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

[Loudstrat]

Don't be fooled that the NSWRL's position is held for reasons of efficiency and good administration. No, they're ticked off that the likes of the Raiders and Storm support Queensland grassroots footy, which strengthens the Queensland origin side and Queensland footy in general. Their agenda is to white-ant Queensland grassroots footy and pump up the NSW grassroots.

These decisions are being made on a zero-sum-gain basis, where it's all about poaching the other side's assets - or poisoning their well, to make your lot look good in comparison. There is no oversight by the ARL to make decisions for the common good of the game. Undermining Souths Logan is in nobody's interest except the NSWRL. It's certainly not in the interests of grassroots players.

Where is your proof of that?

If anything, QLD, through the Storm, white anted NSW with Inglis.

But if you are right, that means the Raiders and Storm are supporting QLD clubs and undermining NSW clubs!

Why can't Canberra develop it's own players like it did in it's golden era?

There is a very good comp played 3 hours up the road, but they perfer one played 12 hours further north.

 

[m0nty]

Where is your proof of that?

If anything, QLD, through the Storm, white anted NSW with Inglis.

But if you are right, that means the Raiders and Storm are supporting QLD clubs and undermining NSW clubs!

Why can't Canberra develop it's own players like it did in it's golden era?

There is a very good comp played 3 hours up the road, but they perfer one played 12 hours further north.

You mean that golden era when the Raiders developed Mal Meninga and Gary Belcher through Souths Logan?

There's as much proof of what I was saying than all that News-controls-the-IC conspiracy theory stuff that ECT and others are peddling. In other words, none, but it all depends on how you read events.

 

[siv]

NSWRL and QRL stopped Canberra / Manly from continuing their dual registrations as a way to force them to field their RG team back into the NSW Cup

 

[Goddo]

And in case anyone doubted it, here's a snippet from a Daily Tele article today...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/hayne-has-the-power-of-one/story-e6frexni-1225831568925


This "independent" commission push has grubby News Ltd hands all over it... . No way this fan is going to be suckered in by all their corporate-funded spin.

What, a News rep (50% stakeholder) and an ARL rep (Politis) are involved with a lawer and chief architect (Searle) in creating a draft of a new corporate structure, which draws on other sports administrations for ideas on the future structure (AFL, NFL)?

That is hardly a big deal.

I think you missed the worst bit of that statement:

NRL boss David Gallop rarely makes an important decision without bouncing it off Macourt.

Gallop is far to cozy with News to have anything to do with negotiating our next media deal. The recent "collarbone-gate" furthers this case. With an independent commission, we need an independent CEO. Thats the one part of the re structure that I really hate, that Gallop remains for 3 years...

 

[Big-Steve]

Also, if all of the NSW Cup clubs are aligned to NRL clubs, why would they fund them?

Because they are 'aligned' not funding or running. Otherwise the NRL club may as well have its own team.

Besides the contribution to the QLD Cup was happening before alot of the NRL clubs dumped their reserve grade because originally the NSW Cup was seen as stronger and in no need of help.

To an extent the shoe is on the other foot now as the NSW Cup comp is in need of promotion more than QLD Cup.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What, a News rep (50% stakeholder) and an ARL rep (Politis) are involved with a lawer and chief architect (Searle) in creating a draft of a new corporate structure, which draws on other sports administrations for ideas on the future structure (AFL, NFL)?

So that's one from News Ltd, two club bosses and a lawyer. Great. I can't see how a News Ltd driven club-centric deal can't happen now.

 

[taipan]

As long as whoever does the job in getting the commission up and running.I don't care whether it is a QC/Lawyer/Chartered accountant who has played 1st grade (As Searle has done)News Ltd or the ARL just do it FFS.
I would rather have people with business acumen involved,than just ex footballers.The game is big business.the next Tv contract /sponsorship etc must be screwed to the human limit,without one party selling it to iself News to fox,as happened in the last one.

Ensure the grassroots are looked after,tell Ribot to rack off ,let the QRL keep their money for special projects.
If anyone thinks the NRL clubs want to see grassroots wither ,they are kidding themselves.Yes they naturally want as much money to ensure their viability,but without the grassroots the clubs long term would be stuffed.
Any commission worth its salt,has to act in the best interests of the game,otherwise forget the whole deal.We believe because the clubs select the people,they will be beholden to them.who says ,we don't know the appointees.
Fair crack this whole dealreminds me of root canal surgery,long and painful,and seemingly never going to end.

 

[griff]

I note no one has noticed yet that the guy behind this proposal is Ian Philip.

In case you don't know, Ian Philip was the News Ltd rep on the NRL board who personally saw to it that the Fox Sports offer was accepted by the NRL instead of the C7 offer that would have given the game $50m more, through lying to Telstra, breaching confidences, etc etc etc. Justice Sackville was so disgusted with his ethics he specifically noted that he couldn't believe he was still employed by News Ltd. But he shouldn't have been surprised, he is probably News Ltd's best employee.

If this has Ian Philip's grubby little mits all over it then it is more than reason enough to reject this "independent" commission.

 

[bartman]

Thanks Griff.

Even more reason for people to start seeing sense, and see through the obvious News Ltd agenda in all this.

What Gould, Politis and Searle see in this still has me guessing... but the current (News Ltd proposed) model is not for the future good of the game imo. The QRL model of electing the commissioners is much closer to the mark.

 

[skeepe]

Thanks Griff.

Even more reason for people to start seeing sense, and see through the obvious News Ltd agenda in all this.

What Gould, Politis and Searle see in this still has me guessing... but the current (News Ltd proposed) model is not for the future good of the game imo. The QRL model of electing the commissioners is much closer to the mark.

Hmm, Gould, Politis and Searle or Bartman, Loudstrat and East Coast Tiger.... tough choice on who has more idea what's better for the game there! :crazy:

Oh and what QRL model for electing commissioners? Under the QRL model, the ARL would appoint four commissioners, not elect them. There is no QRL model for electing commissioners at all, and any attempt to intimate that there is is dishonest in the extreme.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I'll take Bart's stance over a Brumbies supporter's.

The QRL plan of appointing commissioners would mean the ARL board voting on them so it's the same thing, obviously. It's becoming increasingly obvious that this whole thing has News' paws all over it. They know they will legally have to hand their 50% over to the clubs one day and the ARL will keep the other 50% and their best result is to get rid of the ARL now.

I'd just stick to watching the Raiders and Brumbies and leave the rugby league issues to the rugby league supporters.

 

[skeepe]

I'll take Bart's stance over a Brumbies supporter's.

The QRL plan of appointing commissioners would mean the ARL board voting on them so it's the same thing, obviously. It's becoming increasingly obvious that this whole thing has News' paws all over it. They know they will legally have to hand their 50% over to the clubs one day and the ARL will keep the other 50% and their best result is to get rid of the ARL now.

I'd just stick to watching the Raiders and Brumbies and leave the rugby league issues to the rugby league supporters.

:lol:

Can you believe the sheer arrogance of this guy?

Paints himself as the saviour of the game, while anyone who disagrees isn't a real rugby league supporter.

What a wanker.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Okay, you can go back to the union forum and talk Super 14 now. And you call other people wankers. You'd think a union supporter would be well educated enough to understand that when a body like the ARL appoints someone to a board they actually vote on it.

 

[skeepe]

Okay, you can go back to the union forum and talk Super 14 now. And you call other people wankers. You'd think a union supporter would be well educated enough to understand that when a body like the ARL appoints someone to a board they actually vote on it.

:lol:

So because I also enjoy sports other than rugby league, I'm not permitted to make any comments on the future of the game?

Please. You lose credibility with every post.

So the ARL will vote amongst themselves to decide the make-up of exactly half the commission, wow. It's not the same as a formal election process now is it? Will the candidates themselves be board members or will they be independent outsiders? Will the voting process be transparent? Will the commissioners appointed be there simply to work with the club-elected (key difference, elected vs appointed) commissioners, or will they head in with an agenda to push forward the ARL's demands?

I'd be happy for the QRL, NSWRL and indeed all state RL's to have an equal vote with the clubs to form the commission were it to come to that, and I believe that a proposal similar to that is now on the table.

But if the decaying ARL is permitted to appoint exactly half the commission, it's just not good enough.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What do you think the ARL is? It is the NSWRL and the QRL. And them voting for commissioners would be no different to the clubs collectovely voting for theirs, and what's more, as a non-profit benevolent institution, they won't have the kind of self-interested agendas the clubs will.

And if you think being a union supporter gives you more credibility on rugby league matters you really don't know too much about the history and culture of the game. Just stick to union.

 

[Chief_Chujo]

What's the problem with the state bodies having equal voting rights as the 16 clubs(so the combined states votes are equal to the combined clubs votes).
If you have each lot appointing 4 your going to have the political infighting on the commision. The very crap we want to eliminate with the IC.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I don't think equal voting rights would be a problem. It's News Ltd that refuses to allow it. Whether they all get the same amount of votes or whether they separately elect their own reps it doesn't really matter. In reality you'll probably get much the same result.

 

[Chief_Chujo]

I think it's important that the clubs and state bodies get the agendas out of the way, make the necesarry compromises and elect officials based on that.
That way the commisioners won't be hampered in a 4 v 4 bloc and can go about the business of doing what they were elected to do.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

We're led to believe the commissioners will be independent if the clubs elect them, but some people seem to suggest that if the non-profit RLs elect half of them they won't be independent. It makes no sense. The fact is, this proposal allows no compromise whatsoever. It's the club's way (and News Ltd's) or no way.

 

[hrundi99]

And if you think being a union supporter gives you more credibility on rugby league matters you really don't know too much about the history and culture of the game. Just stick to union.

Where did he say this? Yeah, nowhere...