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

[m0nty]

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.

Oh, you mean the "wake the f**k up" argument? Yep, very cogent.

You and ECT still don't have faith that an independent commission can ever be independent. Thus you're trying to politicise the whole process, because that's the only way you know. I've made my point before about how the IC is weakened by that sort of instability.

You know what happens when one leg is trying to move forward but the other digs into the ground? You go around in circles.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

How can it possibly independent when the clubs vote in all of the commissioners, the clubs write the constitution, the clubs can change the constitution and the clubs then vote to re-elect the commission. That's not independence because the commissioners are representing their constituents, the clubs, and acting on a constitution written by those clubs. Yet people are happy to accept this situation while arguing against a truly non-profit sporting body acting as a safeguard against this club monopoly of power.

 

[Goddo]

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.

Neither is the NRL not for profit. Look, I am all for the ARL having some sort of say in the commission, but the whole point of the commission is that it effectively assumes the responsibiliites of the ARL in its charter, hence making the whole idea of an ARL redundant. It is a simplified system which hopefully will have feedback on the performance of the administators, so if they don't perform they get sacked.

The ARL does a lot of good work, but the admin is a massive junket. This has to be addressed. It is not good enough for the ARL to continue the way it has for so long. Ok, maybe we will need the ARL's input on the commission. BUT, the ARL as an organisation needs KPI's and safety mechanisms for the commission to remove underperforming people.

The game has to be run professionally like a bussiness (because it is in this day and age). This is a chance for us to clean out the dead wood. This is why people are generally supportive of the commission. The game needs change. Maybe what is proposed isn't quite perfected, but at least its a step in the right direction. Tweek it a bit and get it up and running.

The rugby league rights, currently worth $100 million a year (including Sky TV in New Zealand), are expected to be sold for at least double that amount next time.

The NRL plans to sell the premiership rounds, Test matches, State of Origin and the finals as separate packages to attract more revenue.

Currently, Gallop is doing his best to make this a reality. But he is one man, controlled by puppet strings and factional groups. We need to negotiate the next deal NOW while the AFL is still negotiating theirs. We need the commission now, or brace yourself for another undervalued TV deal.

Get rid of the factions and look to the future.

 

[m0nty]

The commissioners do not represent constituents. This is what you refuse to accept, ECT. Their only responsibility is to the game as a whole, as laid out in the constitution.

If, as one would hope, the constitution is a document that is acceptable to all as a blueprint for how to administer the game with all parts of the game catered for, then giving the NSWRL and QRL the power of veto to change it seems to me to be all that is needed for the ARL's responsibilities to be upheld under the new regime.

Unless, of course, you don't trust anyone to act independently.

 

[Goddo]

I can see the commission working against the clubs if it deems doing so is in the games best interest.

They may force clubs to relocate if they are floundering, with some assistance of course. The AFL has a commission very similar to the one we are looking at. They have no quams beating their clubs into submission.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But that's the point. There is no constitution. There are no details, nothing in writing that states what the commission can and can't do and how it will operate. Yet peple are willing to just accept it. Accept a plan without knowing what the plan actually is. The NSWRL and QRL weren't even consulted when this proposal was written. And even when a constitution is written, probably by the clubs, this plan will ensure the clubs have the power to change it. So the commission will only be as effective as the clubs allow it to be. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in the fundamental ownership of the game. 100% club ownership means 100% club control. There is no independent commission when the people who vote commissioners in and out are the same people who write the rules, especially when these people have vested interests in ensuring those rules deliver what they want.

 

[Goddo]

They are writing a constitution. It isn't finished from what I understand, as they need an agreement from all parties to commit before they can bash out the details.

You are a bit paranoid about all this ECT

 

[Perth Red]

There is no doubt the devil is in the detail and what the constitution reads like will make or break this. As long as all parties are involved in writing this up and it safeguards all aspects of the game then we simply have to move forward with it or we will face a possible further 8 years of underfunding and low development.

Members of the commision have to be appointed somehow, ARL has to be disbanded for News to leave so it seems logical to me that the NSWRL,QRL, CRL and Affiliated States RL's have to have some input to the whole process. Our game still has a very small minded mentality on alot of issues and huge factional rivalaries, especially at State level and personal interest/jobs for the boys. That is big problem for the game to move forward.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

They are writing a constitution. It isn't finished from what I understand, as they need an agreement from all parties to commit before they can bash out the details.

You are a bit paranoid about all this ECT

Someone has to be. The last time we were pushed into a corner like this we ended up with News owning half the game and keeping it under its thumb. Now News Ltd is pushing this commission. Everyone should be very "paranoid", that is to say very concerned. News only looks out for itself so the fact that they are orchestrating this from behind the scenes is good reason for concern. We also have the past and present actions of the clubs to consider, as have been outlined in this thread. Had they shown a greater interest for the greater good of the whole game previously there might be less reason for concern about them too. We have factions pushing this proposal, a proposal they have written without consulting the true stakeholders of the game, that are yet to provide detail as to what it is they are actually proposing for the game. Yet some people seem happy to accept this half-baked plan without question. That's asking for trouble. If Neil Whittaker and the like had stood up against a shoddy plan in 1997 we might not be in this mess now. People too keen to jump at the first plan that comes along will see us run into just as many problems.

 

[bartman]

You and ECT still don't have faith that an independent commission can ever be independent. Thus you're trying to politicise the whole process, because that's the only way you know. I've made my point before about how the IC is weakened by that sort of instability.

You know what happens when one leg is trying to move forward but the other digs into the ground? You go around in circles.

A truly independent commission is formed by equality through ALL of the games stakeholders.

An "independent" commission is NOT formed by NRL clubs holding more than the 75% necessary to appoint each commissioner.

No piliticisation. Just simple acknowledgement that the game/code/future in Australasia is not (and should not) be entirely shaped by those whose roles are purely to act in the interests of an NRL club.

Since you've felt the need to personally single people out in your post, can we ask what's your agenda in this, m0nty?

 

[bartman]

This "Constitution" needs to be written and shared openly, before people can push for a vote in favour of an Independent Commission to operate within the constitution that as yet doesn't exist.

There needs to be a consultative process, and that takes time. Hence why the position of the QRL (as given in specific quotes, by people representing them) is the best position - the only one that allows for the adequate time to consider this very important process.

Rushing something through achieves nothing, except satisfying the News Ltd agenda - which to me can only mean a lower righst deal...

 

[Jankuloski]

But that's the point. There is no constitution. There are no details, nothing in writing that states what the commission can and can't do and how it will operate.

Yet, in the international forum you say this:

The clubs will have the power to kick the commissioners out and they will have the power to decide what powers the commission has.

You are being very paranoid and are fabricating facts to support your fears. This is a very respectable forum and a lot of people read it to get proper info on RL. I do not know what's in it for you, but you really need to chill, and make a fuss when you have some propper information.

 

[m0nty]

A truly independent commission is formed by equality through ALL of the games stakeholders.

An "independent" commission is NOT formed by NRL clubs holding more than the 75% necessary to appoint each commissioner.

No piliticisation. Just simple acknowledgement that the game/code/future in Australasia is not (and should not) be entirely shaped by those whose roles are purely to act in the interests of an NRL club.

Since you've felt the need to personally single people out in your post, can we ask what's your agenda in this, m0nty?

An independent commission was formed that way in the AFL, for the most part. There were deals done with the SANFL and WAFL, no question, but the trade off was that the clubs set up and maintained the commission. Not that they're the absolute model for rugby league to follow, but they have shown it can be done.

The clubs haven't gone about this entirely the right way, I'm not defending them for that. From what has been reported, it appears they included the NSWRL side of the ARL early, and only brought the QRL in later. You could argue that they knew the QRL would be the most obstructionist stakeholder of the lot seeing as they have the most to lose, so they wanted to get some work done before the QRL blew it all up, but the end result is that the QRL has its back up even more and it's all over the papers now. Maybe that was inevitable, there's no way to tell now.

I have no agenda. I am not paid by any side, not that I'm suggesting any of you are of course. I just run a fantasy football Web site - AFL, looking to expand into NRL. But that's not a topic of convo for this board.

 

[Perth Red]

Out of interest what do people think News Ltd have to gain by this move? Whilst it is clear they have to leave the game at some point I am surprised it is before they tie up the next Tv deal for a song. Why are they so keen to see it happen?

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Out of interest what do people think News Ltd have to gain by this move? Whilst it is clear they have to leave the game at some point I am surprised it is before they tie up the next Tv deal for a song. Why are they so keen to see it happen?

I think its something to do with them wanting to sell of some of Telstra. not to certain though, could be wrong.

I wonder if the QRL would settle with the clubs having to pay a licence fee like the AFL clubs do. And the licence fee would be a deal between the clubs and state bodies, not involving the commission at all. Im sure that the state bodies would have backing from the governments to give them bargaining power in terms of negotiating with the clubs. Like stadium deals etc etc.

That way the state bodies could be run completely independantly from the commission and still have sufficiant funding to fund junior footy.

In effect, the state bodies wouldnt need a vote on the board, they get funding directly from the clubs and they do their own thing while the commission runs the club competition and pushes more money to other areas if they feel there is to be more money made in other areas.

 

[Perth Red]

That is how it works here in WA with the AFL. The Dockers and Eagles pay the WAFL $2mill each per year for their licenses and the WAFL run independently of the AFL pretty much. Seems to work well. I'd be surprised if clubs would agree to this though.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

That is how it works here in WA with the AFL. The Dockers and Eagles pay the WAFL $2mill each per year for their licenses and the WAFL run independently of the AFL pretty much. Seems to work well. I'd be surprised if clubs would agree to this though.

Do you know how these fees are decided? What is a licence fee? Why do they have to pay state bodies this money and what would happen if they didnt? Also who negotiates the deal, the AFL commission or is it directly from club to state body?

 

[Ziggy the God]

Out of interest what do people think News Ltd have to gain by this move? Whilst it is clear they have to leave the game at some point I am surprised it is before they tie up the next Tv deal for a song. Why are they so keen to see it happen?

The Federal Government wants Telstra to split into seperate units (retail and wholesale).

If this occurs, Telstra could also be forced to sell their stake in Foxtel....guess who wants to buy it?
A problem that they will have is that this would broing about an even larger call of conflict of interest. Thus they want to solve this issue so that it cannot get in the way.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Yet, in the international forum you say this:



You are being very paranoid and are fabricating facts to support your fears. This is a very respectable forum and a lot of people read it to get proper info on RL. I do not know what's in it for you, but you really need to chill, and make a fuss when you have some propper information.

The proposal states that the clubs will vote in the commission and that they can change any constitution written with a three quarter majority. That we know. It's in the proposal. What we don't know is what the constitution is. So if you want to suggest I'm fabricating facts how about you read the proposal first.

 

[Parra]

The big difference between pre/post super league and this so-called independent commission is that the ARL / NSWRL are not-for-profit organisations. The risks are inefficiency and/or corruption. These risks are also present in any commercial model.

One of the problems with both the NRL and the commission is that the interested parties have a financial interest in the game. In publicly listed entities this financial interest must come first. The 'good of the game' ideal only exists to the extent that it affects the profitability of the entities. In the NRL case this is clearly News Ltd, in the proposed model it is the clubs that have allowed some extent of private ownership.

The NSWRL competition was so successful that they should have charged entry fees for any corporation that wanted to field a team. Instead, we have the situation where the corporate owners not only want to join, they also want to take all the profit that the game generates. This money belongs in the sport. Just because they paint themselves as white-knights doesn't make them so. Look beyond the bullsh*t and you'll see the squabbles and board room brawls that a direct financial interest brings to the game.

Does anyone really want to see the club level acrimony that was on display at Souths, Brisbane and Manly to be transferred to the administrative body that runs the game? Take the $$$$ away and the people involved in these squabbles disappear.

The inefficiencies and passion driven issues at clubs like Parramatta, Newcastle, Cronulla and Canterbury are nothing in comparison. Taking the profit element out leaves on the sports administration - and that is the way it should be.