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

You only have to open your mouth for the bullsh*t to flow Misty

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.

It’s irrelevant, particularly if you are trying to make out it was a document from the 80’s and not the early 90’s. A document that highlighted that there were too many teams in Sydney for a national competition.

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.

Is that the best you could come up with? What a load of sh*t. I went to a few State of Origin matches in Sydney in the mid 80’s where the NSW feral’s chanted Wally’s a wanker all through the game. Some real nasty stuff coming out of the natives on the Hill,

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.

I’ll give you 2/10 for that verbal diatribe. You’re still the biggest bullsh*t artist on the net

 

[m0nty]

Its not about individuals it's about having the proper structure that does not put individuals in a conflicting situation.

The Clubs proposal puts people in 2 minds. Do they risk potentially being voted out or do they temper their decisions to remain.

A vote that includes representation from other levels of footy would allow an IC commission member to get on with his job and not worry about the interests of the Clubs becoming an issue.

Why when we have an opportunity for a new model are we creating one with this built in conflict?

Wait, so you're saying that introducing factional politics into the commission lessens conflict? Have you been asleep for the past 20 years of rugby league?

It is far better not to politicise the appointment of commissioners. You could argue that this overly strengthens the hold by clubs, sure, but you can't argue that it also increases conflict.

 

[Green Machine]

Yes but the whole premise of the need to reduce the number of Sydney teams in the report is predicated not on some kind of assessment of viability, but on the desirability of playing two complete rounds.

Viabilty was the main point. To suggest anything is just just BS,

While there was well founded concern about the long term viability of Sydney clubs, and a belief that there were too many Sydney clubs, there is no evidence that the ARL had plans to reduce the number of Sydney clubs, except through natural attrition (ie Cronulla were on notice that they wouldn't get bailed out).

bullsh*t. Every side was put on notice. That is why before 1995, they had to re-apply for admission each season

 

[Loudstrat]

Griff, if you don't agree with Green Machine - it's just bullsh*t.

BTW, he'll argue anything, even if it's not remotely relevant. Hence the Bradley report - which was going to cull every Sydney side because Green Machine said so :lol:

 

[Big-Steve]

Wait, so you're saying that introducing factional politics into the commission lessens conflict? Have you been asleep for the past 20 years of rugby league?

You call it factional politics I call it representing what the IC is overseeing. What conflicts are you talking about and stop with the insults just because you disagree with me. I have not attacked anyone that disagrees with me (so far)

It is far better not to politicise the appointment of commissioners. You could argue that this overly strengthens the hold by clubs, sure, but you can't argue that it also increases conflict.

I did not say it increases conflict, I said it creates a conflict of interest because the voting power does not match he ICs charter.

 

[m0nty]

Let me see, there's the small matter of the current committee being comprised of 50% ARL and 50% News, who have been at each others' throats since 1995. Which is precisely the sort of division that the IC is trying, in part, to move on from. Setting up another 50/50 split between amateur and professional sides of the game doesn't seem to be much in the way of progress.

There is no conflict of interest by the commissioner because the clubs would never, in practice, vote out a commissioner who abides by the charter, even when it is against the short-term interest of some of the clubs. The public uproar would be deafening and it would completely undermine the independence of the commission. The clubs would consider that a greater evil than, for instance, losing an individual club.

 

[Dogs Of War]

• None of this funding goes to regional - or semi professional state comps - believing them to be self sufficient

So the state bodies learnt how to fund themselves. Isn't that a good thing? The game and it's structures need to learn how to stand on there own 2 feet.

Plus, the AFL commission has no provision for other competitions outside of the 16 elite clubs.

That's why I am worried.

But AFL funds the Auskick program like no tomorrow. Ensuring that the bodies inbetween those targetted by Auskick and Elite comp have plenty of players coming into the system to make it viable. So their is a provision, it's just that you aren't seeing it.

 

[griff]

Viabilty was the main point. To suggest anything is just just BS,

bullsh*t. Every side was put on notice. That is why before 1995, they had to re-apply for admission each season

Of course there were long term concerns about viability, but the Bradley Report wasn't some kind of economic forecast looking at Sydney clubs. It did two things, recommend "the competition be expanded to include teams from throughout Australia and perhaps New Zealand", and "reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds". Obviously to get to a 14 team national competition, the number of Sydney clubs would have to be reduced.

But it was an external consultant's report, and the ARL didn't necessarily take on board all the recommendations. Yes it moved towards a national competition, but it didn't move towards reducing the number of Sydney clubs. It could have done things like set up ranking criteria like the NRL did in 98-99, offer inducements for mergers, offer inducements for relocations, but it did none of these things. What it did was move to a 20 team national competition, which obviously shows that they weren't accepting all the recommendations of the Bradley Report.

All it did is make clubs apply each season so that if a club did go broke they would be able to be excluded from the comp with much less legal hassles.

 

[griff]

So the state bodies learnt how to fund themselves. Isn't that a good thing? The game and it's structures need to learn how to stand on there own 2 feet.

The Aussie Rules state bodies get paid by the clubs - eg SANFL gets paid licence fees by the Crows and Port Adelaide. AFL being a mass attendance sport they also get a lot more gate receipts than say the QRL. SANFL gets 30,000+ to their grand final.

I can't see the Broncos paying a licence fee to the QRL though.

 

[Goddo]

Of course there were long term concerns about viability, but the Bradley Report wasn't some kind of economic forecast looking at Sydney clubs. It did two things, recommend "the competition be expanded to include teams from throughout Australia and perhaps New Zealand", and "reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds". Obviously to get to a 14 team national competition, the number of Sydney clubs would have to be reduced.

But it was an external consultant's report, and the ARL didn't necessarily take on board all the recommendations. Yes it moved towards a national competition, but it didn't move towards reducing the number of Sydney clubs. It could have done things like set up ranking criteria like the NRL did in 98-99, offer inducements for mergers, offer inducements for relocations, but it did none of these things. What it did was move to a 20 team national competition, which obviously shows that they weren't accepting all the recommendations of the Bradley Report.

All it did is make clubs apply each season so that if a club did go broke they would be able to be excluded from the comp with much less legal hassles.

I am pretty sure the head of the ARL was quoted saying they expected Sydney clubs to go under without any intervention or action from the ARL simply by introducing cashed up one town teams.

You only have to look at the perilous state of Wests, Cronulla, Souths and Norths in the early 90s to see their plan slowly play out.

 

[Goddo]

The Aussie Rules state bodies get paid by the clubs - eg SANFL gets paid licence fees by the Crows and Port Adelaide. AFL being a mass attendance sport they also get a lot more gate receipts than say the QRL. SANFL gets 30,000+ to their grand final.

I can't see the Broncos paying a licence fee to the QRL though.

Maybe thats why the QRL bitches about change so much! They aren't getting a cut of the NRL