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

[Paul J]

Yes, I've done so a million times, as have others. They vote for the commissioners. No commissioner stands a hope in hell without the support of the vast majority of clubs. So they are inexorably obligated to their wishes. Same as every other entity that relies on popular support from its constituency. In this case the constituency is the clubs and that gives them power. Anyone who thinks a commission will go against the wishes of those who elect and re-elect them is living in a fantasy world.

I’ll put forward a realistic scenario to show why I believe it is impossible for clubs to have undue influence on an independent commission (as has already been shown by all commissions in existence).

Let’s say that the QRL decides today to move out of the way and gives the independent commission the green light to start on 01/11/2010.

News Ltd nominates Gary Pemberton, Katie Page, Geoff Dixon & John Mulcahy as commissioners and the ARL agrees to these nominations.

The ARL nominates Shane Webke, Andrew Denton, Steve Price & Melinda Gainsford Smith and News agrees to these nominations.

David Gallop is the CEO, John Howard the chairman. The independent commission now runs the game.

The QRL now looks after Qld, the NSWRL now looks after NSW and the clubs look after themselves.

The independent commission negotiates the next TV deal, decide on when & by how much the salary cap is increased, when & where to expand, how much to be spent of junior development in heartland and expansion areas etc.

Now the argument is that the clubs will get influence on the commissioners.

This has never happened in an independent commission and I don’t see how it possibly ever could in an NRL commission.

For example…

Let’s say that after 4 years in the commission Shane Webke decides to retire from the commission to concentrate on other media and business interests. So there will be nominations and votes on a new commissioner to replace Shane.

What exactly would have to happen for the clubs to get undue influence on the commissioners?

Let’s look at a club CEO, Todd Greenberg of the Bulldogs for example

Why would Todd Greenberg risk his career and reputation by trying to de fraud the commission by trying to influence a majority vote on a fraudulent applicant?

Where will he find a person of suitable standing to be a commissioner who is then willing to risk their career and reputation by being fraudulent?

How would Todd get the other 15 club CEOs to risk their careers and reputations to do the same thing?

How would his email or secret meeting with the other 15 CEOs be kept out of the media?

If this fanciful fraudulent activity actually happened, how would Todd and the other 15 fraudulent CEOs get the QRL, NSWRL or the existing 8 commissioners to vote fraudulently to get the 75% vote needed to allow a fraudulent commissioner to join the commission?

If all of the crazy suggestions above actually happened, how would the new fraudulent commissioner convince the existing 7 commissioners to take money away from junior development of rep footy and give it to the Bulldogs or some or all of the clubs?

Why would the independent commission CEO & chairman stand for all this?

Unless someone can explain how any of this could possibly happen, the notion that the clubs will have any undue influence on the NRL commission – which would be a first for any commission in existence – is simply impossible.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's simple. It does't matter which commissioners are elected, the clubs are the ones who hold virtually all the power when it comes to their re-election. No commissioner or potential commissioner stands a hope in hell unless they have the support of the vast majority of the clubs. So if the commission, and in particular certain commissioners, voted/decided to cut the NRL season to 22 weeks so they could add a Kangaroo Tour, World Sevens and mid-year three Test series against the Kiwis to boost international football the clubs would have the sh*ts big style and the chances those commissioners would then have of being re-elected would be zero. And you can bet the club bosses would let them know that too, either publically or privately. Most likely in a Shane Richardson style public threat in the Telerag. He made a similar threat to cut funding to the QRL recently by trying to influence the NSWRL members of the ARL so imagine how much of this would go on when the clubs actually have the vote themselves. They also kyboshed the World Sevens before they owned a single % of the game so again, imagine what we'll be up ahgainst when they own 75% of it. All of this is a far more realistic scenario than the one you have wasted a lot of time contriving, especially one contrived without the full knowledge of how the commission will actually work, which is something News Ltd is keeping a secret. And to say club agendas don't impact commissions in other sports doesn't stack up either. With clubs running the AFL their only fair dinkum rep games, their State of Origin, was scrapped because the clubs didn't like it. So back to the drawing board.

 

[Old Darlin]

I'm sick of being told the AFL commission can be translated to RL. We actually have an international game, although the clubs would probably rather we didn't. They don't even have state of origin anymore because their clubs killed it off. It's just not as simple as saying it works in the AFL, if indeed it does, so it will work in RL. The main reason the AFL kicks our arse is because it has a competent CEO who talks up his game and acts in its interests while we have a CEO who talks our game down and who does not act in our interests or reacts to what others do. Even a fair and balanced IC won't be able to solve that unless they get rid of Gallop and there's no evidence that any IC will do that.

btw, i have been assured gallop's attitude has nothing whatsoever to do with his role at the asc

:lol:

 

[Digga Hole]

To my knowledge, the AFL, NFL, & NBA commissions have never been club controlled, it's impossible under the independent commission structure for it to happen. The NRL commission will be no different.

How could the NRL commission ever become club controlled? I'm not trying to be a smart arse but can you give an example of how it could feasibly happen?

Maybe my term "club controlled" is maybe a little heavy handed and i should have perhaps used "heavily club influenced".

Example A

Potential Commissioner 1 - expansion to non traditional areas to "grow the pie" in order to put more money back into game development

Potential Commissioner 2 - no expansion, current clubs need all money directed to them and we can't afford to waste any on risky expansion

Potential commissioner 3 - expansion into no traditional areas however the expansion clubs will have to pay all travel cost for current clubs (ala Reds) and all top players are protected from poaching.

PC1 - likely to get voted down by the clubs

PC2 - likely to get coted down by the State bodies who want extra money for development

PC3 - likely to win. Many may see this as the best outcome, some may not. The issue is you will always get a compromised position rather than a clear cut one.

Example B

PC1 - all the increase in TV rights go to clubs as they are struggling

PC2 - money split evenly between NRL clubs, grassroots development and expansion. If this means some clubs fall over then so be it.

PC3 - 80% to clubs, other 20% split

PC3 will propably win, States happy to get something, but maybe PC2 is the better option.

My post wasn't meant as a negative to an IC, just to point out that the I in IC maybe is a little misleading.

Local example would be the demise in SOO in the AFL. The clubs were losing more money having a week off (or missing their best players whilst playing that week) than SOO was generating (and also getting players injured). This wasn't in the overall interest of the clubs and therefore it was killed.

Currently RL SOO gnerates big money and the clubs are probably happy to lose a bit on the gate. However, as crowds grow, the impact of SOO on the clubs gate takings will also grow. If the day comes where the clubs are losing more than SOO generates, there is no doubt that any pro SOO commisioner up for election will get voted down.

 

[Paul J]

It's simple. It does't matter which commissioners are elected, the clubs are the ones who hold virtually all the power when it comes to their re-election. No commissioner or potential commissioner stands a hope in hell unless they have the support of the vast majority of the clubs.

Can you explain how this is possible?

Let's say you're the CEO of West tigers. How exactly are you going to get the commissioners to do what you want?

 

[Paul J]

Maybe my term "club controlled" is maybe a little heavy handed and i should have perhaps used "heavily club influenced".

Example A

Potential Commissioner 1 - expansion to non traditional areas to "grow the pie" in order to put more money back into game development

Potential Commissioner 2 - no expansion, current clubs need all money directed to them and we can't afford to waste any on risky expansion

Potential commissioner 3 - expansion into no traditional areas however the expansion clubs will have to pay all travel cost for current clubs (ala Reds) and all top players are protected from poaching.

PC1 - likely to get voted down by the clubs

PC2 - likely to get coted down by the State bodies who want extra money for development

PC3 - likely to win. Many may see this as the best outcome, some may not. The issue is you will always get a compromised position rather than a clear cut one.

Example B

PC1 - all the increase in TV rights go to clubs as they are struggling

PC2 - money split evenly between NRL clubs, grassroots development and expansion. If this means some clubs fall over then so be it.

PC3 - 80% to clubs, other 20% split

PC3 will propably win, States happy to get something, but maybe PC2 is the better option.

My post wasn't meant as a negative to an IC, just to point out that the I in IC maybe is a little misleading.

Local example would be the demise in SOO in the AFL. The clubs were losing more money having a week off (or missing their best players whilst playing that week) than SOO was generating (and also getting players injured). This wasn't in the overall interest of the clubs and therefore it was killed.

Currently RL SOO gnerates big money and the clubs are probably happy to lose a bit on the gate. However, as crowds grow, the impact of SOO on the clubs gate takings will also grow. If the day comes where the clubs are losing more than SOO generates, there is no doubt that any pro SOO commisioner up for election will get voted down.

The commission as a whole makes the decisions, not an individual within the commission.

If someone is nominated to be a new commissioner that person does not run a political style run for government, i.e. elect me as I’ll stop the boat people and lower taxes.

If the nominee gets 75% of the 26 votes they then join the other 7 commissioners, the chairman & the CEO in making the decisions.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If I'm the CEO of Wests Tigers I'm probably going to ring the commissioners, or at least one or some of them, and tell them I reckon they're fcked and they won't get my club's vote next time. And I'll probablu ring the CEOs of other clubs that I know and talk to them about it as well. And if I want to go further I'll ring the Daily Tele and give them a story about why the commission has fcked up and that they need to change their mind. And it can snowball from there. Simple as that. If you think this sort of thing doesn't/won't happen you're kidding yourself. Just look at this whole process already. Searle decides he's going to try and influence the way the commission is set up so he gets together with his mates and a few blokes from News Ltd and they write it up the way they want. And then they tell the ARL to support it or else. Then someone like Richardson goes to the press and tells the QRL to support it or else. This is the way things work. The idea that the commission will be this untouchable force living in some ivory tower somewhere that is free to make decisions over the game without any interference, pressure or input from the people who put them there in the first place and who have the power to boot them out is a romantic dream and nothing more. The clubs and News know this which is why they have written a proposal that gives them the vast majority of the votes, in fact their original plan was to have 100% of the votes.

 

[Digga Hole]

The commission as a whole makes the decisions, not an individual within the commission.

If someone is nominated to be a new commissioner that person does not run a political style run for government, i.e. elect me as I’ll stop the boat people and lower taxes.

If the nominee gets 75% of the 26 votes they then join the other 7 commissioners, the chairman & the CEO in making the decisions.

Anyone who needs votes has to make thier views known. Elected officials are representative, therefore those voting have to know how they are to be represented.

You are correct that they don't make decisions on their own, and one commissioner with certain views cannot control anything, however over time the make uo of the IC will reflect the views of those who elect them.

And you are also right that this is not like a political campaign. People with views held by only part of the country can be elected (lower house) or people with views shared by a minority of the country (upper house) can be elected to parliament (and even have balance of power).

With the IC all commisioners have to be agreed upon by 75% of all voters, therefore it is even more unlikely that the IC will include people who have a view contrary to the majority of voters.

 

[bluey]

Fuggg the QRL

 

[m0nty]

If I'm the CEO of Wests Tigers I'm probably going to ring the commissioners, or at least one or some of them, and tell them I reckon they're fcked and they won't get my club's vote next time. And I'll probablu ring the CEOs of other clubs that I know and talk to them about it as well. And if I want to go further I'll ring the Daily Tele and give them a story about why the commission has fcked up and that they need to change their mind. And it can snowball from there. Simple as that. If you think this sort of thing doesn't/won't happen you're kidding yourself. Just look at this whole process already. Searle decides he's going to try and influence the way the commission is set up so he gets together with his mates and a few blokes from News Ltd and they write it up the way they want. And then they tell the ARL to support it or else. Then someone like Richardson goes to the press and tells the QRL to support it or else. This is the way things work. The idea that the commission will be this untouchable force living in some ivory tower somewhere that is free to make decisions over the game without any interference, pressure or input from the people who put them there in the first place and who have the power to boot them out is a romantic dream and nothing more. The clubs and News know this which is why they have written a proposal that gives them the vast majority of the votes, in fact their original plan was to have 100% of the votes.

What a sad indictment on Sydney culture. I say Sydney, because it worked in Melbourne, so why can't it work in Sydney? Having lived there myself and see how it works, I understand such cynicism.

If you're right, ECT, then no structure is going to work in rugby league, including having the ARL run things or the ARL power sharing with the clubs, because corruption is so ingrained in Sydney that there is no system whereby the protagonists can resist the temptation of descending into evil factionalism.

Perhaps the only way an IC can work is if one faction succeeds and can rule unopposed, even if they don't change their merkin ways. But that eventually leads to complacency, splintering and corruption itself, as with the NSW Labor Party. Though I can't help but think that part of ECT's hopelessness comes from living under such a terrible government for so long.

Geez, I'm glad I got out of Sydney. :crazy:

 

[Parra]

Does anyone still think News Ltd should have a say in appointing "independent" commissioners to run the game?

They could not run a club without having the wool pulled over their eyes.

And we got to see their definition of "independent" today.

 

[Perth Red]

Steve Mortimer on Fox Sportsline let slip that its a done deal and will def take over the running of the NRL in November!

 

[Old Darlin]

sooner the better

 

[adamkungl]

believe it when i see it

 

[Eels Dude]

I wouldn't take his word for it. David Gallop said today they're hoping that all will be sorted by November 1st and that's their aim, but it really depends.

 

[Serc]

Interesting stuff...great to hear if so

 

[_Johnsy]

I take it the QRL decided to put the game first instead of continuing a self serving mantra like they have done since the IC was floated.

 

[Loudstrat]

Anyone looking after bush rl?

 

[_Johnsy]

You mate, it is all falling on your shouders.

Surely the new IC cannot ignore bush footy more than the NRL has ?

 

[Raider_69]

i get the feeling fasteddie isn't a fan of Gallop. Don't know why, just a vibe i get