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

[Green Machine]

That is very clever Misty. Now show us next trick, how you can roll over and play dead.
But, I just can’t let go of this, the stupidest statement you have come out with so far:

OK, you may be right about the commission, and about the ARL/NSWRL.QRL/CRL setup. 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.

:lol:

 

[Loudstrat]

The only thing you can't let go of is your knob. Small as it is, it's bigger than your brain.

Still, nice argument as to how the 16 club will guarantee nto look after the bush.

Stay lost in your tangent. It's keeping you amused while the grown ups discuss important things.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...-exercise-balance-of-power-20100205-nims.html

NSW prepares to exercise balance of power
BRAD WALTER
February 6, 2010

THE PUSH for an independent commission to run rugby league has taken a giant step forward at a tense meeting in Sydney this week, with ARL bosses believed to have made significant concessions that could result in News Ltd exiting the game before the start of the season.

Despite the Queensland Rugby League's refusal to budge on its demand for 50 per cent control, ARL chairman Colin Love and chief executive Geoff Carr are understood to have indicated the ARL might accept two votes - one each for the NSWRL and QRL - in choosing the eight independent commissioners.

The meeting, which was attended by News Ltd chief operating officer Peter Macourt, ARL chairman Colin Love, chief executive Geoff Carr and QRL directors Terry Mackenroth and Bruce Hatcher, is the first development of note since NRL clubs last month unanimously voted for an independent commission take over the running of the game before the premiership kick-off on March 12.

In an indication that there is division between the QRL and NSWRL on the issue, the QRL is believed to have wanted NSWRL directors John Chalk and Bob Millward to attend the meeting instead of Love and Carr.

Under the proposal negotiated with Macourt by Gold Coast Titans chief executive Michael Searle and Sydney Roosters chairman Nick Politis, the 16 clubs would have one vote each - meaning that there could now be 18 votes if the NSWRL and QRL are also given a vote.

To be elected to the independent commission, a candidate would need 75 per cent of the votes.

In a letter distributed to junior clubs in Queensland after Thursday's meeting, QRL general manager Ross Livermore and chairman John McDonald questioned why the ARL would agree to such a move.

The four-page letter suggests the QRL is unwilling to compromise, and reaffirms their stance that the ARL should appoint four of the commissioners and the clubs decide on the remaining four positions.

However, the fact that Love and Carr were open to the possibility of the ARL, through the NSWRL and QRL, having two votes to help safeguard representative football and junior development suggests a breakthrough might not be too far away.

If necessary, NSWRL directors could push through an agreement with News Ltd as they have six votes to the QRL's four on the ARL board.

Until now, Love and Carr had appeared unwilling to use the numbers the NSWRL hold at board level but, with the QRL appearing unwilling to compromise on its stance that the News Ltd hand its 50 per cent stake in the game to the clubs and the ARL retain the other 50 per cent, that might now force the issue.

News Ltd is unwilling to exit the game while the ARL is still involved, and wants to hand full control to the clubs, who have no say as the NRL is a partnership of the former Super League war protagonists.

But giving the NSWRL and QRL a vote each will prevent the clubs from altering the constitution of the independent commission for their own benefit as just two votes are needed to prevent any change.

However, in the letter - obtained by the Herald - Livermore and McDonald said the QRL did not believe it was in the game's best interests to hand control to the clubs.

''The QRL believes the best way of ensuring the independent commission serves the interests of all the game's stakeholders is for the QRL and NSWRL, through the ARL, to jointly nominate four independent candidates to the proposed eight-member board of the commission with the NRL clubs doing the same,'' the letter stated.

''Under the current proposal for the new structure, the ARL and News Ltd would hand over control to a new independent commission. Under their agreement, News Ltd is proposing to deliver its 50 per cent share of the game to the NRL clubs when they exit.

''The ARL has a 50 per cent ownership position and we believe it would not be in rugby league's best interests to eventually hand full control to the NRL clubs - who represent the game's elite.

''In other words, why would the ARL … walk away and place the game's future in the hands of the clubs, a number of which are privately owned?''

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...-exercise-balance-of-power-20100205-nims.html

NSW prepares to exercise balance of power
BRAD WALTER
February 6, 2010

THE PUSH for an independent commission to run rugby league has taken a giant step forward at a tense meeting in Sydney this week, with ARL bosses believed to have made significant concessions that could result in News Ltd exiting the game before the start of the season.

Despite the Queensland Rugby League's refusal to budge on its demand for 50 per cent control, ARL chairman Colin Love and chief executive Geoff Carr are understood to have indicated the ARL might accept two votes - one each for the NSWRL and QRL - in choosing the eight independent commissioners.

The meeting, which was attended by News Ltd chief operating officer Peter Macourt, ARL chairman Colin Love, chief executive Geoff Carr and QRL directors Terry Mackenroth and Bruce Hatcher, is the first development of note since NRL clubs last month unanimously voted for an independent commission take over the running of the game before the premiership kick-off on March 12.

In an indication that there is division between the QRL and NSWRL on the issue, the QRL is believed to have wanted NSWRL directors John Chalk and Bob Millward to attend the meeting instead of Love and Carr.

Under the proposal negotiated with Macourt by Gold Coast Titans chief executive Michael Searle and Sydney Roosters chairman Nick Politis, the 16 clubs would have one vote each - meaning that there could now be 18 votes if the NSWRL and QRL are also given a vote.

To be elected to the independent commission, a candidate would need 75 per cent of the votes.

In a letter distributed to junior clubs in Queensland after Thursday's meeting, QRL general manager Ross Livermore and chairman John McDonald questioned why the ARL would agree to such a move.

The four-page letter suggests the QRL is unwilling to compromise, and reaffirms their stance that the ARL should appoint four of the commissioners and the clubs decide on the remaining four positions.

However, the fact that Love and Carr were open to the possibility of the ARL, through the NSWRL and QRL, having two votes to help safeguard representative football and junior development suggests a breakthrough might not be too far away.

If necessary, NSWRL directors could push through an agreement with News Ltd as they have six votes to the QRL's four on the ARL board.

Until now, Love and Carr had appeared unwilling to use the numbers the NSWRL hold at board level but, with the QRL appearing unwilling to compromise on its stance that the News Ltd hand its 50 per cent stake in the game to the clubs and the ARL retain the other 50 per cent, that might now force the issue.

News Ltd is unwilling to exit the game while the ARL is still involved, and wants to hand full control to the clubs, who have no say as the NRL is a partnership of the former Super League war protagonists.

But giving the NSWRL and QRL a vote each will prevent the clubs from altering the constitution of the independent commission for their own benefit as just two votes are needed to prevent any change.

However, in the letter - obtained by the Herald - Livermore and McDonald said the QRL did not believe it was in the game's best interests to hand control to the clubs.

''The QRL believes the best way of ensuring the independent commission serves the interests of all the game's stakeholders is for the QRL and NSWRL, through the ARL, to jointly nominate four independent candidates to the proposed eight-member board of the commission with the NRL clubs doing the same,'' the letter stated.

''Under the current proposal for the new structure, the ARL and News Ltd would hand over control to a new independent commission. Under their agreement, News Ltd is proposing to deliver its 50 per cent share of the game to the NRL clubs when they exit.

''The ARL has a 50 per cent ownership position and we believe it would not be in rugby league's best interests to eventually hand full control to the NRL clubs - who represent the game's elite.

''In other words, why would the ARL … walk away and place the game's future in the hands of the clubs, a number of which are privately owned?''

 

[m0nty]

Finally we're seeing a glimmer of a workable compromise. It's not ideal, but in the current climate a 6/2 split between the clubs and the ARL - whereby the clubs have a workable majority for policy but the ARL can veto changes to the constitution - might be the best chance to get something done.

And yet the QRL are still unwilling to budge. Of course they are, they're doing just fine out of the current arrangements.

So much distrust and pettiness. It's hard to see anything but a grubby backroom deal coming out of this in the end.

 

[bartman]

Well that's useless... a 16-2 split in the voting powers between clubs and "the code", when 75% needed of that is 13.5 votes. Why are Carr and Love bothering at all, tokenism at best? The QRL is making a good point, and all power to them.

16 clubs and 8 reps from "the code" (ARL, NSWRL, QRL, CRL) would give 24, meaning that some of the code reps have to be onside as well for any commissioner to be appointed (75% = 18 votes). Now that's a better, fairer and more realistic compromise structure, imo.

 

[Perth Red]

"out of the frying pan and into the fire" springs to mind!

 

[Loudstrat]

Agree with the QRL on this one.

 

[Titanic]

Agree with the QRL and Bartman's solution on this one.

 

[Smiley]

Here's the QRL Letter.

http://www.qrl.com.au/display.php?pg_id=5160

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I can't see how anyone can argue with what the QRL is saying.

 

[RL1908]

16 clubs and 8 reps from "the code" (ARL, NSWRL, QRL, CRL) would give 24, meaning that some of the code reps have to be onside as well for any commissioner to be appointed (75% = 18 votes). Now that's a better, fairer and more realistic compromise structure, imo.

Except that the ARL is the NSWRL + QRL.

And why should the QRL have less than the NSWRL + CRL as they together cover NSW?

No easy solutions, no matter which you turn.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Why not run it with committees as equal stake holders.

Each issue is put to these committees:

NRL clubs
NSWRL
QRL
Players Association
Referees Committee


You have one representitive from each committee that votes in the interests and with the majority of stakeholders in each committee.

 

[Loudstrat]

Because News Ltd is influencing this.

Simply, the ARL will act in the best interests of the sport. The NRL clubs will act in their best interests. News has links to the NRL clubs - therefore influence. It has no links to the code outside the NRL - apart from the ARL, which it wants to kill.

News wants to buy some more NRL TV rights.

Make the link.

 

[m0nty]

I can't see how anyone can argue with what the QRL is saying.

There are two particular things that I object to. First is the sly digs at privately-owned clubs, as if that is a great evil. This is rugby league, people, not union! Amateurs wearing blazers are not supposed to be welcome here. Professionalism is supposed to be at the core of the code. In reality these are thinly-veiled slurs on the clubs, implying that they are controlled by News as a whole. Old-style thinking, the sort that should be rejected by the independent commission.

Second is this little snippet buried near the end:

Does the QRL believe all commissioners for the new body should be independent?
Yes. Furthermore, the QRL has proposed that candidates put forward by the ARL must first achieve 75% acceptance by the ARL and then they must achieve 75% acceptance by the NRL clubs. This approach would also apply to NRL club nominations for commissioner positions.

So the QRL wants the ARL to have veto power over every club appointment as well? Plus it wants 75% as a requirement for ARL approval, which just happens to allow the QRL with its 40% minority of the ARL board to veto all by itself. Very convenient. And they say they aren't being obstructionist.

 

[Jankuloski]

Each issue is put to these committees:

NRL clubs
NSWRL
QRL
Players Association
Referees Committee

Has everyone gone completely berserk? This is worse than that article saying fans are suppose to have a vote on the comission. What do referees know about running the game, promoting it, or business in general? What do players know except how much they are paid and that they want more. 16 NRL clubs are suppose to have an equal say in the game as a referee panel???

Again I have a question - how do you become a member of ARL? How do you advance through that organisation? On what merrits are you graded on? What penalties exist if you fail in your job?

Considering that NRL teams operate for money all of these question have straightforward answers when it comes to the CEOs of the clubs.

The comissionares are suppose to be sucessful businessmen, and if I want someone to suggest a sucessful businessman I want it to be another businessman over referees of rugby league, or the people who care about the game, but have proved by getting the game where it is now they have no business scence that is ARL.

As for the exact article, appart from what m0nty allready highlighted - which effectively means that they want to INCREASE their share in the game by 25% I offer some other things:

The ARL and its affiliate state bodies such as the QRL and New South Wales Rugby League (NSWRL) along with the NRL clubs presently provide funding for the development of the game.

So the NRL clubs do provide funding for the grassroots. Why would they stop if the IC is established? Are they somehow affraid of QRL under the current system and they are coerced into funding grassroots?

The QRL has taken a leadership role in investigating the implications of an independent commission through convening an intensive workshop to explore its impacts.

translated into: we tried simulating this ourselves, and it seems we were too greedy for this to work, so it won't work. Let's do a simulation on LU! Loudstrat can be the CEO of Parramatta. I am confident that Loudstrat will behave in the exact same way the actual CEO of Parra would.

 

[Loudstrat]

There are two particular things that I object to. First is the sly digs at privately-owned clubs, as if that is a great evil. This is rugby league, people, not union! Amateurs wearing blazers are not supposed to be welcome here. Professionalism is supposed to be at the core of the code.

Professionalism - meaning players get paid. Including those outside the NRL comp.

In reality these are thinly-veiled slurs on the clubs, implying that they are controlled by News as a whole. Old-style thinking, the sort that should be rejected by the independent commission.

Some are controlled by News. The first thing the commission constitution wants is to guarantee money sinking into the Storm, a News Ltd club. It could just as easily constitute the same guarantee for all the other comps as well. It doesn't.

The agenda is obvious.

Second is this little snippet buried near the end:




So the QRL wants the ARL to have veto power over every club appointment as well? Plus it wants 75% as a requirement for ARL approval, which just happens to allow the QRL with its 40% minority of the ARL board to veto all by itself. Very convenient. And they say they aren't being obstructionist.

Astutely picked up. Still, the ARL is the ONLY vehicle in place to bring the concerns of the whole code to the table. I can only imagine if the Clubs don't want that, then they have no concern for regional and junior comps.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/arl-fiddles-while-the-game-burns-20100206-njrc.html

ARL fiddles while the game burns
ROY MASTERS
February 7, 2010

Rugby league's governing body risks losing all of its power if it dithers any longer over the formation of an independent commission.

The ARL must piss or get off the pot. The organisation which bravely took the fight to Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd during the three-year Super League war is behaving like a dithering old woman in negotiations over an independent commission to run the game.

Although it has been invited to the table late, month after constipated month has passed with no outcome on a new company structure to appoint the commissioners. A meeting on Thursday between ARL chairman Colin Love, chief executive Geoff Carr, two Queensland representatives and News chief operating officer Peter Macourt ended with Macourt unclear about what the ARL wanted.

The ARL did not articulate any real position that Macourt could understand other than it will not hand all power to the NRL's 16 clubs.

News wants the ARL dead, interred, with no role in the new company structure.

The QRL's position is that the ARL must have as many representatives on the non-profit organisation as the 16 NRL clubs.

The NSWRL is uncertain what it wants, other than it's the same as the ARL, which is possibly one representative from NSW and another from Queensland, meaning the ARL would hold approximately 11 per cent equity in the new body.

That's a big write-down from their current 50 per cent ownership of the NRL, guaranteed when News exits, according to the peace treaty signed in December 1997 at the end of the Super League war.

But the ARL argues that a new ownership structure is meaningless anyway, since the independent commission will make all the crucial decisions on the game.

It claims its ownership of a non-profit organisation is symbolic and it prefers to speak of membership, rather an equity. It says it merely requires safeguards to protect changes to a constitution which is yet to be formulated.

The perception remains: surrendering 50 per cent control of any body, no matter how ceremonial it is, and handing over its majority control is sacrificing your history.

The NRL clubs have left the ARL and News to sign off on the final deal. But it's one thing to have the go-ahead and quite another to actually go ahead.

The ARL has not exactly been a portrait in resolve in this drawn-out saga.

Love was initially proposed as the inaugural chairman of the independent commission, principally because News anticipated he would accept it in exchange for presiding over the dissolution of the ARL, a body which has run the game for 100 years.

The QRL and the NRL clubs opposed Love's possible appointment, sacking him from a position he did not seek anyway.

The NSWRL, other than one constitutional change in 1983, has barely changed since the days of chairman Jersey Flegg, whose full-time job was a member of the Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board.

When Jersey was once under siege at a public meeting, he mentioned this, hoping it would relieve the criticism.

''I've been connected to the Water Board for 40 years,'' he boomed out.

A voice at the back of the meeting cried out, ''so's my sh*thouse''.

While the NSWRL board consists mainly of retired club bosses, the QRL has been totally restructured, with independent directors and regional representatives.

One of the QRL independent directors is John Ribot, the former Super League boss.

Ribot was nominated by Queensland's second-tier clubs as their representative and is a strong supporter of the ARL having equal power with the NRL clubs in the appointment of the independent commissioners.

He is therefore acting in the best interests of the Queensland clubs which appointed him to the QRL.

Meanwhile, Sydney Roosters' Nick Politis, one of the ARL hawks during the Super League war, is an ARL representative on the six-man partnership committee, the ARL-News body which currently makes the big decisions.

Politis favours an independent commission elected solely by the NRL clubs. He is therefore representing a body which he now wants to surrender ownership of the game … precisely what News wants.

Ribot and Politis have swapped sides since the Super League war but Ribot is the one acting on behalf of his constituents.

The QRL's position is the correct one to protect junior development and the future of representative football.

The NSWRL must support its 100-year-old partners, rather than perceive the QRL to be making a land grab for equal voting rights on the ARL. Otherwise, this procrastination risks splitting the ARL and delivering News what it wants.

Alternatively, ditch the independent commission as a saga best flushed and forgotten.

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

ARL fiddles while the game burns

ROY MASTERS

February 7, 2010
Rugby league's governing body risks losing all of its power if it dithers any longer over the formation of an independent commission.

The ARL must piss or get off the pot. The organisation which bravely took the fight to Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd during the three-year Super League war is behaving like a dithering old woman in negotiations over an independent commission to run the game.
Although it has been invited to the table late, month after constipated month has passed with no outcome on a new company structure to appoint the commissioners. A meeting on Thursday between ARL chairman Colin Love, chief executive Geoff Carr, two Queensland representatives and News chief operating officer Peter Macourt ended with Macourt unclear about what the ARL wanted.
The ARL did not articulate any real position that Macourt could understand other than it will not hand all power to the NRL's 16 clubs.
News wants the ARL dead, interred, with no role in the new company structure.
The QRL's position is that the ARL must have as many representatives on the non-profit organisation as the 16 NRL clubs.
The NSWRL is uncertain what it wants, other than it's the same as the ARL, which is possibly one representative from NSW and another from Queensland, meaning the ARL would hold approximately 11 per cent equity in the new body.
That's a big write-down from their current 50 per cent ownership of the NRL, guaranteed when News exits, according to the peace treaty signed in December 1997 at the end of the Super League war.
But the ARL argues that a new ownership structure is meaningless anyway, since the independent commission will make all the crucial decisions on the game.
It claims its ownership of a non-profit organisation is symbolic and it prefers to speak of membership, rather an equity. It says it merely requires safeguards to protect changes to a constitution which is yet to be formulated.
The perception remains: surrendering 50 per cent control of any body, no matter how ceremonial it is, and handing over its majority control is sacrificing your history.
The NRL clubs have left the ARL and News to sign off on the final deal. But it's one thing to have the go-ahead and quite another to actually go ahead.
The ARL has not exactly been a portrait in resolve in this drawn-out saga.
Love was initially proposed as the inaugural chairman of the independent commission, principally because News anticipated he would accept it in exchange for presiding over the dissolution of the ARL, a body which has run the game for 100 years.
The QRL and the NRL clubs opposed Love's possible appointment, sacking him from a position he did not seek anyway.
The NSWRL, other than one constitutional change in 1983, has barely changed since the days of chairman Jersey Flegg, whose full-time job was a member of the Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board.
When Jersey was once under siege at a public meeting, he mentioned this, hoping it would relieve the criticism.
''I've been connected to the Water Board for 40 years,'' he boomed out.
A voice at the back of the meeting cried out, ''so's my sh*thouse''.
While the NSWRL board consists mainly of retired club bosses, the QRL has been totally restructured, with independent directors and regional representatives.
One of the QRL independent directors is John Ribot, the former Super League boss.
Ribot was nominated by Queensland's second-tier clubs as their representative and is a strong supporter of the ARL having equal power with the NRL clubs in the appointment of the independent commissioners.
He is therefore acting in the best interests of the Queensland clubs which appointed him to the QRL.
Meanwhile, Sydney Roosters' Nick Politis, one of the ARL hawks during the Super League war, is an ARL representative on the six-man partnership committee, the ARL-News body which currently makes the big decisions.
Politis favours an independent commission elected solely by the NRL clubs. He is therefore representing a body which he now wants to surrender ownership of the game … precisely what News wants.
Ribot and Politis have swapped sides since the Super League war but Ribot is the one acting on behalf of his constituents.
The QRL's position is the correct one to protect junior development and the future of representative football.
The NSWRL must support its 100-year-old partners, rather than perceive the QRL to be making a land grab for equal voting rights on the ARL. Otherwise, this procrastination risks splitting the ARL and delivering News what it wants.
Alternatively, ditch the independent commission as a saga best flushed and forgotten.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/arl-fiddles-while-the-game-burns-20100206-njrc.html

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

I'm with Roy and Reebs on this one.
Too many hacks with selfish interests.