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

[The Observer]

Which still doesn't deal with the fact that the NRL clubs and the players directly employed by those clubs *do* make (virtually) all the money. You can twist and turn that fact any way you like but it still doesn't change the reality that television networks, sponsors and spectators pay to see the elite clubs and the players they employ (either playing for the club or playing rep football).

Actually, other products such as State of Origin are tied into the current broadcast deals and are estimated to make a significant amount of money, IIRC Origin was estimated to be worth $10 to 15 million per year. Channel Seven stated last year that they wanted to bid for Origin and test rights. Proponents of the club-dominated commission model seem to ignore that other areas of the game (i.e. representative and particularly international football) could and should drive growth of the sport as a whole in the future. International competition can and does significantly promote the sport in most other codes, like the Socceroos and participation in the World Cup, the Wallabies generating most of the money for Rugby Union's broadcast deal with News Corp through the Tri Nations (proportionately worth much more than Super Rugby, thanks in part to the Springboks and their huge audience in South Africa), the cricket team being the flagship of the game in this country.

There are ways for representative and international football to compensate the clubs more substantially for producing and providing players, as I've stated before: English Rugby Union provides such a model, with its Long Form Agreement between the Rugby Football Union (the National Governing Body) and Premier Rugby (representing the clubs). The threads I referred to it in were:
Humphreys' proposal for a longer season may have legs: officials
Souths refuse to release Burgess

Aiming to compensate a club $30K for each rep game a player of theirs appeared in a rep game (which is practically what the English Rugby Union provides to its clubs) would go some way for making up for the shortfall of a player missing club matches. The question is whether clubs want to give up the control, and their language of "we pay, therefore we should control" isn't promising.

If we fail to provide a commission structure acceptable to the clubs then they'll walk - taking their product and the games entire funding structure with them. Of course they won't let the grassroots die because as you say they need a source of new players. But they will be in the position to dictate the relationship with grassroots organisations and they won't even have to entertain any notion of offering them a vote.

If the clubs were to vote as a block and break away, they'd practically be replicating Super League, then it is possible that history may repeat and many in the grassroots would give up supporting RL and/or participate/contribute to other sports, such as AFL, cricket, soccer or Rugby. That would damage interest in the game, would damage the commercial value of the game's products.

RL shouldn't decide to take up this imperfect model hastily, out of fear or a sense that this is the best on offer, just because certain parties are putting public pressure on others. Many other sports in this country, like cricket, soccer, Rugby, basketball, have governance structures close to the pre-SL ARL (I'm not saying that those models are better, but that they significantly involve grassroots bodies in the decision-making hierarchy).

As I've said previously, I think the proposed commission is much better than what we currently have and if it is the best proposal that is *politically achievable* at this time then I'll support it and hope we can improve on it in the future.

That hope seems rather optimistic.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

And you still can't twist the fact that there would be no NRL without grassroots RL. This isn't 1895 the pro clubs don't just get all their players from union. If the clubs want to hold the entire sport of RL to randsom it will just show exactly why they shouldn't be handed ownership of the game.

And it works the other way too.....without elite clubs there would be no grassroots. Do you think anyone is going to play rl with diminished grandeur in mind?

I am sure many would, but nothing like it is now.

The relationship is symbiosis, but you, me, everyone, must realise what comes first, the chicken or the egg, and in this case, its the chicken (as in the previous case ) Elite comp comes first.

Actually, other products such as State of Origin are tied into the current broadcast deals and are estimated to make a significant amount of money, IIRC Origin was estimated to be worth $10 to 15 million per year. Channel Seven stated last year that they wanted to bid for Origin and test rights. Proponents of the club-dominated commission model seem to ignore that other areas of the game (i.e. representative and particularly international football) could and should drive growth of the sport as a whole in the future. International competition can and does significantly promote the sport in most other codes, like the Socceroos and participation in the World Cup, the Wallabies generating most of the money for Rugby Union's broadcast deal with News Corp through the Tri Nations (proportionately worth much more than Super Rugby, thanks in part to the Springboks and their huge audience in South Africa), the cricket team being the flagship of the game in this country.

There are ways for representative and international football to compensate the clubs more substantially for producing and providing players, as I've stated before: English Rugby Union provides such a model, with its Long Form Agreement between the Rugby Football Union (the National Governing Body) and Premier Rugby (representing the clubs). The threads I referred to it in were:
Humphreys' proposal for a longer season may have legs: officials
Souths refuse to release Burgess

Aiming to compensate a club $30K for each rep game a player of theirs appeared in a rep game (which is practically what the English Rugby Union provides to its clubs) would go some way for making up for the shortfall of a player missing club matches. The question is whether clubs want to give up the control, and their language of "we pay, therefore we should control" isn't promising.



If the clubs were to vote as a block and break away, they'd practically be replicating Super League, then it is possible that history may repeat and many in the grassroots would give up supporting RL and/or participate/contribute to other sports, such as AFL, cricket, soccer or Rugby. That would damage interest in the game, would damage the commercial value of the game's products.

RL shouldn't decide to take up this imperfect model hastily, out of fear or a sense that this is the best on offer, just because certain parties are putting public pressure on others. Many other sports in this country, like cricket, soccer, Rugby, basketball, have governance structures close to the pre-SL ARL (I'm not saying that those models are better, but that they significantly involve grassroots bodies in the decision-making hierarchy).

Those other sports have less factions/sections amongst them. In rl we have 16 elite clubs, autonomous mainly, 2 major state bodies, an ARL and news ltd.

Its a bit different under the sheets if you see what Im saying.

An IC is the best model for us, of that Im sure.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

And it works the other way too.....without elite clubs there would be no grassroots. Do you think anyone is going to play rl with diminished grandeur in mind?

I am sure many would, but nothing like it is now.

The relationship is symbiosis, but you, me, everyone, must realise what comes first, the chicken or the egg, and in this case, its the chicken (as in the previous case ) Elite comp comes first.

Nonsense. I see players running around every weekend who know they will never and have never been a chance of playing at the elite level. It doesn't mean they don't play the game. Every single player above the age of 18 who has not been signed by an NRL club falls into this category. And the vast majority of kids who start playing RL play because they like it. Most actually don't know who NRL players are or watch it on TV at age 6 when they start. So grassroots RL can and does exist without the elite game but the elite game cannot exist without the grassroots to produce players. So bang goes your analogy.

Not that any of this makes a blind bit of difference to the IC issue. Because however important you think the elite game is and how unimportant you think the grassroots are it's clear that this proposal is weighted heavily and unduly in favour of the elite end of the sport. The entire game will, grassroots and all, will be owned almost entirely by the most elite clubs and will be controlled by people those clubs elect.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

So its right down to elite competition (NRL clubs) vs development. The peace settlement from SL said that when News ltd does leave, its 50% share goes to the clubs. So its 50/50 ARL and the clubs. Would that be our ideal setup here?

 

[Parra]

So its right down to elite competition (NRL clubs) vs development.

It is not that clear cut. There is also a handful of unreasonable demands from News Ltd and a general lack of independence in any structure described so far - if that's what you want, which is debatable anyway. Any future expansion is also threatened by giving the clubs control, as is rep footy.

We have at least one club, the Titans, with their hand in the till right now to survive - getting advances to pay the bills.


Then there is the whole Storm debacle. This quote sums up the situation, and sheds some light on what the rest of the game is being asked to pay for in the so-called 'deal'-

"I think it highly unlikely that Rupert Murdoch will allow News Corp to retreat from rugby league, particularly at this time. And retreating from the Storm will be particularly difficult for News Corp, given the guarantees its wholly owned subsidiary made to the Victorian government to provide an income stream for the new rugby and soccer stadium"

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/medi...-involvement-in-rugby-league-gottliebsen.html

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Nonsense. I see players running around every weekend who know they will never and have never been a chance of playing at the elite level. It doesn't mean they don't play the game. Every single player above the age of 18 who has not been signed by an NRL club falls into this category. And the vast majority of kids who start playing RL play because they like it. Most actually don't know who NRL players are or watch it on TV at age 6 when they start. So grassroots RL can and does exist without the elite game but the elite game cannot exist without the grassroots to produce players. So bang goes your analogy.

Not that any of this makes a blind bit of difference to the IC issue. Because however important you think the elite game is and how unimportant you think the grassroots are it's clear that this proposal is weighted heavily and unduly in favour of the elite end of the sport. The entire game will, grassroots and all, will be owned almost entirely by the most elite clubs and will be controlled by people those clubs elect.

Your a dribbler. And worse, you work for qrl

declare your bias now, charlatan!

do you honestly think that players in grass roots give a hoot about who runs them, as long as its run ok and allows them to play.

I dont think the grass roots are unimportant....the distinction with me is that I dont think the grass roots will be worse off under an IC. On the contrary, I think it will eventually be better. When the game generates more money, more will go to grass roots. I doubt the qrl could combat soccer and afl effectively calling the shots.

And thats the point, they WONT get to call the shots with the amount of money they have, but they will be freed up to use their expertise to run grass roots comps. The only political faction we want is the united IC.

Overall, you are running an elite comp. And it needs great grass roots, thats the model we have to run a highly rated comp. They are not going to diminish it. If you think otherwise, you have been bought, work for the qrl, or are fooling yourself.

An ambitious competition like any other will have a keen desire to keep a large junior base. As many people who want to play the game should. Just because the eilte comp is at the head of the tree does not mean other sections of the game should suffer. Where do people get these ideas? Juniors are a cornerstone of any successful competition.

They should be given as many resources as possible, but one thing that should NOT be happening, is having the QRL or whoever with political power interfering with the elite comp. The qrl should be subordinate. You ALWAYS lead with your best. And the nrl is the biggest and best.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So its right down to elite competition (NRL clubs) vs development. The peace settlement from SL said that when News ltd does leave, its 50% share goes to the clubs. So its 50/50 ARL and the clubs. Would that be our ideal setup here?

And I think the peace deal is the crux of the issue. You have to wonder why all of a sudden News Ltd want to walk away from RL and allow this commission to take over. They know that in 2017 they have to hand their 50% share to the clubs as per the 1997 deal and that the ARL will keep its 50% stake. I don't think News can stand the idea that the ARL will keep control of the game while it will be out on its arse so it has gone behind closed doors and, colluded with the clubs by offering the lot to them amd come up with this commission proposal to that effect. They know they have to act soon too because any closer to the 2017 deadline and more people will smell the rat.

They've written this proposal as a best case scenario for News under the circumstances and got the clubs doing the lobbying for them because they are the ones who stand to gain the most at the expense of the ARL and the other traditional governing bodies. I think they hoped the wave of support for ANY change would sweep the ARL out of power for good without them or any other stake holder in the game being allowed a say on the proposal. It almost worked but fortunately the QRL, quite ironically with Ribot as one of the directors, and even more ironically an independent director, have scuttled the original proposal. They've already forced News and the clubs to alter the proposal they didn't want anyone else knowing about.

It all comes down to whether this proposal is the best one possible or whether there is a better outcome for the game by waiting. Too many people are impatient and want to rush into a sh*t deal, just like in '97, without knowing or considering the finer detail and what it will mean. Any deal is likely to be irreversable and any damage done irreparable so it has to be done right. The last alternative is to just wait for 2017: a shame to stall that long but if it gets News out of the game without committing us to the kind of problems this News proposal will cause it might still be the best option. It was something we were resigned to before this IC stuff came up anyway but at least at the end of it there is a deal that makes sense, a 50/50 split between the elite clubs who are the flagship of the game and the benevolent governing body of the sport right across the country from junior grassroots football to Test football. It's an ownership framework that is employed by the RFL in England and it's similar to the kind of thing seen in many other sports. If News isn't willing to consider a deal that gives the traditional governing bodies a 50% stake, or must more close to it, waiting might be the best option.

As for the idea that the ARL represents development, I think it's more than that. It's also a non-club tied organisation to run representative football and represent Australia at interational administrative level. It's also a watch-dog to ensure the selfish interests of elite clubs are not allowed to supercede the interests of the whole sport. Say what you like about the ARL's structure and the people currently elected to some positions but it is nonetheless representative of the whole game. It's like a democracy if you like, whereas a club-run game would be more like an oligarchy with the unelected big end of the game reigning. There needs to be more balance than this News proposal commits us to.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Your a dribbler. And worse, you work for qrl

declare your bias now, charlatan!

do you honestly think that players in grass roots give a hoot about who runs them, as long as its run ok and allows them to play.

I dont think the grass roots are unimportant....the distinction with me is that I dont think the grass roots will be worse off under an IC. On the contrary, I think it will eventually be better. When the game generates more money, more will go to grass roots. I doubt the qrl could combat soccer and afl effectively calling the shots.

And thats the point, they WONT get to call the shots with the amount of money they have, but they will be freed up to use their expertise to run grass roots comps. The only political faction we want is the united IC.

Overall, you are running an elite comp. And it needs great grass roots, thats the model we have to run a highly rated comp. They are not going to diminish it. If you think otherwise, you have been bought, work for the qrl, or are fooling yourself.

Oh FFS, how many times do I have to say it, I don't work for the ARl, the QRL, the NSWRL, the CRL or the Outer South Western Kazhakstan RL. If you think someone has to be bias to question News Ltd proposal which lacks in detail, which serves its own purposes, which serves the purposes of the clubs with which it has colluded and which hands the entire sport of rugby league in Australia over to 16 elite clubs, one of which is not even Australian, then I think you are the dribbler.

And to add weight to that you also fall into the same old trap of making counter intuitive assumptions, like that the clubs need the grassroots therefore they WILL support them. The NRL clubs already need the grassroots but they don't do much to support it. The game also needs international football and the NRL clubs do more harm to it than any other code. So any assumption that this proposal will produce better outcomes for the game is not based on any fact or any committment or any gaurantee that is set is stone by this proposal, it's just blind, but ill-deserved, faith. Nothing more. Theoretical wishful thinking with no factual basis and with no considration of the realities that already exist, never mind the ones that this proposal will create in the future. It's just another example of people who have jumped head first into supporting this proposal because they think any change is good without actually looking at the detail, that's if the detail were even available for us to see.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Your a dribbler. And worse, you work for qrl

declare your bias now, charlatan!

do you honestly think that players in grass roots give a hoot about who runs them, as long as its run ok and allows them to play.

I dont think the grass roots are unimportant....the distinction with me is that I dont think the grass roots will be worse off under an IC. On the contrary, I think it will eventually be better. When the game generates more money, more will go to grass roots. I doubt the qrl could combat soccer and afl effectively calling the shots.

And thats the point, they WONT get to call the shots with the amount of money they have, but they will be freed up to use their expertise to run grass roots comps. The only political faction we want is the united IC.

Overall, you are running an elite comp. And it needs great grass roots, thats the model we have to run a highly rated comp. They are not going to diminish it. If you think otherwise, you have been bought, work for the qrl, or are fooling yourself.

An ambitious competition like any other will have a keen desire to keep a large junior base. As many people who want to play the game should. Just because the eilte comp is at the head of the tree does not mean other sections of the game should suffer. Where do people get these ideas? Juniors are a cornerstone of any successful competition.

They should be given as many resources as possible, but one thing that should NOT be happening, is having the QRL or whoever with political power interfering with the elite comp. The qrl should be subordinate. You ALWAYS lead with your best. And the nrl is the biggest and best.

I quote my own post, because this is a postscript.

East Coast: You are coming to a theoretical situation where the elite comp via the commissioners will say "we need an extra 10 million spread over 16 clubs, where can we find it? I know! The junior comp! Stuff em, they'll be fine....."

This is highly improbable. Bordering on truly impossible to fathom its occurrence. Why do you people believe the junior comp will suffer?

The state leagues will still be running it, with their expertise and their current budget. They just will not be as politically entwined with the running of the game - which lets face it has proven its detrimental effect time and time again. Instead they will be left to focus on grassroots with their considerable expertise, freed up to do this soley without worrying about other issues. Their effectiveness will be increased.

After some time their budgets become more. East Coast, you are thinking this only on one level (the states continued politcal influence) but that level is restrictive in the wider scope of the world. One way to protect the elite comp into the future is to ward off rival codes through junior development. And no doubt to that end, the junior comps will need improvement in the way they work and how they are run, along with more resources. So they will need a good looking at.

Now can you trust the states to do this in a fashion that is going to seemlessly integrate into the betterment of rugby league in general? What with all their political maneuvering over the years? Can you expect them to take a critical look at themselves and their comps and bite the bullet and institute changes that will make the elite comp (for which its official they now work for) and not just themselves?

You see, I think the qrl is great and all, but the qrl does whats best for the qrl and not rugby league on the wider level.

Thats where you are wrong. We dont want factions. We want one game. One goal. One direction.

The qrl will never do that for rugby league. Everything they do they do for themselves.

A more likely scenario is that instead of robbing the juniors of resources, the IC will look at ways of increasing other avenues of income.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Oh FFS, how many times do I have to say it, I don't work for the ARl, the QRL, the NSWRL, the CRL or the Outer South Western Kazhakstan RL. If you think someone has to be bias to question News Ltd proposal which lacks in detail, which serves its own purposes, which serves the purposes of the clubs with which it has colluded and which hands the entire sport of rugby league in Australia over to 16 elite clubs, one of which is not even Australian, then I think you are the dribbler.

And to add weight to that you also fall into the same old trap of making counter intuitive assumptions, like that the clubs need the grassroots therefore they WILL support them. The NRL clubs already need the grassroots but they don't do much to support it. The game also needs international football and the NRL clubs do more harm to it than any other code. So any assumption that this proposal will produce better outcomes for the game is not based on any fact or any committment or any gaurantee that is set is stone by this proposal, it's just blind, but ill-deserved, faith. Nothing more. Theoretical wishful thinking with no factual basis and with no considration of the realities that already exist, never mind the ones that this proposal will create in the future. It's just another example of people who have jumped head first into supporting this proposal because they think any change is good without actually looking at the detail, that's if the detail were even available for us to see.

Lets end the insults after this one. Twit.

Your great flaw is that News did not put forward this proposal. Searle did. The ARL, news, and the clubs have given it a preliminary tick.

John Hartigan never sat down and worked out evil details. Rupert Murdoch never came in and said anything about it being payback.

News want to get out of the game due to ownership issues, perceived negativity toward them, and without rl, etc, they will be able to make more money in australia.

Its people like you who make this game worse....scared, worryers, with warped perceptions that the ARL alone can now run the game. I say this because you are obviously afraid of change.

The ARL agree with it so much they are disbanding. The clubs think its great, news is walking away, the comp is owning itself once again.

The only people who hate it are the qrl and you. The qrl because they lose what gives them a laugh and a kick - sticking it up everyone else with political power. And you, because you think jonny down the road wont be able to play rl anymore because the clubs are going to divide the current 10 million dollars amongst themselves (a grand total of 600k) while also drawing the final curtain over their lives. because afl will swamp them if there was no juniors within 30 years

what nonsense you go on about. Things will be better, and there is no perfect system, so dont bang on about how you think things will be great. the qrl need to cease and desist their claims. There is no throne for them. There is no throne for anyone.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You can make up all the assumptions and mythical scenarios you like, there is still no detaill to this proposal so not even you, the self-appointed oroacle, know what it means. All we know is that News Ltd did write it, Searle can't even run his own club never mind a whole league, and the ARL has not given it a tick because the QRL, the only truly independent board of the lot, have not backed it. Everything you say includes words like WILL. But you don't have a clue what WILL happen. It's just a weird bloke who everyone on here thinks is a fruit loop and a pain in the arse making stuff up and passing it off as undeniable fact. The most ridiculous of all being that the QRL are a just faction only interested in itself while the clubs are a great benefactor to the whole game. The QRL represents the game in that state. From under 6s in Brisbane and Townsville, Mt Isa and Roma and everywhere in between right up to the elite evel where the best players are playing Origin and for Australia. And guess what? The NSWRL do the same in NSW. Before News Ltd came along they also ran the elite club competition in Australia. That's what representation is about. The clubs are their own faction who only represent a small % of their fans or their shareholders and owners and only care about their elite interestes. A system that gives the clubs and the traditional governing bodies an equal say means every part of the game is represented, has a say and is looked after. This proposal has no balance and opens the game up to more problems down the track as a result.

 

[Paul J]

If it's not an issue I don't see why the clubs don't accept the QRL's more balanced proposed commission model.

Not that taking the state bodies' say in the direction of the game is a good thing as some suggest. I know I'd hate to see the NRL running the game in country NSW without anyone from the country having an input on how it's run. You can be sure there will be no commissioners from the bush and none who will know the issues here. Only the CRL is representative of the bush RL.

The QRL's model is not an independent commission because self interested parties will be running the game.

The QRL suggestion that an IC will not look after grass roots footy is illogical. Grass roots footy, all rugby league in general, will be beter under an IC. IC's make more money for everyone.

 

[Paul J]

At the moment we're speculating on something that doesn't even exist.

Well, let's look at something that does exist - The AFL independent commission.

Here's a link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission

The AFL Commission is responsible for the administration of the competition and its constitution proclaims it as the "keeper of the code", the body universally responsible for the sport of Australian Football. Since forming in 1985, the AFL Commission has become increasingly wealthy and powerful and has had control of the sport in Australia since 1993 and internationally since 2005.
There are eight members that comprise the AFL Commission who are elected by the 16 AFL clubs, with each club entitled to make nominations.

I would love rugby league to have this exact commission structure. Click on the link and have a look at who makes up the CEO, chairman and 8 commissioners. You'll find highly successful businessmen, Australian trade unionist and a judge from the Family Court of Australia.

These commissioners negotiated an excellent TV broadcast deal, have spent huge sums on junior development, and have amassed a war chest to fund expansion.

These are the type of people who will be on the NRL commission.

People, tell me one thing that is not great about this type of leadership?

Tell me why it won't work for our great game?

 

[Jatz Crackers]

At the moment we're speculating on something that doesn't even exist.

Well, let's look at something that does exist - The AFL independent commission.

Here's a link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission

The AFL Commission is responsible for the administration of the competition and its constitution proclaims it as the "keeper of the code", the body universally responsible for the sport of Australian Football. Since forming in 1985, the AFL Commission has become increasingly wealthy and powerfuland has had control of the sport in Australia since 1993 and internationally since 2005.
There are eight members that comprise the AFL Commission who are elected by the 16 AFL clubs, with each club entitled to make nominations.

I would love rugby league to have this exact commission structure. Click on the link and have a look at who makes up the CEO, chairman and 8 commissioners. You'll find highly successful businessmen, Australian trade unionist and a judge from the Family Court of Australia.

These commissioners negotiated an excellent TV broadcast deal, have spent huge sums on junior development, and have amassed a war chest to fund expansion.

These are the type of people who will be on the NRL commission.

People, tell me one thing that is not great about this type of leadership?

Tell me why it won't work for our great game?

Not to take away from the overall intent of your post which is commendable, but if anyone thinks a family court judge would be an assett they are nuts.

A more corrupt deviate dishonest type i cannot imagine.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Not to take away from the overall intent of your post which is commendable, but if anyone thinks a family court judge would be an assett they are nuts.

A more corrupt deviate dishonest type i cannot imagine.

As opposed to people like John Ribot, Geoff Carr and Colin Love running the game...

A big pulling power of having a commission like this is we can get people involved who have massive influence in other areas, like TV companys and governments.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

AFL has no international game so it's a pointless comparison. They don't have to do anything to promote or support international football because they don't have any. We do and the clubs have shown they can't be trusted to do the right thing by it, as evidenced by the demise of the World Sevens.

And can we forget about this "Grassroots WILL be better off... um... because... it just will be" line. It's not based on anything, just a assumption that the clubs will do the right thing by the grassroots, even though, once again, there is plenty of evidence to show they don't do a very good job now. Richardson wants to cut funding to the QRL to strong-arm them into doing what he wants. This is the kind of mentality we're up against. He wants to hurt grassroots football to get what he wants for his privately owned club. It's as obvious as you can get.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

As opposed to people like John Ribot, Geoff Carr and Colin Love running the game...

I agree about Ribot. His duplicitous nature would make him a perfect family court judge.

 

[Paul J]

AFL has no international game so it's a pointless comparison. They don't have to do anything to promote or support international football because they don't have any. We do and the clubs have shown they can't be trusted to do the right thing by it, as evidenced by the demise of the World Sevens.

And can we forget about this "Grassroots WILL be better off... um... because... it just will be" line. It's not based on anything, just a assumption that the clubs will do the right thing by the grassroots, even though, once again, there is plenty of evidence to show they don't do a very good job now. Richardson wants to cut funding to the QRL to strong-arm them into doing what he wants. This is the kind of mentality we're up against. He wants to hurt grassroots football to get what he wants for his privately owned club. It's as obvious as you can get.

It is a perfect comparison, regardless of international footy.

People who support the QRL myths that an independent commission will starve junior development or will be run by the clubs frustrate me no end.

Please show one link or give one logical reason to show why the NRL clubs or the NSWRL or QRL will have any say in the NRL independent commission, or that an independent commission will hurt junior footy.

Just one.

Otherwise be so kind as to stop telling these blatant lies.

 

[Perth Red]

In the AFL model the State bodies still play a significant part in the overall vision of the game as well. Although the commisioners are nominated by the clubs the state bodies also work closely with the AFL for the good of the game at all levels.

One big difference though is that the State bodies generally do not rely on the AFL for income as they are in the large part self funding through a variety of income generating sources. The WAFL for example get income from holding the licenses for both the AFL clubs who pay a fee for their use, owning a stadium that generates significant income, having a State League that makes money and having some pretty decent corporate backing. in fact the WAFL's income is probably greater than the NSWRL and QRL put together with the ARL grant included.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It is a perfect comparison, regardless of international footy.

People who support the QRL myths that an independent commission will starve junior development or will be run by the clubs frustrate me no end.

Please show one link or give one logical reason to show why the NRL clubs or the NSWRL or QRL will have any say in the NRL independent commission, or that an independent commission will hurt junior footy.

Just one.

Otherwise be so kind as to stop telling these blatant lies.

Prove that it won't. I don't have to prove anything. Your the one advocating a major change so you can come up with the evidence that it will be beneficial. But that's the problem with this proposal. It was written behind closed doors by News Ltd and a few club bosses and there is absolutely no details gauranteeing it will work.

But there are plenty of logical reasons why the clubs will influence the commission because they are the ones electing and re-electing it. They have already tried to hurt grassroots football in Qld by pressuring the NSWRL into cutting funding to the QRL. If this is what the clubs are going to be like every time they don't get their way it's pretty clear they should not be handed ownership of the sport. If the clubs and News Ltd are fair dinkum about providing a balanced structure for the ownership and administration of rugby league in Australia why draw up secret plans with no detail and then try to railroad it through without consultation with the traditional, non-profit, representative owners of the sport and without due consideration of all the facts?

And if you want to suggest that this commission WILL benefit the entire sport, not just the elite level, then why don't you actually show us the detail in the plan that gaurantees this. Otherwise stop telling blatant lies. You have no idea what this commission will or will not do because there are no details to it. No one knows what is even being suggested because the whole plan was written by News Ltd and privately owned clubs to benefit News Ltd and the clubs, otherwise it wouldn't have been done in secret and without the input of the non-profit governing bodies. Show us the document that gaurantees the protection of both grassroots football and international football, otherwise stop peddling the line that this News Ltd commission is certain to benefit the whole game.