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

[bartman]

Awesome article Roy.

Some home truths in there for the hype-swallowers...

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.

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.

 

[bartman]

Fantastic article from Roy... vindicates the QRL position quite nicely.

Would like to see anyone present arguments to dismiss the range of valid points made in the article.

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

It needs to be done before the next TV deal.

 

[Titanic]

Masters nails it... do it right with ALL the stakeholders interests fairly represented or don't do it at all.

 

[m0nty]

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 NSWRL gets it. All this talk of how much each side "owns" means nothing under an independent commission.

And of course Roy is arguing the exact opposite of this reasonable argument. Roy Masters and John Ribot, together against the world. Masters' hatred of News Limited is all-consuming.

 

[Perth Red]

Do we want an indepent commision or a commision made up of representatives from different parts fo the game, all with their own agendas?

I don't see why we can't have an independent commision with a constitution that has stuff enshrined in it re funding for ARL and commitment to rep football.

ARL retains responsibility for running jnr and amateur football and the commision directly runs the Pro side of the game, inc rep football and funds the ARL to keep up the good work at the lower tiers.

 

[Parra]

Why is the word independent linked to this proposed commission?

Why does anyone fall for it?

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Why is the word independent linked to this proposed commission?

Why does anyone fall for it?

Because the proposed board wont be members of any stake holder of the game? Unlike now where we have News Ltd and ARL reps.

 

[butchmcdick]

Because the proposed board wont be members of any stake holder of the game? Unlike now where we have News Ltd and ARL reps.

SO the clubs don't have a vested intrest ?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's laughable that people think the clubs owning the game makes it independent with no agendas, but if the ARL owns half it won't be independent and full of agendas. Between News, the clubs and the ARL there is only one non-profit government recognised sporting body involved. Try and spot which one.

 

[Jankuloski]

..And they have done so well thus far ..

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The ARL's responsibilities are to junior development and running things like Origin and Test matches. Junior numbers are higher now than ever, Origin is as popular as ever and Test football is back on its feet after Super League nearly killed it. I'd say the ARL has done a reasomable job. And at the end of the day they are the national governing body of the sport, as recognised by the Australian government. They are non-profit and they represent the stakeholders of the game from the grassroots clubs, players, officials, volunteers and referees up. The clubs are not the governing body of the sport, they are not non-profit, they are not representative of anyone bar their owners, shareholders or members.

 

[m0nty]

I am sure the government would leap to recognise the new IC as the governing body of the sport when it appears, ECT. The IC would be non-profit as well, and would have a constitution which enshrines all that was good about the ARL.

The NSWRL has figured out a way to get this thing done, by asking for just enough power to veto constitutional changes, but not enough power to affect policy. This is probably a superior model to the original clubs-only proposal, given the circumstances. The QRL is now the one dragging the chain.

 

[bartman]

The NSWRL model is a weak proposal, a pure compromise and still open to the same weaknesses of a clubs-only power model.

As Roy writes, they need to wake the f**k up, and stand solid with the QRL position, for the sake of the structured, unbiased development and indeed future of the game.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The big point is that the clubs can't have 100% ownership of the game and even people who jumped straight into support this proposal without question are now starting to see that. I think the best way to safeguard the interests of the whole sport is still to have the clubs only own a max. of 50% of the game or that the constitution that is drawn up have at least 50% input from the traditional governing bodies and that at least some elements of this constitution cannot be changed, and certainly not changed by the clubs.

 

[m0nty]

Anyone who keeps going on about percentages of who "owns" the game is talking nonsense. There are no shares, you can't sell off your stake. Rugby league is not an asset to be fought over, like it's a bank or a chain of supermarkets. Does the ARL currently get 50% of profits and News the other 50%? Of course not, even though those are the current committee rep percentages.

 

[bartman]

Well, replace "owns the game" with "who owns the power or control in the game".

Then re-think your response to the points being made, once the simplistic refutation used above is now rendered irrelevant.

 

[Green Machine]

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

Ah Misty, it’s always a good fall back to use personal insults when you have nothing to say. Looks like another of your late night replies when you are full of piss and wind, and not much to say,

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

Being someone who spent a lot of time in Country Rugby League, I think it’s important,

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

What is important to you Misty, is it your need to continually misinterpret the Super League War?

 

[Green Machine]

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.

Well, haven’t things changed around here in the last few days on John Ribot and the QRL?

 

[Green Machine]

The NSWRL model is a weak proposal, a pure compromise and still open to the same weaknesses of a clubs-only power model.

As Roy writes, they need to wake the f**k up, and stand solid with the QRL position, for the sake of the structured, unbiased development and indeed future of the game.

The current NSWRL power base have nothing to lose if 16 clubs choose the Commissioners. Sydney clubs (including the Illawarra side of the Dragons) represent 9 of the 16 votes. Throw is Newcastle, who has had Michael Hill nominated in the past to the ARL Board, that’s 10 of 16 clubs. The NSWRL has a strong power base of representation from Sydney NRL Clubs,