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

[RL1908]

Err wrong. The ARL does a lot more than run international RL. Ever heard of ARL Development? Do you realise that rugby league exists below the elite level?

"ARL Development" is a post 1997 initiative.

The ARL has not "run the game" in Australia - it was the NSWRL, the QRL and the CRL who "ran the game" in each of their jurisdictions.

It was the NSWRL who conducted the club premiership from 1908 until the first NRL season in 1998.

The ARL existed as a board meeting of NSWRL & QRL officials, until the 1997 "peace deal" gave them 50% of the NRL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It doesn't matter. The ARL runs ARL Development. So to suggest the ARL runs nothing but international rugby league is nonsense.

 

[RL1908]

It doesn't matter. The ARL runs ARL Development. So to suggest the ARL runs nothing but international rugby league is nonsense.

I'm not sure if you're referring to what I wrote http://tribe13.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/custodians-of-the-game/ or someone else's post here. The creation of "ARL Development" is in the story I wrote.

I think the point is that the ARL has only expanded beyond being a board meeting since the start of 1998. What role/power the ARL has in "running the game" has come in the past decade, not in 1908.

The ARL was a co-ordinating body comprised of NSWRL & QRL officials - it was not an autonomous body that decreed to the state bodies how to conduct themselves.

The ARL over the state RLs is not the same power/authority as the Federal Govt has over the state govt.s

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It doesn't matter what the ARL did in 1908. What matters is how the clubs taking over the game will affect what the ARL, and all the other RLs, do now. The proposal is that 16 professional clubs, many of them privately owned, will rule over the entire sport in this country and represent it internationally while the majority of the stakeholders in the game, most of which are outside the professional levels of the game, will have no say onwership over the game and no say whatsoever.

 

[babyg]

This is how I see it. 4 points.

• News must relinquish their control
• The ARL must disband
• Clubs should get the 16 votes in the commission
• QRL, NSWRL, and Affiliated States should each get 3 or 4 votes.

Not sure where the CRL fits in. If the NSWRL were effective they wouldn't be needed. NSWRL needs a restructure. Affiliated States need to be connected. They are the future of the game.

 

[Loudstrat]

I'm not sure if you're referring to what I wrote http://tribe13.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/custodians-of-the-game/ or someone else's post here. The creation of "ARL Development" is in the story I wrote.

I think the point is that the ARL has only expanded beyond being a board meeting since the start of 1998. What role/power the ARL has in "running the game" has come in the past decade, not in 1908.

The ARL was a co-ordinating body comprised of NSWRL & QRL officials - it was not an autonomous body that decreed to the state bodies how to conduct themselves.

The ARL over the state RLs is not the same power/authority as the Federal Govt has over the state govt.s

The ARL I guess was an umbrella organisation made up of the 2 state reps, to make sure each state sung off the same songsheet, and also represent it internationally.

However, the ARL also runs the cash cows: Test footy and Origin. Fund from these largely go into the organisation - filtering down to the grassroots.

So who looks after these in the future?

 

[Red Bear]

I still dont like the idea of the clubs running the game. What is wrong with asimply and NRL board run by people independant of the previous organisation with no connections to either News or the ARL?

Self interested clubs will mean expansion has a snowballs chance of happening any time soon

 

[Goddo]

This is how I see it. 4 points.

• News must relinquish their control
• The ARL must disband
• Clubs should get the 16 votes in the commission
• QRL, NSWRL, and Affiliated States should each get 3 or 4 votes.

Not sure where the CRL fits in. If the NSWRL were effective they wouldn't be needed. NSWRL needs a restructure. Affiliated States need to be connected. They are the future of the game.

Spot on Babyg. And if you read the Roy Masters article from a couple of days ago, this is effectively the revised scheme that has been offered to get the ARL and QRL to sign up. They are aware that they will be seen as holding up positive momentum in the game if they dither for too long, but are unwilling to give an inch of ground in what really is just a power struggle.

 

[Goddo]

I still dont like the idea of the clubs running the game. What is wrong with asimply and NRL board run by people independant of the previous organisation with no connections to either News or the ARL?

Self interested clubs will mean expansion has a snowballs chance of happening any time soon

You have to have some sort of measure in electing that board, in order to make sure they perform a good job. Then, you need safeguards against the voting bodies acting in self interest, which is what a charter or constitution for the new board is for.

Who should we let elect that board?
The ARL which has proven time and again it is a junket organisation, and whos role in the game is questionable when a commission exists?
News, who have massive conflicts of interest?
Or the clubs and state bodies with one vote each as the major stakeholders in the game (the current proposal)?

If we ditch the current set up but keep the ARL, we are still running the game with an extra unnecissary executive body. The whole point of the Commission is to get rid of these organisations and replace them with one, unified rugby league board.

 

[Goddo]

The ARL I guess was an umbrella organisation made up of the 2 state reps, to make sure each state sung off the same songsheet, and also represent it internationally.

However, the ARL also runs the cash cows: Test footy and Origin. Fund from these largely go into the organisation - filtering down to the grassroots.

So who looks after these in the future?

The commission...:crazy:

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What revised scheme? Where are the details? A story in a paper eluding to such developments means little. People are pointing the finger at the ARL and QRL, which is exactly what the clubs and News Ltd wants. They want pressure to be on the RLs to give them what they want without looking at the details of the proposal and without fighting the uncertain outcomes for the game it creates. The fact the clubs chose to deal behind closed doors with News Ltd without including the RLs before making their demands is enough reason to at very least demand every detail of the plan be displayed in black and white for the stakeholders to scrutinise. This has not been done and now we have unconfirmed media reports that the clubs are changing their offer. It's a mess.

 

[Perth Red]

I am sure we are not privvy to all the goings on behind closed doors, nor should we be. The way I see it the commision will make major decisions on the NRL, SOO, Int Football - the pro level of the game, and the state bodies will continue to hold responsibility for running jnr and amateur RL in their state. What is wrong with that?

The only issue beyond NSWRL and QRL having to give up power, and the ARL being disbanded as it has no future role, is ensuring the correct amount of money flows to each state body to effectively run the game in their state below pro level.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

There's a lot wrong with it if the clubs are allowed to set the agenda. SOO and international football are nothing to do with the clubs and that's why a club appointed commission is in no position to rule over rep football. Nor is it in any position to rule over grassroots football. At the moment the clubs are writing the proposal, they are electing the commission, they are re-electing the commission (or not) and we can only assume they are also writing this mythical constitution they claim will safeguard the rest of the game, though they haven't said how. The QRL and NSWRL weren't privvy to the goings on behind closed doors when the clubs were coming up with this plan with News Ltd either. If the clubs are so keen they should have included all the stakeholders from the start, given them 50% of the vote and included them in the writing of a constitution that ensures the game's best interests are taken care of. They've failed to do that and until they can prove the game's interests will be looked after they can't expect people to blindly agree to their unilateral decision making.

 

[Perth Red]

How can you say rep football is nothing to do with clubs? It is there players involved. When clubs realise that rep football can reap huge financial dividends then they are hardly likely to want to get rid of it. I don't see the ARU,FA, RFL or anyone else abandoning int sport.

the state bodies will be 100% in control of what happens in the areas they are responsible for, how is this a bad thing? As long as the money flows to them to effectively do there job within a framework of development at all levels then it is a good thing. As for the details, as said neither you nor I will be privvy to them so we just have to trust that people with the games best interest at heart have there say and input. What's the alternative? Another 20 years of divided rule with News stiffing us time and again?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Clubs don't have the best interests of international football at heart. They've proved that time and time again, so I don't trust them. Nor will they have any right to profit from it. And if they do they are not doing the best thing for the game. Suggesting that their players are involved gives clubs the right to control rep football is asking for conflict of interest. When club football conflicts with rep football what will the clubs want to do? Because it happens all the time. Players are pressured into missing Tests, events like the World Sevens are scrapped and even Origin is threatened with being shunted to weekends so players don't miss club games. These are just some of the conflicts that rep football can toss up.

And trying to use organisation like the ARU or the RFL will do the argument no good. The ARU is not run by clubs and the RFL is only 50% run by clubs.

And we certainly don't have to wait for 20 more years to get rid of News Ltd. That is absolutely gauranteed. Far more gauranteed than anything the clubs have vaguely eluded to in their plans for a commission. Maybe it's this knowledge that is pushing News Ltd into bed with the clubs now. After 2017 News will have no power over the game. If they act now, they can create a situation where they still get what they want - rid of the ARL and a tame organisation in its place that will assure it of the TV contrac for many years to come.

 

[Loudstrat]

You have to have some sort of measure in electing that board, in order to make sure they perform a good job. Then, you need safeguards against the voting bodies acting in self interest, which is what a charter or constitution for the new board is for.

OK, but I have seen no guarantee that such provisions will be included in the charter/constitution, or what holds them to account, apart from those with voting rights (clubs). So, if a charter exists to send 5% of income to the bush, and it doesn't happen, and the clubs don't worry about it, there is no mechanism to enforce it is there!

That's why bodies representing the WHOLE sport must have a say - and a chance to act if their needs are not being met.

Who should we let elect that board?
The ARL which has proven time and again it is a junket organisation, and whos role in the game is questionable when a commission exists?

Sounds like News Ltd propaganda. The ARL has not proven that at all! Everything it has run since the SL war has turned to gold. Origin is still the biggest annual representative sporting tournament in the country. The WC was the best ever - and the first to make a profit. International league is growing, and the Tri/Four nations is a sucess. There is 500 junior development officers promoting the code nationwide.

Or the clubs and state bodies with one vote each as the major stakeholders in the game (the current proposal)?

Great. The vote for supplying funding to bush footy has a 1 in 9 say. Wow - that will fill us with confidence!

If we ditch the current set up but keep the ARL, we are still running the game with an extra unnecissary executive body. The whole point of the Commission is to get rid of these organisations and replace them with one, unified rugby league board.

That body, as RL1908 has explained, is not a big organisation at all. Mostly made up of reps from the QRL and NSWRL. So what you really want is to streamline the game by punting Geoff Carr and a couple of secretaries.

Saving to the code = one benchie for the Sharks.

 

[Loudstrat]

You have to have some sort of measure in electing that board, in order to make sure they perform a good job. Then, you need safeguards against the voting bodies acting in self interest, which is what a charter or constitution for the new board is for.

OK, but I have seen no guarantee that such provisions will be included in the charter/constitution, or what holds them to account, apart from those with voting rights (clubs). So, if a charter exists to send 5% of income to the bush, and it doesn't happen, and the clubs don't worry about it, there is no mechanism to enforce it is there!

That's why bodies representing the WHOLE sport must have a say - and a chance to act if their needs are not being met.

Who should we let elect that board?
The ARL which has proven time and again it is a junket organisation, and whos role in the game is questionable when a commission exists?

Sounds like News Ltd propaganda. The ARL has not proven that at all! Everything it has run since the SL war has turned to gold. Origin is still the biggest annual representative sporting tournament in the country. The WC was the best ever - and the first to make a profit. International league is growing, and the Tri/Four nations is a sucess. There is 500 junior development officers promoting the code nationwide.

Or the clubs and state bodies with one vote each as the major stakeholders in the game (the current proposal)?

Great. The vote for supplying funding to bush footy has a 1 in 9 say. Wow - that will fill us with confidence!

If we ditch the current set up but keep the ARL, we are still running the game with an extra unnecissary executive body. The whole point of the Commission is to get rid of these organisations and replace them with one, unified rugby league board.

That body, as RL1908 has explained, is not a big organisation at all. Mostly made up of reps from the QRL and NSWRL. So what you really want is to streamline the game by punting Geoff Carr and a couple of secretaries.

Saving to the code = one benchie for the Sharks.

BOTTOM LINE: Until you can show me the fine print in the constitution that GUARANTEES the rest of the code will be looked after, you have no argument.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...trol-at-commission-meeting-20100210-nshp.html

Queenslanders likely to push for ARL control at commission meeting
BRAD WALTER
February 11, 2010

QUEENSLAND directors are expected to push at today's meeting for the ARL board to formally seek 50 per cent control of a new independent commission to run rugby league during negotiations for News Ltd's withdrawal from the game.

Although the chief executives, coaches, captains and chairmen of the 16 NRL clubs last month unanimously passed a resolution calling for the establishment of an independent commission before the premiership kick-off on March 12, the ARL and News Ltd are not yet ready to finalise a deal. At a meeting last Thursday, News Ltd chief operating officer Peter Macourt and representatives of the ARL and QRL are understood to have discussed a variety of proposals, including the NSW and Queensland bodies each being given one vote to help determine the eight independent commissioners.

With each of the 16 clubs also having a vote, the NSWRL and QRL would collectively have only 11 per cent of the vote but those two votes would provide the constitutional safeguards ARL officials have been seeking as any more than one vote is enough to block any future change to the constitution - regardless of the size of the competition.

NSWRL officials are believed to have accepted the argument that votes do not translate into power (as the new body would be an independent non-profit organisation) but they are unlikely to formally propose any deal that erodes the ARL's 50 per cent stake in the game until told by News Ltd that such terms are unacceptable.

However, the QRL is determined that the status quo remain and the ARL form a 50-50 partnership with the premiership clubs if News Ltd departs the game.

Should News Ltd refuse to do so while their fellow protagonists from the Super League war have any position of power, NSWRL directors hold the balance of power on the 10-man ARL board to force a compromise through the votes of chairman Colin Love and chief executive Geoff Carr.

After a report in last Saturday's Herald that such a move might be close to fruition following talks between Macourt, Love, Carr and QRL directors Terry Mackenroth and Bruce Hatcher, it is understood that at least one NSW member of the ARL board has been approached for his support if a vote is taken at today's meeting.

The approach and the QRL's refusal to compromise on its position is likely to spark some heated exchanges at today's meeting.

Highlighting the division between the state bodies, the QRL had wanted NSWRL directors John Chalk and Terry Quinn to attend last week's meeting with Macourt instead of Love and Carr.

The QRL believed that by sending Mackenroth and Hatcher, who are not on the ARL board and do not hold any paid position in the game, it would dispel claims that the opposition to the proposed model for an independent commission was driven by officials not wanting to lose their jobs.

 

[bartman]

QUEENSLAND directors are expected to push at today's meeting for the ARL board to formally seek 50 per cent control of a new independent commission to run rugby league during negotiations for News Ltd's withdrawal from the game.

And so they should .

 

[bartman]

NSWRL officials are believed to have accepted the argument that votes do not translate into power (as the new body would be an independent non-profit organisation) but they are unlikely to formally propose any deal that erodes the ARL's 50 per cent stake in the game until told by News Ltd that such terms are unacceptable.

And nor should they!