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

[Quidgybo]

The question of how a club appointed Commission would treat grassroots development and how it would treat state and international representative competition are two completely different arguments and should not be lumped together.

I think a valid argument can be made that if Origin and/or Test football fail to continue returning a significant profit then a club appointed commission may see it as undesirable to maintain those parts of the game. Rep football is only really valuable to the clubs if it makes enough money to fund things like grassroots development that the clubs would otherwise have to fund out of their own pocket.

But the AFL, which as you point out does not have international competition, none the less provides a compelling example of a club appointed commission that not only does not ignore grassroots but is pouring tens of millions into it. If you're going to mount an argument against a club appointed commission I think you're on a lot safer ground arguing the negative effects on the higher levels of the game above club football than the lower levels of the game that the clubs need for their own long term survival.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The question of how a club appointed Commission would treat grassroots development and how it would treat state and international representative competition are two completely different arguments and should not be lumped together.

I think a valid argument can be made that if Origin and Test football fails to continue returning a significant profit then a club appointed commission may see it as undesirable to maintain those parts of the game. Rep football is only really valuable to the clubs if it makes enough money to fund things like grassroots development that the clubs would otherwise have to fund out of their own pocket.

But the AFL, which as you point out does not have international competition, none the less provides a compelling example of a club appointed commission that not only does not ignore grassroots but is pouring tens of millions into it. If you're going to mount an argument against a club appointed commission I think you're on a lot safer ground arguing the negative effects on the higher levels of the game above club football than the lower levels of the game that the clubs need for their own long term survival.

Leigh.

The clubs already rely on grassroots football for their survival but don't do much for it. You can try and use the AFL as an example as much as you like but the real proof of the NRL clubs' lack on interest in the grassroots already exists in their present attitude and effort. The AFL's activities are of no significance by comparison.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Why should the clubs be overly invested in grassroots football at the moment when there are 3 entities already set-up to look after the grassroots?

 

[Quidgybo]

The clubs already rely on grassroots football for their survival but don't do much for it. You can try and use the AFL as an example as much as you like but the real proof of the NRL clubs' lack on interest in the grassroots already exists in their present attitude and effort. The AFL's activities are of no significance by comparison.

As you've just pointed out, the clubs ultimately need the grassroots to survive - eg. to provide their next generation of star players. The logic of the situation is pretty straightforward. Because the clubs need the grassroots for their own survival, letting the grassroots die is not option for the clubs, therefore it will be funded. If it is already funded by other parts of the game, such as representative football, then the clubs won't dip into their own pockets. This is the present attitude and effort we see today as you cite.

But if no other area of the game is funding it then the clubs will have to fund it out of their own pocket because again letting the grassroots die is not an option. The clubs need the grassroots and ideally they need some other part of the game to be profitable so they don't have to fund the grassroots out of their own pocket. That's where the club's interest in maintaining a profitable representative scene comes into the picture. If Origin and International football are profitable enough to fund the grassroots then that's one major expense the clubs won't have to fund out of their own pocket.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Why will they be overly invested when the CRL, NSWRL and QRL remain after the commission is set up? Grassroots football is just as important to the NRL now as it will be in the future and at present they don't treat it as such.

 

[Quidgybo]

Why should the clubs be overly invested in grassroots football at the moment when there are 3 entities already set-up to look after the grassroots?

Exactly. Necessity will drive grassroots funding. While someone else is doing it the clubs don't have to. But if no one else does then they *will* have to because they need the grassroots for their own future. The fact that other parts of the game such as rep football could fund the grassroots without the clubs dipping into their own pockets is the most likely reason the clubs will continue to support those other parts of the game.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

As has already been pointed out the clubs ultimately need the grassroots to provide their next generation of star players. The logic of the situation is pretty straightforward. Because the clubs need the grassroots, letting the grassroots die is not option for the clubs, therefore it will be funded. If it is already funded by other parts of the game, such as representative football, then the clubs won't dip into their own pockets. This is the present attitude and effort we see today as you cite.

But if no other area of the game is funding it then the clubs will have to fund it out of their own pocket because again letting the grassroots die is not an option. The clubs need the grassroots and ideally they need some other part of the game to be profitable so they don't have to fund the grassroots out of their own pocket. That's where the club's interest in maintaining a profitable representative scene comes into the picture. If Origin and International football are profitable enough to fund the grassroots then that's one major expense the clubs won't have to fund out of their own pocket.

Leigh.

Grassroots football needs the NRL NOW and they don't seem too bothered about acting. The grassroots game has been crying out for more help from NRL clubs for years and they have been lacking. So to suggest that clubs do bugger all now because there is no need for them to do anything because "it's covered" is plain wrong. To also suggest that funding is the only issue is also thouroughly ignorant of what grassroots football requires.

 

[TheRam]

On the question of who heads the IC, I posted this in another thread just a few minutes ago.

What I consider frightening is John Ribot's push to have his useless mate Don Argus lead the IC, if it should ever happen.

Now that should really worry people. Anything that scheming shifty arsehole puts forward as an option, well people should take a closer look at, me thinks.

The phrase "Beware of Greeks baring gifts" comes to mind.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/07/...no-mates-club/

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/30/don-argus-afr-dreamteam-chairman/

 

[The Observer]

The AFL has NO international scene. Their commission has no say on international matters because there are none. We have an international structure based on national governing bodies or the RLIF (made up of national bodies) organising World Cups, tours, Four Nations and other events. No other country has a club-based organisation representing them at international level. There is a reason for this. If we want to give clubs power over international football then expect more World Sevens situations. Clubs don't want the comp to happen because they don't want their players playing an hour of (practically touch) football, so it dies. If we want to be like the AFL then this proposal will do that - ie: we'll have no international football either.

Then we can expect an exodus of elite RL players to Rugby Union in Australia and overseas. Last year, the Wallabies played international test matches to sold out crowds in 8 nations (Australia, NZ, South Africa, Japan, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

The Wallabies will have the chance to play in a number of other countries of the next 4 years, such as France, Italy and Argentina. The ARU have sent the Wallabies, Australia A team or state teams to play Canada, Spain, Romania, Fiji, Samoa, the Czech Republic, Namibia, Paraguay and Russia. In the World Sevens circuit, Australian Sevens players could also play in Dubai, the USA and Hong Kong (in the past, it has also been staged in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and Georgia).

So the point is that the IRB makes an effort to see that its players could have the opportunity to play in an international game, and the ARU sees that international Aussie players play in at least 12 nations around the world ove the course of their careers.

OTOH people supporting the club directed RL commission have not said how they believe it could give RL players an expanded international scene, nor whether they actually want to. There has been a lot of explanation about how the commission will benefit the clubs and players. Little about how it will affect the international game.

Consider the following National Sports Organisations -
1) Australian Rugby Union
2) Football Federation Australia
3) Cricket Australia

All 3 sports are structured in a top down way, with an elected national board controlling all aspects of the game, including the national team an the domestic competitions. All three sports identify the national team as the pinnacle, the flagship of the sport, and the domestic franchises in all those sports do as well. There is an ARL style structure in those sports. I'm not suggesting that would be appropriate for a RL independent commission, but its important to note that none of the sports have ever seen a push for a club directed governing body.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Q One of the concerns raised has been that if the privately-owned clubs suddenly struggle for cash, they could change the constitution and make a grab for money.

''We showed today that there's two things that should give great comfort to all the stakeholders. We've got the highest majority required in world sport, outside the NFL, which is 100 per cent. We're at 87 per cent, which is 14 out of 16, to change the constitution. Secondly, the definition of the word 'game', how is it defined, is something that's critical to the security we're providing grassroots development and also the support that we're going to provide international rugby league and representative football. The commissioner has an obligation, a fiduciary duty by corporations law, to act in the best interests of the game.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...he-game-back-to-the-people-20100118-mgqk.html

 

[East Coast Tiger]

"the best interests of the game" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Two completely contradictory outcomes could be considered best for the game by some people. The best way to ensure security for grassroots football and international football is to keep absolute power away from the clubs. Their definition of best for the game will only ever be best for them. If it's not best for them they won't want it. The fact is this constitution, of which we have been given no detail, has been written by the clubs and will be administered by people elected by the clubs.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Then we can expect an exodus of elite RL players to Rugby Union in Australia and overseas. Last year, the Wallabies played international test matches to sold out crowds in 8 nations (Australia, NZ, South Africa, Japan, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

Yes they have a bigger international game but the players are only leaving because of the dollars on offer. Gasnier, Gower have gone to a french comp and never been seriously considered for the Wallibies and all but one of the other defectors have come back.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

"the best interests of the game" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Two completely contradictory outcomes could be considered best for the game by some people. The best way to ensure security for grassroots football and international football is to keep absolute power away from the clubs. Their definition of best for the game will only ever be best for them. If it's not best for them they won't want it. The fact is this constitution, of which we have been given no detail, has been written by the clubs and will be administered by people elected by the clubs.

__________________


Best interests of the game, well leaving in the hands of the ARL,QRL,NSWRL and CRL has done wonders for the game. Seems like there idea of the best interest of the game is a free lunch. Did we hear a peep out of any of these so-called entities when the tv rights were repeatedly undersold or about the radio rights or the Internet rights, at least the clubs have more than a free lunch on there mind.
Maybe just maybe if one of these boards kicked up a stink aout the previous tv rights the one we sold for 10m a year to mr packer, we would have got some money for the grassroots this time around but they did nothing but sit on their hands. If they needed more money they could have suggested to split the NRL, SOS and international rights.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The international rights will be split in the future thanks to the ARL. But that will be in doubt again if the clubs take control. And why would these RLs comment on TV rights deals between the NRL and News Ltd or Nine? We know why the TV rights have been undersold and it's not because of the ARL, NSWRL, QRL and CRL. It's because of Gallop and his News Ltd mates. That's why we need a commission to run the NRL. What we don't need is this club-based commission running non-NRL football.

 

[Quidgybo]

The international rights will be split in the future thanks to the ARL. But that will be in doubt again if the clubs take control. And why would these RLs comment on TV rights deals between the NRL and News Ltd or Nine? We know why the TV rights have been undersold and it's not because of the ARL, NSWRL, QRL and CRL. It's because of Gallop and his News Ltd mates. That's why we need a commission to run the NRL. What we don't need is this club-based commission running non-NRL football.

Ummm, the ARL has three votes on the NRL Partnership Executive Committee the same as News Ltd has three votes. Gallop has no vote. A unanimous vote of the NRL Partnership Executive Committee is required for "the entry into, amendment or termination of any contracts in relation to Key Revenue Rights’ (cl 5.8(d))." This covers TV rights. If the TV deal was not the best deal the game could get then the ARL should've blocked it by not supporting it in the NRL Partnership Executive Committee. We can't expect News Ltd to look after the game's interests. News Ltd can be reliably trusted to do one just thing - look after the interests of News Ltd. But the ARL supposedly exists for no other purpose than to look out for the interests of the game. Yet they've failed the fans, the grassroots, the juniors and every other part of the game on the biggest decision of the last five years by not using the power they have to ensure the game didn't settle for less money than it was worth. It's time for the ARL to step aside in favour of a body that won't settle for less.

Leigh.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Isnt that where they get alot of their funding from, the ARL. Undersold rights mean less money for the grassroots. The ARL have had 3 seats on the board since the nrl started.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

Ummm, the ARL has three votes on the NRL Partnership Executive Committee the same as News Ltd has three votes. Gallop has no vote. A unanimous vote of the NRL Partnership Executive Committee is required for "the entry into, amendment or termination of any contracts in relation to Key Revenue Rights’ (cl 5.8(d))." This covers TV rights. If the TV deal was not the best deal the game could get then the ARL should've blocked it by not supporting it in the NRL Partnership Executive Committee. We can't expect News Ltd to look after the game's interests. News Ltd can be reliably trusted to do one just thing - look after the interests of News Ltd. But the ARL supposedly exists for no other purpose than to look out for the interests of the game. Yet they've failed the fans, the grassroots, the juniors and every other part of the game on the biggest decision of the last five years by not using the power they have to ensure the game didn't settle for less money than it was worth. It's time for the ARL to step aside in favour of a body that won't settle for less.

Leigh.

well said

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

You cant blame News Ltd for trying to rip us off (get best value for their money) the blame lies with the arl

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Stick up for News Ltd as much as you like but we all know that the game in undersold because of News Ltd's influence on the NRL, most notably the CEO, whose job it is to negotiate these deals.

Once again I'll point out where the division in this argument lies. Those who know nothing about and don't care about the grassroots and international game swallow this commission line without question. Those who do know and care about the grassroots and international football have plenty of very real concerns about this plan. The credentials of the people on here who are questioning it proves to me that it is wrong. Only club-centric fans fail to recognise the serious issues this club-centric proposal raises.

I still have not seen a single response to the question: how the hell can the New Zealand Warriors part-own and control Australian rugby league? If there is no answer to this question the commission is flawed from the start.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

most notably the CEO

He is a figure head, he does not have a vote on anything. News have 3 votes, The Arl have 3 votes

A unanimous vote of the NRL Partnership Executive Committee is required for "the entry into, amendment or termination of any contracts in relation to Key Revenue Rights’ (cl 5.8(d))." This covers TV rights. If the TV deal was not the best deal the game could get then the ARL should've blocked it by not supporting it in the NRL

So all 6 board members need to agree on the deal before them, so if one NRL board member didnt agree it doesnt go through