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

[saint pebba]

I'm with ECT.

People can go on about unity and independence and moving forward and so on, but the model (as I understand it) is fundamentally flawed.

The elite clubs should not control the governing body (and hence the purse strings). For the NSWRL, CRL and QRL to remain in existence, but the ARL to be replaced by a new club-controlled body defies common sense.

The elite clubs to control the elite competition, and the governing body separate, (the EPL model) makes sense. For the elite clubs to control the governing body, and for the other organisations to be left in some mendicant no mans land, that does not make sense at all.

That's right. I don't understand how this commission to run the NRL has become a commission to run RL in Australia. It simply has no ability to do so, never mind the issue of whether it should. The main problem with RL in this country is not the structure of the game below the NRL. It's the NRL itself, and more particularly News Ltd's half ownership of it. The 16 clubs, and any new ones in the future, should run the elite competition. But they should not run the grassroots game or rep football. That is the ARL's job and has been for a long time. They have issues of their own but taking their power and giving it to the NRL clubs is not the answer.

The main problem with your suggesstion is that the main source of income for rugby league in Australia comes from the TV rights to the NRL.

Using your idea, I could see the following happening:

• The commission(people appointed by the clubs) keep all of the TV rights money for themselves leaving none for the grass roots
• Only funds generated from SOO and internation football would be left to support the grass roots and rep football.
• Clubs would not allow their players to play SOO or international football as none of the money generated from this would be available to them
• SOO and international football would be next to non existent and the funds left for the grass roots would be minimal.

Those that care about the growth of the game can see that any future commission set up by the clubs needs to have a say in rep football and the grass roots to ensure that Rugby league remains the best game of all

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The main problem with your suggesstion is that the main source of income for rugby league in Australia comes from the TV rights to the NRL.


Using your idea, I could see the following happening:

• The commission(people appointed by the clubs) keep all of the TV rights money for themselves leaving none for the grass roots
• Only funds generated from SOO and internation football would be left to support the grass roots and rep football.
• Clubs would not allow their players to play SOO or international football as none of the money generated from this would be available to them
• SOO and international football would be next to non existent and the funds left for the grass roots would be minimal.

Those that care about the growth of the game can see that any future commission set up by the clubs needs to have a say in rep football and the grass roots to ensure that Rugby league remains the best game of all

You've missed the point completely. No one is saying the clubs should run the NRL and keep all the money while grassroots and rep football funds itself. The NRL doesn't run grassroots and international football now but it still funds it. The commission would have to do the same. But they shouldn't run grassroots or rep football. That job should remain with the ARL and the other RLs. This proposal suggests the commission will not only take NRL revenue but also revenue from Origin and Tests.

 

[saint pebba]

You've missed the point completely. No one is saying the clubs should run the NRL and keep all the money while grassroots and rep football funds itself. The NRL doesn't run grassroots and international football now but it still funds it. The commission would have to do the same. But they shouldn't run grassroots or rep football. That job should remain with the ARL and the other RLs. This proposal suggests the commission will not only take NRL revenue but also revenue from Origin and Tests.

I haven't missed the point at all.

Why would the commission have to fund rep football or the grass roots? There is no legal obligation for them to do so.

Rep football is only successful because the clubs allow their players to play in it. The are not legally required to do so like international football.

This proposal allows for all of the income generated by the game to be put in the same pot and divided by the commission to relevant parties in the best interests of the game with savings in the administration costs.

The NSWRL/QRL and CRL would be responsible for the rep football and the grass roots but the money would come from the commission for this to happen. This is similar in a way to what happens now.

To freeze the clubs out of this would be dangerous to say the least.

 

[TimmyB]

Whilst I can understand people's concerns with handing over power to the clubs, surely there are safeguards that can and hopefully will be included.

I'd like to see a guarantee on the amount distributed to the running of CRL and junior rugby league. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to include a provision to this effect in the constitution of the organisation? Perhaps more importantly, I'd like to see the NSWRL and the QRL given a veto power as regards changes to the constitution.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I haven't missed the point at all.

Why would the commission have to fund rep football or the grass roots? There is no legal obligation for them to do so.

Rep football is only successful because the clubs allow their players to play in it. The are not legally required to do so like international football.

This proposal allows for all of the income generated by the game to be put in the same pot and divided by the commission to relevant parties in the best interests of the game with savings in the administration costs.

The NSWRL/QRL and CRL would be responsible for the rep football and the grass roots but the money would come from the commission for this to happen. This is similar in a way to what happens now.

To freeze the clubs out of this would be dangerous to say the least.

Yes you have. You've completely missed the point of what Griff and I are saying. We are saying the commission does have to fund the grassroots because without it there is no NRL. Rep football can fund itself which is why the commission should keep its hands off. This commission is supposed to do the best thing for RL, otherwise it is of no benefit. Therefore the clubs also can't be allowed to dictate rep football because they have a conflict of interest.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

The IC will dictate the requirements of Rep Football & the clubs, via the constitution, will be bound to stick by it.

Any moves by clubs to cghange the constitution, must have an 87% (14 of 16 votes) majority to carry it.

That won't happen. The Origin Series is a massive cash cow for the game. The players should get a far bigger slice of it & whats left should not go into ARL coffers - it should be dispersed at the IC's discretion. This all has to be transparent, unlike the current system, to work & that is the entire point of what the whole thing is all about.

 

[Doug2234]

Therefore the clubs also can't be allowed to dictate rep football because they have a conflict of interest.

I would have thought that allowing your best players to make a reported $25,000 per Origin game would be in the best interest of all clubs.

Maximizing the players earning capabilities can only be good if clubs want to stop players from leaving the NRL... after all 99% of players are leaving to earn more!

 

[saint pebba]

Yes you have. You've completely missed the point of what Griff and I are saying. We are saying the commission does have to fund the grassroots because without it there is no NRL. Rep football can fund itself which is why the commission should keep its hands off. This commission is supposed to do the best thing for RL, otherwise it is of no benefit. Therefore the clubs also can't be allowed to dictate rep football because they have a conflict of interest.

I understand your point and agree with parts of it, however I think you have missed my point.

The commission which will be set up by the clubs will not hand out money for grass roots development without having a say in how it is spent.

Also they won't release the players for rep football without some input into how it is run or some of the proceeds from this.


Look at the EPL for an example:

• The EPL distributes the money from the TV rights to the clubs which in turn spend that on their players. Each club also uses this money to set up the own academy's to develop juniors.
• The English FA uses the money from any international games and tournaments to pay the players which are released from the clubs. It also covers insurance in case a player gets injured.
• The clubs only have to release their players for full internationals and not friendlies.

I think we can all agree that we don't wont rugby league in Australia going down this path.

 

[saint pebba]

The IC will dictate the requirements of Rep Football & the clubs, via the constitution, will be bound to stick by it.

Any moves by clubs to cghange the constitution, must have an 87% (14 of 16 votes) majority to carry it.

That won't happen. The Origin Series is a massive cash cow for the game. The players should get a far bigger slice of it & whats left should not go into ARL coffers - it should be dispersed at the IC's discretion. This all has to be transparent, unlike the current system, to work & that is the entire point of what the whole thing is all about.

This is exactly my point. The origin series generates approx 25 million a series of which only approx 2.5 million goes to the players. Does the ARL spend all of the remaining plus the money it receives from the NRL(approx 8-10 mil) on grass roots development.

Maybe it does but no one outside of the ARL knows for certain

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

People are going a bit overboard with fears of an IC running the NRL and having full controll of Rep Football & Grass roots funding.

We always had that before the NRL with the ARL, didn't we??? If anything, grassroots, SOO and Tests did very well when they were run by the same people running the club competition.

This IC is the thing we desperately need, erradicating the duplicated boards (wasting $$$) and taking away the situation of having two self interested camps pitted against one another, putting it all under one roof - and hopefully minus the deadwood (Love et al).

 

[_Johnsy]

Are you an employee of the ARL/NSWRL ECT ? Reading some of your posts you seem obsessed with the possibility of funding cuts for the grass roots of league. Personally i find it almost impossible to cut funding any further, the grass roots has been neglected for far to long, hopefully the IC will actually increase the $$$ that reach the ground.

 

[griff]

This is exactly my point. The origin series generates approx 25 million a series of which only approx 2.5 million goes to the players. Does the ARL spend all of the remaining plus the money it receives from the NRL(approx 8-10 mil) on grass roots development.

Maybe it does but no one outside of the ARL knows for certain

Actually, the money from Origin over and above the $8m that goes to the ARL stays with the NRL.

Part of the crappy deal that Neil Whittaker negotiated.

 

[fred92]

What do you base that idea on? Politis has been instrumental in trying to get the thing set up! The idiotic trash that people talk in these threads about the Roosters is astounding. Politis has an empire worth over $100m outside of rugby league. It's not anything to his lifestyle. If there's any substance to to this tripe i'd love to hear it.

Why bother answering this dude Ronnie, his comments can't be taken seriously,and don't warrant a response.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I understand your point and agree with parts of it, however I think you have missed my point.

The commission which will be set up by the clubs will not hand out money for grass roots development without having a say in how it is spent.

Also they won't release the players for rep football without some input into how it is run or some of the proceeds from this.



Look at the EPL for an example:

• The EPL distributes the money from the TV rights to the clubs which in turn spend that on their players. Each club also uses this money to set up the own academy's to develop juniors.
• The English FA uses the money from any international games and tournaments to pay the players which are released from the clubs. It also covers insurance in case a player gets injured.
• The clubs only have to release their players for full internationals and not friendlies.

I think we can all agree that we don't wont rugby league in Australia going down this path.

The commission wouldn't have a clue how to spend money at grassroots level. Just as the NRL doesn't. Which is why it grants the money to the ARL, CRL, QRL etc. The NRL clubs don't give a toss about country football and now we're handing the commission to them. They cannot have control of money that should be spent on development.

And at rep level, especially international, we can't have club people with a vested interest in keeping their players out of rep games making decisions on rep games, especially international tournaments.

 

[saint pebba]

The commission wouldn't have a clue how to spend money at grassroots level. Just as the NRL doesn't. Which is why it grants the money to the ARL, CRL, QRL etc. The NRL clubs don't give a toss about country football and now we're handing the commission to them. They cannot have control of money that should be spent on development.

And at rep level, especially international, we can't have club people with a vested interest in keeping their players out of rep games making decisions on rep games, especially international tournaments.

The commission wouldn't be the one spending the money, the CRL/NSWRL/QRL would submit a proposal for the money they require and the commission would then distribute the money. It is the same as now in a way just without the ARL in the middle.

If you had any idea about what your talking about you would realise that no club would specifically go into this with an idea of keeping their players out of rep footy as it would be against their best interests.

To give you an example of what I am talking about let's just say that the Cowboys and Parramatta are vying for Thurston's signature. The cowboys won't allow thurston to play rep footy but parra will allow him to play(where he could earn up to $100,000 extra a year). Who do you think Thurston is going to sign with?

 

[Perth Red]

one way of allaying fears is to have a min expenditure for grass roots. ie ARL currently gets $8mill ayear. Why not fix it so that a min of $10 mill or x% of revenue, depending on which is most, has to go to funding grass roots RL. This will take away the fear of clubs keeping all revenue for themselves. Rep football should be, at the least, break even so why not create a seperate pot where profits from SOO and tests sit and are used to develop the Int game.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The commission wouldn't be the one spending the money, the CRL/NSWRL/QRL would submit a proposal for the money they require and the commission would then distribute the money. It is the same as now in a way just without the ARL in the middle.

If you had any idea about what your talking about you would realise that no club would specifically go into this with an idea of keeping their players out of rep footy as it would be against their best interests.

To give you an example of what I am talking about let's just say that the Cowboys and Parramatta are vying for Thurston's signature. The cowboys won't allow thurston to play rep footy but parra will allow him to play(where he could earn up to $100,000 extra a year). Who do you think Thurston is going to sign with?

No club would prevent a player playing SOO, they're not that stupid. But what about clubs forcing players out of tests, especially non-Australian players. We've already seen it with the World Sevens. We've lost a vital event for international development and the traditional start of the season because clubs were allowed to prevent their best players from playing. They also do it to Kiwi and islander players all the time. Who is going to stop them when they have all the power and there is no ARL? Who is going to organise Four Nations and World Cups in Australia when the new governing body would rather rest players for the following year's club season? It might not be a matter of preventing players from playing in Tests if the govering body doesn't organise any. This also has ramifications for the RLIF, which no one on here seems to have even considered because they're just as club-centric as the blokes making the decisions.

 

[IanG]

The sooner the better I say. There's too many RLs and there needs to be one governing body. Clear out all that dead wood.

 

[saint pebba]

No club would prevent a player playing SOO, they're not that stupid. But what about clubs forcing players out of tests, especially non-Australian players. We've already seen it with the World Sevens. We've lost a vital event for international development and the traditional start of the season because clubs were allowed to prevent their best players from playing. They also do it to Kiwi and islander players all the time. Who is going to stop them when they have all the power and there is no ARL? Who is going to organise Four Nations and World Cups in Australia when the new governing body would rather rest players for the following year's club season? It might not be a matter of preventing players from playing in Tests if the govering body doesn't organise any. This also has ramifications for the RLIF, which no one on here seems to have even considered because they're just as club-centric as the blokes making the decisions.

Firstly you need to move pass the world sevens.

International tests are as important as SOO in bringing in revenue to the game. There is no way the commission would stop playing test matches.

The only time players are withdrawn from tests is if they are injured. This happens now and will happen in the future regardless of who runs the game.

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

"The million dollar question"

If this not settled by the kick off of the season will all 16 clubs break away from the NRL and form their own commision to run the game.

Personally i can't see that happening, time is to short before the seasons start. By the following season i can see it happening if something is not resolved before then.