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

[East Coast Tiger]

He wants to question my credibility, well he's a union supporter so bang goes his. You can't be a true league supporter and support another code that has tried to destroy rugby league for over a 100 years. Although if you support a plan orchestrated by News Ltd I guess you can.

 

[skeepe]

He wants to question my credibility, well he's a union supporter so bang goes his. You can't be a true league supporter and support another code that has tried to destroy rugby league for over a 100 years. Although if you support a plan orchestrated by News Ltd I guess you can.

There you have it guys, straight from the horse's (or should that be Tiger's?) mouth:

If you dare to enjoy watching any other sport than rugby league, you're not allowed to have a say, so shut the f**k up.

Apparently this conversation is only for the closed-minded and insular.

 

[Goddo]

ECT, what role do you see the ARL having in the event of a commission?

If we get a commission in charge of the game, half appointed by the ARL to run all aspects of the game, what then is the point of the ARL board? What roles would they have and to whom would they be responsible? Thats why I don't think this thing can work if the ARL doesn't hand over its responsibilites and cease to exist.

The way I see it, we need an elected commission, no one gets appointed, with the clubs having a say, and the State RL boards have a say too, so long as they can't dominate proceedings without accountability as they have in the past, and would under an "ARL appointed" system. The commission decides on all the day to day stuff, and the states have veto power on changes to its constitution, but don't get an equal say in voting for commission members as the clubs.

From what I've seen, this commission elected by stakeholders would assume ALL power and responsibility for running ALL areas of the game except the QLD and NSW cups and picking origin teams, which should be left to the two state RLs, and the state grassroots programs would be assisted in their work by a commission controlled ARL development program. There is no role in this model for a seperate ARL board, as international negotiations with foreign nations, and the ARL development and charity work would be managed by the new board. The ARL as it is now should cease to exist. Hell, you could call the new commission the new "ARL board", but it will have elections to appoint members.

Thats the main gripe I have with a 50% ARL apointed / 50% club elected competition. We are still duplicating administration by keeping the ARL going and not generating an elected governing body, which is the point of the whole exercise.

How do you think the QRL system addresses these problems?

So far, the biggest complaint against what is proposed is that theoretically the clubs can damage internationals and grassroots through neglect. But they will be protected by the state RL's veto vote on changing the governing constitution. This document has been mentioned by a few jurnos, but no details are known as it is changing during the current negotiations. Just because we haven't heard the details yet, doesn't mean that safeguards aren't being developed.

Also, it has been pointed out, those things are key to the future of the clubs, and in other sports with club run commissions, there is no evidence of neglect of grassroots. Just look at the AFL and auskick for proof. Also, look at the desperate way AFL is trying to build international relevance. Their clubs hardly seem to be damaging their game. Thats because their club elected board does whats in the games best interests.

The other main concern that people seem to have is that News Ltd has an agenda with regards to this commission. That is true, but as far as I can see so far, their agenda involves;

* possible corporate problems for them if they continue to have a stake in the game due to possible Federal changes to media ownership laws,

* the potential break up of Telstra and sale of its share in Foxtel to News Corp and Consolidated Media Holdings, which is no longer a Packer company but C7! (asside, I am a bit wary of Channel 9 and 7 courting the game for media rights... 9 may drop RL to get AFL and we would be in the same position we are in now, except one of the pupet masters would change from 9 to 7, which is one of the reasons we need the commission to get rid of news NOW),

* they are also concerned about changes to Anti Siphoning and multi channel free to air, and

* apparently the Federal Government wants them out of league and they are doing it to generate good will with the Government.

So from what I can see, they are trying to get out early and avoid these issues, but in return want extended last rights on bidding for Pay TV content for giving up their share early. Its not like there is a massive conspiracy to what they are doing. What they don't want is the potential for a new RL administration to colude and act corruptly which is why they are on a crusade to get rid of the ARL...

I am not in anyone's "camp" on this issue, there are lots of players with different agendas. I am on the games side.

Lets get back to a basic club run system that also gives a voice and voting rights to the state bodies, which is whats on the table right now.

 

[skeepe]

Very well said Goddo. Agree 100%, not that it matters coming from someone who can appreciate other sports as well.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

There you have it guys, straight from the horse's (or should that be Tiger's?) mouth:

If you dare to enjoy watching any other sport than rugby league, you're not allowed to have a say, so shut the f**k up.

Apparently this conversation is only for the closed-minded and insular.

No it's for rugby league supporters. If you support a sport that has for over a century tried its best to kill rugby league, including collaborating with Nazis, then you cannot by definition be a rugby league supporter. Your a Raiders fan, nothing more. When your only interest in the sport is one club you have no credibility when it comes to issues relating the health of the entire sport. It does put your support for a club-centric commission in perspective though. Club-centric people for a club-centic proposal.

 

[skeepe]

No it's for rugby league supporters. If you support a sport that has for over a century tried its best to kill rugby league, including collaborating with Nazis, then you cannot by definition be a rugby league supporter. Your a Raiders fan, nothing more. When your only interest in the sport is one club you have no credibility when it comes to issues relating the health of the entire sport. It does put your support for a club-centric commission in perspective though. Club-centric people for a club-centic proposal.

You don't know the first thing about me.

I spend hours every Sunday at junior games helping out. Obviously there are plenty of people out there who do a lot more than I do, but I do a hell of a lot more than the average person.

Clearly the actions of someone who doesn't care about the game.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

ECT, what role do you see the ARL having in the event of a commission?

If we get a commission in charge of the game, half appointed by the ARL to run all aspects of the game, what then is the point of the ARL board? What roles would they have and to whom would they be responsible? Thats why I don't think this thing can work if the ARL doesn't hand over its responsibilites and cease to exist.

The way I see it, we need an elected commission, no one gets appointed, with the clubs having a say, and the State RL boards have a say too, so long as they can't dominate proceedings without accountability as they have in the past, and would under an "ARL appointed" system. The commission decides on all the day to day stuff, and the states have veto power on changes to its constitution, but don't get an equal say in voting for commission members as the clubs.

From what I've seen, this commission elected by stakeholders would assume ALL power and responsibility for running ALL areas of the game except the QLD and NSW cups and picking origin teams, which should be left to the two state RLs, and the state grassroots programs would be assisted in their work by a commission controlled ARL development program. There is no role in this model for a seperate ARL board, as international negotiations with foreign nations, and the ARL development and charity work would be managed by the new board. The ARL as it is now should cease to exist. Hell, you could call the new commission the new "ARL board", but it will have elections to appoint members.

Thats the main gripe I have with a 50% ARL apointed / 50% club elected competition. We are still duplicating administration by keeping the ARL going and not generating an elected governing body, which is the point of the whole exercise.

How do you think the QRL system addresses these problems?

So far, the biggest complaint against what is proposed is that theoretically the clubs can damage internationals and grassroots through neglect. But they will be protected by the state RL's veto vote on changing the governing constitution. This document has been mentioned by a few jurnos, but no details are known as it is changing during the current negotiations. Just because we haven't heard the details yet, doesn't mean that safeguards aren't being developed.

Also, it has been pointed out, those things are key to the future of the clubs, and in other sports with club run commissions, there is no evidence of neglect of grassroots. Just look at the AFL and auskick for proof. Also, look at the desperate way AFL is trying to build international relevance. Their clubs hardly seem to be damaging their game. Thats because their club elected board does whats in the games best interests.

The other main concern that people seem to have is that News Ltd has an agenda with regards to this commission. That is true, but as far as I can see so far, their agenda involves;

* possible corporate problems for them if they continue to have a stake in the game due to possible Federal changes to media ownership laws,

* the potential break up of Telstra and sale of its share in Foxtel to News Corp and Consolidated Media Holdings, which is no longer a Packer company but C7! (asside, I am a bit wary of Channel 9 and 7 courting the game for media rights... 9 may drop RL to get AFL and we would be in the same position we are in now, except one of the pupet masters would change from 9 to 7, which is one of the reasons we need the commission to get rid of news NOW),

* they are also concerned about changes to Anti Siphoning and multi channel free to air, and

* apparently the Federal Government wants them out of league and they are doing it to generate good will with the Government.

So from what I can see, they are trying to get out early and avoid these issues, but in return want extended last rights on bidding for Pay TV content for giving up their share early. Its not like there is a massive conspiracy to what they are doing. What they don't want is the potential for a new RL administration to colude and act corruptly which is why they are on a crusade to get rid of the ARL...

I am not in anyone's "camp" on this issue, there are lots of players with different agendas. I am on the games side.

Lets get back to a basic club run system that also gives a voice and voting rights to the state bodies, which is whats on the table right now.

The simple fact is, this plan is not a plan at all. A plan sets out every detail before people are asked to accept or reject it. There is no detail and therefore no one can possibly accept it. You wouldn't agree to a home loan until you knew the details so why would we blindly accept a deal as important to the future of RL as this one? Especially when on the face of it the whole process has been manipulated to deliver desired outcomes to some people with vested interets while completely ignoring others whose fundamental role is running and promoting rugby league. Come up with some transparent, fair and water-tight details and then maybe it will be reasonable to ask people to accept it. Until then it is absolutely unacceptable.

 

[skeepe]

Yet you want us to accept the QRL model, which is equally light on details.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You don't know the first thing about me.

I spend hours every Sunday at junior games helping out. Obviously there are plenty of people out there who do a lot more than I do, but I do a hell of a lot more than the average person.

Clearly the actions of someone who doesn't care about the game.

Big deal. You also support union, the code that wants our game dead. So what if you watch your NRL club and go to junior games because your kids play. I know plenty of people like that but I wouldn't take a single bit of notice what they thought about major issues in RL. There are other people who take a real and full interest in the game from top to bottom who I know only want the best thing for the game and certainly wouldn't back a rival code. Funnily enough several of these people have commented on this thread and they are all against accepting this flimsy proposal at this moment.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Yet you want us to accept the QRL model, which is equally light on details.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Show me where I've said I accept the QRL proposal. Go on.

 

[bartman]

ECT, what role do you see the ARL having in the event of a commission?

The ARL - in terms of the oft-used label, not the technical definition - is more than just a board. It is used by many to refer to the structure of rugby league - the employees that actually make things happen under the board.

Sure, technically you can call that the NSWRL, QRL, and CRL (probably with a minimal number falling directly under the ARL banner, eg ARL Development?), but that's what people are meaning when we use the "ARL" in this debate - not the board, but the structures of the game in all it's form - the NRL and beyond (rep, bush, juniors). Positions and structures that are and have been there in some form regardless of the technical name changes of the body.

To give NRL clubs the sole 100% (or even unfettered majority %) go ahead to appoint the "independent" commissioners (and re-appoint them thereafter) is to render the lifeblood portions of the game (rep, bush and junior footy) voiceless and disenfranchised, vulnerable to neglect and oversight.

The way I see it, we need an elected commission, no one gets appointed, with the clubs having a say, and the State RL boards have a say too, so long as they can't dominate proceedings without accountability as they have in the past, and would under an "ARL appointed" system.

That's why it has to be 50-50, clubs and RLs (whether you define them as the ARL, or its component state etc RLs) - this is the system that has worked and is working in England/Europe with Super League. And it stops the clubs running roughshod like they do in English Premier League soccer.

State RLs can't "protect" anything, if they are rendered voiceless in having only some small say in the appointments (or elections) to the "independent" commission. The QRL model of 50-50 doesn't suit News Ltd, but it is clearly the best way for our game to make the transition.

And once News Ltd is off the scene altogether, then watch the game truly fly.

 

[skeepe]

Show me where I've said I accept the QRL proposal. Go on.

Semantics. You've been pushing it as a much better alternative, which is tantamount to the same thing.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Semantics. You've been pushing it as a much better alternative, which is tantamount to the same thing.

So you admit I haven't accepted it at all. The issue is whether we support this ridiculous proposal presented by the clubs and written by News Ltd without knowing what it will mean for the game, or we look for alternatives. If that's the option I'll look for alternatives. The problem with the way News Ltd and the clubs have gone about this is that they have left all of the true stakeholders of the game out of the process and then demanded they accept their unilateral deal. Well the alternative is to say NO.

But if we had to blindly accept one deal or the other I'd back that proposed by a non-profit organisation whose role it is to promote and foster rugby league over one written by a media organisation and a group of clubs, many of which are privately owned, with vested financial interests in the outcome.

 

[Titanic]

The debate rages on.

Just got back from the States and attended Super Bowl 44 but I hope that doesn't exclude me ... I certainly hope that we never end up like the NFL ... a great spectacle but ho-hum, 4 hours is just a little over the top. The Who... now that's half-time entertainment.

Bartman's got it right imho and ECT's passion is an example of why League should maintain its links to its roots... the game is much more than the NRL whereas the NRL exists because of the game.

Skeepe, all the voices including ours need to be catered for by the Commission. I totally support it but I wouldn't sign off until I was sure that a status quo had been negotiated. Having said that my status quo wouldn't include Love, Livermore et al.

 

[Eddie Lab]

So you admit I haven't accepted it at all. The issue is whether we support this ridiculous proposal presented by the clubs and written by News Ltd without knowing what it will mean for the game, or we look for alternatives. If that's the option I'll look for alternatives. The problem with the way News Ltd and the clubs have gone about this is that they have left all of the true stakeholders of the game out of the process and then demanded they accept their unilateral deal. Well the alternative is to say NO.

But if we had to blindly accept one deal or the other I'd back that proposed by a non-profit organisation whose role it is to promote and foster rugby league over one written by a media organisation and a group of clubs, many of which are privately owned, with vested financial interests in the outcome.

before I say too much, I enjoy American football, a bit of cricket and most sports so according to ECT's 'logic' I have no say in NRL even tho I'm a member of two clubs. so you can all ignore this post.

I've been following this entire thread and it seems to me that you are scared of change. the 'benevolent' ARL/QRL/NSWRL has done nothing wrong in your eyes and there is nothing that can replace them. An Independent Commission is the future, we need them in to get us a TV deal that the ARL cant get us. you can say it's News ltd fault that we got a shonky TV deal but in the end ARL were at the negotiation table too.

how is the ARL doing in SA, WA, Tas, NT and Vic? shouldn't they be making some progress in the expansion of the game?
how is the NSW cup going? they are in such a shambles they need to force NRL clubs to play in it.
QRL? QRL cup is a great competition so they are doing some good but they are standing in the way of the future (plus the don't support the All Stars game, WTF?).
CRL is in desperate need for more funds, are they getting it now under ARL? who says they won't get it under an IC?

You keep saying that the clubs will destroy grassroots league, destroy the international game and kick orphans, but you have no proof that any of that will happen. If someone argues with it you come up with a list of examples of when clubs protected there players from playing excessive amounts of games.

everyone agrees we need an IC, not everyone agrees on this model. however if we want a better TV deal the IC needs to be in place ASAP and this model already has the support of most of the important people in RL. the ARL can not be in power to negotiate the next deal because the game will get stuffed again.

 

[Titanic]

EL - they're all good and valid points. I doubt any of the regular posters here support an unchanged or unrepentant ARL (read NSWRL/QRL/CRL/grassroots community or Rugby League in Australia) but those reticent to the Commission per se are taking that stance in order to get it right, rather than rush in and get it stuffed again.

The "ARL Dinosaurs" have a lot to answer for but the Clubs have too. This is a great chance for change but not just for change's sake.

 

[Parra]

EL - they're all good and valid points. I doubt any of the regular posters here support an unchanged or unrepentant ARL (read NSWRL/QRL/CRL/grassroots community or Rugby League in Australia) but those reticent to the Commission per se are taking that stance in order to get it right, rather than rush in and get it stuffed again.

The "ARL Dinosaurs" have a lot to answer for but the Clubs have too. This is a great chance for change but not just for change's sake.

What are the NSWRL/ARL to be repentant for?

Raising RL to the status of No1 footy code in the country?
Creating the biggest sporting series/most watched TV program in the nation - Origin?
Being so successful at marketing & expanding the sport in the 80's & 90's that RL became the one "must have" in order for a Pat TV network to be successful in Australia?
For being so successful and right that one of the worlds biggest corporate bullies failed in a hostile takeover and was forced to the negotiating table?

or for sticking up for the sport right now, when all the corporate bully and the private owners can see is a chance to grab the cash that they craved last time around?


The lack of any valid reasons for this News Ltd commission makes anyone who supports it seem like a News Ltd shill.

Rhetoric from the daily tele regarding dinosaurs and blazers does not count as 'valid reasons'.

 

[skeepe]

What are the NSWRL/ARL to be repentant for?

Raising RL to the status of No1 footy code in the country?
Creating the biggest sporting series/most watched TV program in the nation - Origin?
Being so successful at marketing & expanding the sport in the 80's & 90's that RL became the one "must have" in order for a Pat TV network to be successful in Australia?
For being so successful and right that one of the worlds biggest corporate bullies failed in a hostile takeover and was forced to the negotiating table?

or for sticking up for the sport right now, when all the corporate bully and the private owners can see is a chance to grab the cash that they craved last time around?


The lack of any valid reasons for this News Ltd commission makes anyone who supports it seem like a News Ltd shill.

Rhetoric from the daily tele regarding dinosaurs and blazers does not count as 'valid reasons'.

That exact same talk about dinosaurs has been coming from one of the ARL's staunchest allies - Phil Gould.

It's not just News Ltd pushing for this. Don't forget that.

 

[Parra]

News Ltd + Phil Gould.

Throw in Graeme Hughes as well. If you want to get on the gravy train you'd better put your hand up.

Roy Masters seemed less enthused - then again, maybe he doesn't want his snout in the trough either.

 

[skeepe]

News Ltd + Phil Gould.

Throw in Graeme Hughes as well. If you want to get on the gravy train you'd better put your hand up.

Roy Masters seemed less enthused - then again, maybe he doesn't want his snout in the trough either.

What gravy train? Are you suggesting these people are being paid off to support the commission?

That's a pretty serious accusation to make without any proof.

And if that's not what you're saying, then your comment is completely nonsensical.