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

[RL1908]

UNITED SYDNEY TO STAND STRONG
Author: Roy Masters
Date: 26/12/1992
Sydney Morning Herald

On the 20th day of Christmas, the NSWRL gave to me:
20 clubs a'waiting,
19 sub-committees a'meeting,
18 Swans a'drowning,
17 players listed,
16 coaches a'hoping,
15 a-side code a'threatening,
14 backs a'sprinting,
13 clubs a'sponsored,
12 forwards a'charging,
11 man football a'looming
10 vice-presidents a'sleeping,
9 Sydney clubs a'lasting
8 clubs a'owing ($3.6m)
7 for a Magic Alfieeee.
6 tackles a'ttacking,
5 metres a'memory,
4 new clubs a'coming,
3 grand finals a'pproaching,
2 in-goal judges a'dozing
and a XXXX plus a schooner of Tooo-ooheys.

While far-sighted league lovers ponder the thought of having a united Sydney team by the year 2000, many of the "out of town" decision-makers of the game are lobbying for more representation on the new Australian Rugby League board.

The balance of power of the Sydney clubs in the NSWRL premiership has changed rapidly in the past decade.

In 1981, the last year of a 12-team competition, there were 11 clubs with an 02 telephone prefix, plus Penrith. By 1995 the ratio will be 10:10.

Canberra, two Brisbane teams, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Illawarra, Perth, Auckland and Townsville will be the additional teams.

The balance will be tilted further against Sydney if Cronulla folds by 1995.

It could also be argued that Wests, based at Lidcombe in '81, are now out of the Sydney region because they are a Campbelltown club with an 046 prefix.

Therefore, the balance in 1995, assuming Gold Coast does not merge with the Brisbane Crushers, will be effectively 9:11.

Some Sydneysiders see a united Sydney team as the only opposition to the Broncos and Auckland juggernauts.

The Broncos are expected to dominate the competition for the next half decade, until competition from the Lang Park-based Crushers erodes their domination of Brisbane sponsorship dollars and playing strength.

Auckland are similarly expected to dominate the premiership in the last half of the '90s.

While the tradition of St George, the spirit of Souths, the patriotism of the Tigers, the multicultural backing of the Bulldogs, the new stadium at Cronulla, the wealth of the Roosters, the glamour of the Sea Eagles, the juniors of Parramatta and the pleasure of watching games at North Sydney Oval would be lost, a combined Sydney team could generate the passion in this city that bubbled during the Bicentenary and surfaces sporadically when Olympians, Rah Rahs and cricketers return home to triumphant George Street parades.

If Sydney is successful with its bid for the 2000 Olympics, the city will have an 80,000 stadium at Homebush to host matches. The Sydney 2000 committee and the NSWRL have a common board member: Graham Lovett.

Lovett revealed recently that the NSWRL was agitating to abandon plans to roof the Sydney Football Stadium and divert the funds to the Homebush site.

The fact that four of the six 1992 finals games at the SFS were a sell-out has prompted the NSWRL to look to bigger stadiums to house finals matches.

The big turnout at the semis, which involved only one 02 team, St George, exploded the myth that residents of the Harbour City would not support the play-offs if their teams were absent.

While Sydney unifies, forces outside the city are assembling to gain representation on the new ARL board.

NSWRL general manager John Quayle expects the process of drawing up the new memorandum and articles of association of the ARL to take a further 12 months. This has not stopped intense lobbying.

The move began at last year's chief executives' conference when Broncos chief John Ribot was approached to stand against either Canterbury's Peter Moore or Souths' Terry Parker on the NSWRL board.

The feeling of delegates from the out-of-Sydney clubs was that one of the two CEOs on the board should represent them.

Ribot finally opted not to stand but was rewarded with a position on the NSWRL's powerful Premiership Policy committee. He replaced Norths' Bob Saunders.

It was the first shot in the war to break Sydney's control of a game that began in the city 85 years ago.

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

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The league was just starting to come into money from pay TV and never had a chance to see what that would do for the game long term because SL tore it apart. SL brought in hugely inflated wages and at the same time cut crowds and other revenue drastically. But there is little doubt Sydney clubs were dragging it down. That issue goes back a lot further than 1995 and it's still an issue now.

Not that much of this has anything to do with the proposed commission. Some people are trying to suggest the ARL can't run the game based on things that happened 15 years ago while others are saying the clubs shouldn't have 100% control based on their continued lack of interest in anyone other than themselves. The only proposal that produces neither of these outcomes is a 50/50 split.

 

[Knownothing]

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?

What about the international dimension, the clubs, players, and fans in other countries? Surely they are stakeholders as well?

Is RL an international game in fact, or only if and when it suits to play other countries? The role, authority, autonomy, and financing of an international body is only important if the answer is "yes, RL is an international game in fact".

Australian RL cannot pick and choose, taking advantage of the international dimension to add a bit of colour from time to time - there must be a properly set up, self-funding, autonomous, international governing body. It is hypocritical, and self-defeating, to leave the international aspect out of the equation.

 

[Green Machine]

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.

The Bradley Report was a blue print for the future of the game and to suggest that the only reason for reduction of teams is Sydney was done on the grounds of playing each other twice is just too silly for words. If the NSWRL had another blueprint for the future, that they wanted to maintain 11 Sydney clubs, they would have given everyone a 3 or 5 year licence (like the current NRL do) instead of having to reapply each year and prove they were financial.

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.

There was a criteria introduced in either the late 80’s or early 90’s. It was more a list that clubs should towards like a rectangular ground, flood lighting, media facilities, so many covered seats etc.

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.

I think the NSWRL did not want to be seen with blood on their hands again like they did in 1983. At the same time the AFL were coming under a lot of pressure by pushing Melbourne clubs towards mergers. Rather just stave them out with the introduction of more 4 expansion clubs to make the weaker Sydney clubs more unsustainable, than be seen with blood on their hands

What is showed was they knew clubs in Sydney were going to struggle and with the introduction of 4 expansion teams that would put more pressure on those Sydney clubs.

I think you’re with it now

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.

Exactly!

 

[Green Machine]

I hope with these articles that Sean has provided, that they show the NSWRL ran the elite comp prior to and including 1995. I hope it will stop all this brain dead garbage about the ARL did this and the ARL did that….

 

[RL1908]

I hope with these articles that Sean has provided, that they show the NSWRL ran the elite comp prior to and including 1995. I hope it will stop all this brain dead garbage about the ARL did this and the ARL did that….

The ARL was founded in 1924. It has only existed as a Board (of NSWRL & QRL officials), who met as and when needed. The ARL's role was to organise in-bound/out-bound tours, appoint selectors & choose Tests/Kangaroos teams, negotiate with other RL bodies outside of Australia on rules & transfers of players, and co-ordinate/resolve some state v state issues. It did not have office staff.

In the Court documents during the SL War references to "the League" are to the NSWRL, not the ARL. The QRL were not part of the actions taken. The NSWRL ran the club premiership of 1995-97, but it was branded under the ARL banner. The SL War has always been portrayed as News Ltd v ARL, but it would be more accurate to describe it as News Ltd v NSWRL.

 

[Titanic]

What about the international dimension, the clubs, players, and fans in other countries? Surely they are stakeholders as well?

Is RL an international game in fact, or only if and when it suits to play other countries? The role, authority, autonomy, and financing of an international body is only important if the answer is "yes, RL is an international game in fact".

Australian RL cannot pick and choose, taking advantage of the international dimension to add a bit of colour from time to time - there must be a properly set up, self-funding, autonomous, international governing body. It is hypocritical, and self-defeating, to leave the international aspect out of the equation.

Fair enough, except that this topic is about the handover of management of rugby league in Australia. Australia has a very significant responsibility to the international landscape but that would be useless if doesn't get its own house in order.

I hope with these articles that Sean has provided, that they show the NSWRL ran the elite comp prior to and including 1995. I hope it will stop all this brain dead garbage about the ARL did this and the ARL did that….

The "ARL" of the SL debacle = the collective noun for all rugby league traditionalists who did not agree with the brain dead garbage promoted erroneously, as it turned out, by the Murdoch clique.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But it won't matter too much how good Australian administration is if it doesn't give a toss about the international game.

 

[Titanic]

But it won't matter too much how good Australian administration is if it doesn't give a toss about the international game.

One has to be built on the other and sadly for the international game without the support of the member nations it falls over... hence get Australia right and then it can provide the support that it morally should.

This is the debate that ends up with "if the clubs only run the game who will look after the sport"?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

That's right. Australia can and will support the international game if the people running the game here consider international football worth supporting. I just don't think the clubs do.

 

[Loudstrat]

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 state AFL bodies had strong urban comps to feed them.

Where is the strong urban comp to feed the bush clubs in NSW/QLD? Oh that's right - the Telstra Cup.

I guess the effect of a massive drought exacerbating a general decline in the population of many areas west of the divide is lost on you.

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.

What's f*cking Auskick? A kiddies sport designed to introduce kids to AR!

There isd a MASSIVE difference between Oztag and the rural/regional RL!

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.

Very true.

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.

I can't believe you read the same line and come up with 40 different interpretations which are all wrong, and refuse to listen to the explanation.

Actually I can - because you are a thickheaded 'tard.

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.

Wasn't the consortium supposed to fund the Reds themselves?

 

[Green Machine]

The "ARL" of the SL debacle = the collective noun for all rugby league traditionalists who did not agree with the brain dead garbage promoted erroneously, as it turned out, by the Murdoch clique.

The term traditionalists or the traditional clubs was something that was thought up the ARL’s marketing people in their war against News Ltd. The marketing people also used Murdoch as the figurehead of Super League even though Ken Cowley was pulling the strings. My point I trying to make was that the NSWRL made all the decisions of anything that happened with the Winfield Cup competition, not the NRL. Something that gets misused in these debates,

 

[Green Machine]

I can't believe you read the same line and come up with 40 different interpretations which are all wrong, and refuse to listen to the explanation.

Actually I can - because you are a thickheaded 'tard.

I answered your response and you refused to answer mine. I only came up with one interpretation, not 40, but why go and spoil a good story Misty. Maybe the NSW supporters bagging Wally at the SCG could have fuelled Super League. No, thats to stupid, but something only you could come up with,

 

[Loudstrat]

Except you came up with that you twat! :lol:

 

[Green Machine]

What did I come up Misty?

 

[Titanic]

The term traditionalists or the traditional clubs was something that was thought up the ARL’s marketing people in their war against News Ltd. The marketing people also used Murdoch as the figurehead of Super League even though Ken Cowley was pulling the strings. My point I trying to make was that the NSWRL made all the decisions of anything that happened with the Winfield Cup competition, not the NRL. Something that gets misused in these debates,

GM - your point is taken but there is always a need to differentiate betweens sides in a debate and "ARL" and "Murdoch" were as convenient as any other names.

However, traditional clubs and the fan base that supports them are certainly different from those who supported SL and I, for one, was not invented by any marketing person ... my beliefs are in support of the traditions of the game and not the hybrid self-interest driven meanderings of the likes of tools such as Ribot.

 

[_Johnsy]

What about the international dimension, the clubs, players, and fans in other countries? Surely they are stakeholders as well?

The proposal is that the IC will be set up to administer the game in Australia (NRL), so no the above are not stakeholders of the NRL. If anyone is a member of a nominated NRL club, then yes they would be considered a stakeholder.

Is RL an international game in fact, or only if and when it suits to play other countries? The role, authority, autonomy, and financing of an international body is only important if the answer is "yes, RL is an international game in fact".

Well what are the other test playing nations doing to overhaul the international game (if needed), are you unhappy with the way the International board is running the game, if so take it up with them. Not the NRL IC.

Australian RL cannot pick and choose, taking advantage of the international dimension to add a bit of colour from time to time - there must be a properly set up, self-funding, autonomous, international governing body. It is hypocritical, and self-defeating, to leave the international aspect out of the equation.

See above comment, Is the game able to move forward & improve the running of the game at international level, this is not dependant on Australia.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Anyone who thinks the international game isn't almost entirely dependent on Australia doesn't know much about the international game.

 

[Green Machine]

GM - your point is taken but there is always a need to differentiate betweens sides in a debate and ARL and Murdoch were as convenient as any other name.

However, traditional clubs and the fan base that supports them are certainly different from those who supported SL and I, for one, was not invented by any marketing person ... my beliefs are in support of the traditions of the game and not the hybrid self-interest driven meanderings of the likes of tools such as Ribot.

I just think this garbage about traditional clubs and traditional fans is bullsh*t. I’d never heard of the term before the marketing people for the ARL spun it out. In fact Canterbury-Bankstown has a history in Sydney First Grade that pre dates Parramatta and Manly by a decade. Leading up to 1995, some Sydney Clubs were going the opposite direction to history and tradition. I would say prior to 1995 in Australia, Rugby League would have been the most progressive sport to embraced change. The 80’s and 90’s early seen changes at every turn. At one stage, I can remember John Quayle telling the refs to let the second row feeds go.
I was a fan of Rugby League long before the Raiders joined the NSWRL first grade competition. I can remember back in the early 70’s when divisional or group football was more important to country people than the Sydney competition. The history of clubs in Group 8 goes back as far as most Sydney clubs. Thinking just because certain fans follow one of these “so called” traditional clubs gives them the belief they piss in a better pot than the rest of us, is as delusional as Union or AFL thinking they are better than Rugby League fans.

 

[Loudstrat]

Except you came up with that you twat! :lol:

What did I come up Misty?

FFS just roll away and die. There are holes in your brain that miss words.