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

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Well said Turvey. Hopefully the game is inching closer to getting this up and running soon, as it's needed.

Well said indeed.

I have said in the past an audit was needed.

My impetus for this was the audit conducted by the Norman, William the Conquerer on England many hundreds of years ago. They went over EVERYTHING. Every aspect of life, and possessions. The information it provided him allowed him to make some great decisions and govern more effectively.

RL needs this. And well done Steve Mortimer. Bravo. This guy is switched on.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Righto, back on the horse.

The Super 15 rights have kind of got lost with the other minor story running today. Nine seem to have paid a rather bargain basement price, so you'd think that it wouldn't affect the NRL dealings. Nevertheless, if Nine show Wallaby Tests in Melbourne then they would be rightly accused of a double standard wrt NRL.

Looks to me like Nine is mopping up the smaller rights and leaving the AFL to Seven/Ten. Plenty of water to go under the bridge now though. That makes it even more critical that the IC comes in and is bedded down as the rights negotiations heat up, to maximise the return.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/nines-450m-rugby-buyout/story-e6frey4i-1225856584052

Its a highlights package. wow. big deal.

thanks for the article. just wanted to point out its a highlights package. remember when 7 showed it on a sunday morning and it went for 1 hour, and it was crap. then they tried sat nights and no one watched. then they stopped showing it.

No one will watch this. Lets hope nine bought it to bury it

 

[elbusto]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...r-books-for-the-commission-20100327-r3yy.html

Brilliant!

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-ease-cap-strain/story-e6frg7mf-1225865741997

Independence to ease cap strain

* Stuart Honeysett
* From: The Australian
* May 13, 2010 12:00AM

THE salary cap could rise by $250,000 next year provided an independent commission is up and running by the start of the season, says Gold Coast chief executive Michael Searle.

The news would be welcomed by disgruntled players who have been agitating for a better deal ever since Melbourne was caught and punished by the NRL for systematically cheating the system.

Among those players is Penrith captain Petero Civoniceva, who yesterday backed the implementation of an independent commission but expressed concerns that it had been pushed to the backburner recently.

Searle, regarded as the architect of the game's march towards independence, said a commission could provide immediate relief in terms of the NRL's $4.1 million salary cap.

"Having done the financial analysis in conducting the commission negotiations it's clear that the clubs need more revenue to achieve financial stability," Searle said yesterday.

"There's no reason why some of these savings wouldn't be passed on to the players and conservatively it could lead to an increase in the cap of up to $250,000 assuming that there would be savings of around $8-$10 million a year."

Civoniceva, who has become the public face for players after meeting with Rugby League Players Association chief executive David Garnsey on Tuesday to discuss the next collective bargaining agreement, said an independent commission needed to be pushed through.

"What I'm big for is the commission getting up and running," Civoniceva said.

"It's been put behind everything else but we need to grab it and put it to the front of everyone's thoughts.

"Out of the disappointment of the whole Storm scandal we need to find a positive and need to move forward in the right direction.

"I feel the commission is the way to go and if we got a commission up and running we've got some obviously very smart people at the helm who could look at all facets of the game."

The game's owners, News Limited (publisher of The Australian) and the ARL, have agreed in principle to the formation of an independent commission which would see both parties hand over control of the game to the clubs.

The two parties are now in the process of hammering out the details behind closed doors but there is a genuine hope among the major stakeholders of the game that it will be up and running by the start of the 2011 season.

If that is the case, there could be an immediate benefit. News Limited takes $8m from the game as part of the Super League peace deal but that money would go back into the game's coffers and be redirected to the clubs. There could be a further windfall with the various administrations of the game to undergo an efficiency review which could find further savings - some have predicted that figure could be $2m at the very least - from annual revenue of $150m.

It has already been forecast that the salary cap could collectively rise by as much as $6m when the NRL secures the next television deal which expires at the end of 2012.

"The commission would resolve a number of issues," Searle said.

"There will be more money in the game which would eventually lead to more money to clubs which would eventually lead to more money to players.

"It's not my role to have a say about the timing of the commission but rest assured that the passion and the commitment from the clubs and the stakeholders hasn't wavered and we're still firmly on track to have a commission in place."

 

[Brutus]

News Limited takes $8m from the game as part of the Super League peace deal

Why? I know some of that goes back to Melb, but why?

 

[Parra]

What is the independent commission independent from?

Can anyone give me example commissioners from an independent commission and a non-independent commission so the two could be contrasted?

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

What is the independent commission independent from?

Can anyone give me example commissioners from an independent commission and a non-independent commission so the two could be contrasted?

It's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen.

Go back to grade 1...

seriously

 

[The Tank]

It has already been forecast that the salary cap could collectively rise by as much as $6m when the NRL secures the next television deal which expires at the end of 2012.

I assume this is supposed to say "rise to as much as $6m".

 

[Quidgybo]

Why? I know some of that goes back to Melb, but why?

The NRL is 50/50 owned by News Ltd and the ARL, so News take the same dividend as the ARL takes - $8m each annually. And according to some reports during the last few weeks it's substantially more than "some" of that going back to fund the Storm. $65.9m in the last five years according to the Sun Herald...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...ne-storms-future/story-e6frf9if-1225858136152

I'm not suggesting News Ltd's involvement in the NRL Partnership is good for the game (eg. depressing value of television rights etc). It clearly isn't and the sooner the Independent Commission happens the better. But it's still surprising how much of what they've been taking out of the NRL in dividend has actually gone back into the game rather than to the News Ltd. bottom line.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

What is the independent commission independent from?

Can anyone give me example commissioners from an independent commission and a non-independent commission so the two could be contrasted?

At the two extremes, one would have Dennis Fitzgerald and Ross Livermore on the commission while they remained in the employ of Parramatta and the QRL respectively. The other would involve John Quayle who has extensive experience in managing Rugby League and other sports but holds no other role within the game and has not held any role within the game for several years, and someone like John Howard (insert prominent ex-politician of your choice and persuasion) who has never held a position within the game but knows the game and has vast political and corporate contacts. The difference is whether they are there to represent a constituency to whom they are financially beholden or whether they have the independence to do whatever they see as best for the game, regardless of who it annoys.

Leigh.

 

[Brutus]

The NRL is 50/50 owned by News Ltd and the ARL, so News take the same dividend as the ARL takes - $8m each annually. And according to some reports during the last few weeks it's substantially more than "some" of that going back to fund the Storm. $65.9m in the last five years according to the Sun Herald...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...ne-storms-future/story-e6frf9if-1225858136152

I'm not suggesting News Ltd's involvement in the NRL Partnership is good for the game (eg. depressing value of television rights etc). It clearly isn't and the sooner the Independent Commission happens the better. But it's still surprising how much of what they've been taking out of the NRL in dividend has actually gone back into the game rather than to the News Ltd. bottom line.

Leigh.

I'm sure I read somewhere (The Australian maybe) that the Storm made a small profit in the last year.

 

[The Tank]

I'm sure I read somewhere (The Australian maybe) that the Storm made a small profit in the last year.

:shock: Really? I thought Storm lost millions each year!?!

 

[Parra]

At the two extremes, one would have Dennis Fitzgerald and Ross Livermore on the commission while they remained in the employ of Parramatta and the QRL respectively. The other would involve John Quayle who has extensive experience in managing Rugby League and other sports but holds no other role within the game and has not held any role within the game for several years, and someone like John Howard (insert prominent ex-politician of your choice and persuasion) who has never held a position within the game but knows the game and has vast political and corporate contacts. The difference is whether they are there to represent a constituency to whom they are financially beholden or whether they have the independence to do whatever they see as best for the game, regardless of who it annoys.

Leigh.

Thanks for the considered reply. It was a genuine question.

A truly independent body as you suggest would be interesting in some capacity - but in control of the entire code? A key criticism of the NRL is that key stakeholders - fans & members - are ignored.

The only IC discussions I have read involved club reps in some capacity. In fact the only difference to what we had now was the removal of News Ltd. I could cynically suggest that the whole IC discussion has been generated to allow News Ltd to break the existing deal on their terms.

 

[taipan]

What is the independent commission independent from?

Can anyone give me example commissioners from an independent commission and a non-independent commission so the two could be contrasted?

Hope you are not taking the P.? My understanding FWIW.
Independent means independent(as a group) of the influence of individual clubs or special interest groups within the game.They can no doubt bitch and relay their problems to Gallop as CEO,but the commission meaning the majority on that commission make the final decision,on what happens not any one individual on that commission ,who may follow a particular club.

A non independent commission would be reps from each club,having the final say.Self interest would be the underlying theme,and not the game as a whole.This is why the game has been marking time since the SL debacle.
A school council of former old boys is another example.

 

[Goddo]

I think we shouldn't just flat out raise the cap to $6m in 2012, even if we have the cash.

I would be much happier if the cap was set at say $5.5m in 2012, and increased by $250k every year of the deal so it averages out to $6m but back ended to avoid future player whinging.

A structured growing pay scale would be good.

 

[Parra]

Hope you are not taking the P.? My understanding FWIW.
Independent means independent(as a group) of the influence of individual clubs or special interest groups within the game.They can no doubt bitch and relay their problems to Gallop as CEO,but the commission meaning the majority on that commission make the final decision,on what happens not any one individual on that commission ,who may follow a particular club.

A non independent commission would be reps from each club,having the final say.Self interest would be the underlying theme,and not the game as a whole.This is why the game has been marking time since the SL debacle.
A school council of former old boys is another example.

Genuine question - see my reply above.


So people see 'independence' as meaning no RL background and no affiliation at all with current clubs.

Imagine fronting a sponsor with that proposition - give us heaps of money, but have no say in anything.

How do you find people so disinterested and unqualified to be on this commission?

I would rather see people with a lifelong interest and involvement run the game. If you want beancounters and lawyers stick with the current stagnant mess.

 

[Parra]

And any suggestion to politicise sport through the involvement of prominent failed politicians has got to be joking.

 

[Quidgybo]

So people see 'independence' as meaning no RL background and no affiliation at all with current clubs.

The latter, not the former. To be independent you simply can't be financially beholden to some other party within the game you are tasked to run - eg. a club, another RL, a television rights holder, or a major sponsor. That doesn't have any bearing on whether you've got a Rugby League background or have previously been employed by a current club as a player or administrator. But you simply can't stay on the payroll of a party that has a vested interest in the decisions the Commission is empowered to take while you are part of the Commission. That's how we get Fox Sports getting the rights at a cut price rate. The commission ideally will be a balanced mix of those with strong experience within Rugby League and those with strong corporate and/or political connections. Some candidates will have both (eg. John Qualye), some more of one than the other (eg. Shane Webcke, John Howard). But the fusion of this range of experience and influential contacts brought together in a single body that is free to make binding decisions without fear of personal retaliation from vested interests is what makes an independent commission desirable.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

And any suggestion to politicise sport through the involvement of prominent failed politicians has got to be joking.

So when it comes time to compete with rival codes for government funds to upgrade or develop new stadiums (eg. Carrara, Sydney Showground, designing the Olympic Stadium to be oval etc.) or to lobby for changes to broadcasting legislation (eg. allowing games to be shown live in Melbourne on a secondary digital FTA channel), do you think it would be better to come to the table cold with little understanding of the internal politics of government and no contacts within the civil service or relationships with party powerbrokers? Or would it be better to have someone on your side who knows the right buttons to push to get what the game wants out of Cabinet? Ignore the name I've suggested or the party that person belonged to, but rather look at what someone with that experience and contacts could offer the game as just one member of a commission with greatly varied talents and backgrounds. Any one decision on major stadium upgrades or broadcasting legislation can represent a $200m+ turnaround for the game (remembering our television rights are currently only worth $500m over 6 years, that's not an insignificant sum). The game would be foolish to turn its back on anyone that can give it an advantage in such negotiations.

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

So when it comes time to compete with rival codes for government funds to upgrade or develop new stadiums (eg. Carrara, Sydney Showground, designing the Olympic Stadium to be oval etc.) or to lobby for changes to broadcasting legislation (eg. allowing games to be shown live in Melbourne on a secondary digital FTA channel), do you think it would be better to come to the table cold with little understanding of the internal politics of government and no contacts within the civil service or relationships with party powerbrokers? Or would it be better to have someone on your side who knows the right buttons to push to get what the game wants out of Cabinet? Ignore the name I've suggested or the party that person belonged to, but rather look at what someone with that experience and contacts could offer the game as just one member of a commission with greatly varied talents and backgrounds. Any one decision on major stadium upgrades or broadcasting legislation can represent a $200m+ turnaround for the game (remembering our television rights are currently only worth $500m over 6 years, that's not an insignificant sum). The game would be foolish to turn its back on anyone that can give it an advantage in such negotiations.

Leigh.

Depending on who you choose, those doors will open or be slammed in your face. If your aim was to get public funds you'd be much better hiring a lobbyist rather than a failed politician.

Leigh, you have a strong sense of your definition of 'independent' - but it may not be shared by others. Look at posts here, listen to talkback radio and it is obvious that this word means whatever people want it to. Mostly it seems to mean "not News Ltd".

Does everyone consider Quayle to be independent? Ex-CEO of the ARL. What about Arthurson, Fitzgerald, Ribot, Gallop, John O'Neill, George Piggins, Steve Mortimer, John Singleton. All of these people are independent according to your definition - yet all would be considered to be aligned or have vested interests one way or another.

David Gallop should be seen as independent - but as an ex-News Ltd lawyer he is considered to be biased and beholden by many followers of the game. Again, by the definition of 'independent' provided he could resign his post and sit on the commission.

A lot of what is being suggested is probably the result of a sport moving from a democratic to a corporate structure. You lose a lot when you discard the democratic process - of having the people at the top accountable to those below them. The ARL/NSWRL structure stood the test of time. The NRL structure is an example of how stagnant and disinterested a controlling body can become when it's prime focus shifts from running a sport to providing content for a media company.

If the corporate structure is really what is wanted then why not go all the way and set it up like the USPGA or NASCAR or the V8 Touring Cars? This would completely divorce the top level of the sport from the grass roots. Plenty of people will tell you that this is happening anyway.

Others see it as a shame.