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

[griff]

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.

Exactly right, it was a policy of reduction of numbers through natural attrition.

 

[RL1908]

Not wishing to be pedantic, but the ARL wasn't in control of the premiership until it was handed over by the NSWRL for the 1995 season. Some of the actions attributed to the ARL pre-1995, are in fact references to the NSWRL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's not pedantic. The funny thing is the clubs that made up the premiership had control over the NSWRL. So it's arguably more comparable to what is being proposed now for the new ARL (NRL) than the old ARL circa 1995-97 which was full of non NSWRL clubs.

 

[RL1908]

It's not pedantic. The funny thing is the clubs that made up the premiership had control over the NSWRL. So it's arguably more comparable to what is being proposed now for the new ARL (NRL) than the old ARL circa 1995-97 which was full of non NSWRL clubs.

I've been trying to find when the control did switch over from the NSWRL to ARL, and how that transfer worked and over what period. Unfortunately, as in this thread, even in c.1993 to late 1994, there are many ambiguous/inter-changeable references in the press to the NSWRL & ARL, complicated by officials being involved in both.

Here's an interesting article (unfortunately the writer's name was not included)...

RL LOSES THE BIG ONE
Date: 16/11/1994
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald

AFTER Monday night's meeting between the Australian Rugby League and the 20 clubs in next year's competition, it seems that the ARL is in danger of losing the game.

The president of the ARL, Mr Ken Arthurson, claims that next year's competition will take place "as scheduled", with a Superleague possibly in 1996. A number of clubs will have to amalgamate or go under. The ARL will stay in control of the Superleague, Mr Arthurson insists. The more likely outcome, however, is that the ARL will become a puppet manipulated by the interests of commercial (especially pay) TV. How many teams will the Superleague have, for instance?

One theory is that a Superleague will be imposed on top of the 1995 20-club competition. But there will be no great interest in the second-tier competition. The following of, say, the Sydney Tigers in a second-tier competition will become as inconsequential as the following of Newtown in the Sydney metropolitan competition. And without any real following, the viability and, more importantly, the point of locally-based teams such as the Sydney Tigers will become marginal.

There will be increasing pressure from the commercial television interests, too, to reduce the number of Superleague teams. One suggestion is for a 12-team Superleague. The commercial television interests talk about a 10-team competition. And in time, any 12-team Superleague will probably be cut back to a 10-team Superleague. A small Superleague of this size, however, is against the interests of the game. So if the ARL wants to claim that it has retained control of rugby league it must insist now that any Superleague competition be made up of 16 teams, which eliminates the need for a second-tier competition. This was its long- term strategy when it set up the 20-team competition. The bigger league allowed it to bring in Auckland, Perth and a second Brisbane team. The next step was going to be amalgamation of some of the struggling Sydney clubs and the elimination of the Gold Coast club. This strategy is still available under a 16-team Superleague concept.

A Superleague driven by the ARL would (or should) bring Papua New Guinea into the competition, too. The ARL's treatment of Papua New Guinea, the only country in the world where rugby league is the main football code, has been a disgrace. The comparison with the way rugby union has developed its code in the Pacific casts the ARL in a poor light.

Back in 1952, over 42,000 people watched the Wallabies play Fiji, for example. Instead of following this example and developing its code outside New South Wales and Queensland, the ARL has tended to rely on bodysnatching talented rugby union players and indulging in fantasies such as starting rugby league in the United States and Russia. The result of this indulgence is that the commercial television interests are now poised to snatch the game away from a complacent ARL - and from the people of Sydney.

A 12-team Superleague, for instance, has room for only four Sydney teams(East, South, North, West). The North team will no doubt have its home ground at Brookvale Oval, Manly. How will North Sydney Bears supporters cope with this? Queensland will have two teams, at the most, in the Superleague. How long will it be before Sydney's four teams are reduced to two teams? If Monday night's decision was a victory for the ARL, it may - unfortunately - turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for supporters of rugby league in Sydney.

Source: http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?sy=nstore&sp=adv

 

[Fein]

That article "reads" like it was written by Roy Masters.

 

[RL1908]

That article "reads" like it was written by Roy Masters.

At first glance, I agree - but the passionate references to PNG, the Paciifc and a seemingly strong awareness of both codes from the 1950s onwards, suggests it is someone older. Either way, an interesting read.

 

[RL1908]

This one is by Roy Masters (SMH 25/06/1993):

The ARL recently decided to allow the NSWRL to run the national competition in 1995.

Many believed that when the 20-team competition comes into operation, with teams from Perth, Auckland and Townsville, it would be a misnomer to run it as the NSWRL competition.

However, Arthurson said: "We have decided that the NSWRL board will run the 20-team CUB or Coca-Cola or whatever Cup it is called when Winfield's sponsorship ends.

"The players will have an ARL logo on their jumpers and shorts but the NSWRL will run it.

"This has been done to avoid the transfer of assets and overcome the problem of voting rights which would arise if the ARL ran the Cup."

The ARL consists of four delegates from each of NSW and Queensland, with Arthurson having the casting vote.

"It would be wrong for a State to have equal power when another State has 90 per cent of the assets," he says.

"It's better to just leave the administration of the new competition to the NSWRL board."

Whether privately owned franchises, such as the Brisbane Broncos, abide by this disenfranchising system remains to be seen.

 

[Titanic]

I reckon that's some of Steve Mascord's early work. He was a great supporter of PNG league after establishing a direct-line relationship with the late Sir Jim "Jabber" Jacobi and later of the Vipers when they played Qld cup.

 

[Perth Red]

Reading those two reports you can easily see how RL continues to get itself in such an administrative mess! Put the same people in charge and we'll end up with the same results.

 

[Mr Angry]

So handover no handover?

Seems to be all words.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Reading those two reports you can easily see how RL continues to get itself in such an administrative mess! Put the same people in charge and we'll end up with the same results.

You mean a viable and popular national competition with 20 teams, including Perth?

 

[Perth Red]

"viable" is a very subjective term when looking at the history of RL!

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It was financially viable at the time. Only SL changed that.

 

[Green Machine]

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.

That is very interesting Griff. Very interesting that Terry Parker and Peter Moore stayed on as NSWRL Directors until they resigned in 1995, only to be replaced by other club officials like Bob Millward. Was Arko still president of Manly Leagues in 1995?

 

[Perth Red]

It was financially viable at the time. Only SL changed that.

you have no way of knowing that. There were already signs pre SL kicking off that some clubs were financially struggling. SL certainly hastened a situation and put a very artificial lens over the landscape but as I said it is a subjective argument as we have no idea what would or would not have happened if SL had not come along.

 

[Green Machine]

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:

I can't belive you spent a week to come up with such a weak answer to your BS that the hatred of State of Origin caused a rift between the QRL and NSWRL-CRL-ARL.

 

[The Observer]

RL LOSES THE BIG ONE
Date: 16/11/1994
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald

<snipped> One theory is that a Superleague will be imposed on top of the 1995 20-club competition. But there will be no great interest in the second-tier competition. The following of, say, the Sydney Tigers in a second-tier competition will become as inconsequential as the following of Newtown in the Sydney metropolitan competition. And without any real following, the viability and, more importantly, the point of locally-based teams such as the Sydney Tigers will become marginal.

The major flaw in this assumption was that the second tier would comprise the same 20 teams in the ARL 1995 premiership. Both the ARL and Super League proposed that the second tier have those exact teams. It was obviously going to follow that there would be far less interest in the second tier as the only thing that would differentiate it and the top tier would be the lack of elite players in the second tier.

This assumption, and the lack of an attempt to create a viable, vibrant, distinct second tier, meant that Sydney clubs would do anything to stand alone in the top tier. Merging or relegation meant death.

you have no way of knowing that. There were already signs pre SL kicking off that some clubs were financially struggling. SL certainly hastened a situation and put a very artificial lens over the landscape but as I said it is a subjective argument as we have no idea what would or would not have happened if SL had not come along.

In 1993, the Western Reds and South QLD Crushers failed the ARL's basic criteria for admission to the 1995 Premiership, but the ARL let them in anyway on sentiment. The Warriors and Cowboys passed.

 

[Titanic]

I reckon that the ARL/NSWRL expansion and then let the clubs fall on their swords strategy had merit but these are the questions that worry me:

Have we learnt anything from the last acrimonious decade or so?
Do the clubs own the game?
Do the fans?
Which fans?
Who should be empowered to be the key stakeholders?
Is there still a place for traditional values?

 

[Perth Red]

It was also the case that the NSWRL/ARL didn't have the cash reserves to expand so quickly, hence the decision to make the Reds pay for all travel and accomodation for clubs to Perth. At that time this was a huge sum of money for them to find additional to their operating budget.

 

[m0nty]

You mean a viable and popular national competition with 20 teams, including Perth?

It was financially viable at the time. Only SL changed that.

Uh huh. So that's why Balmain, Easts, Gold Coast, Illawarra, Parramatta, Penrith, Souths, St George and Wests all failed the criteria that the ARL set out for admission to the 1995 season.

The league was only financially viable if it remained as a backwater comp of suburban Sydney which was happy with sub-10k crowds, and didn't face the invasion of three rival football codes armed with new professionalism. Not to mention the looming pokie tax disaster. The league was not strong enough to face the challenges confronting it, with or without SL, because it was still run by amateurs.