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

[The Tank]

God damn it. I didn't mind arguing with ECT and Bartman about this over the last few months, discussing it from all angles was good for getting different opinions and ideas out there.

It is just sad that the dead wood of the forum has crawled back now the season aproaches.

Exactly, it's f**king annoying.

 

[Bluebags1908]

I think this is a good result. I would have liked the NSWRL and QRL to have more voting power to protect junior development vs private NRL club owners, but the fact that the NSWRL and QRL have veto over any constitutional changes is a reasonable compromise.

Which takes us to the wording of the constitution - because of the voting structure is to be heavily dominated by clubs, the wording of the constitution is going to be absolutely crucial to protect junior development and representative football vs club interests. What the clubs want is obviously important, but we need a happy balance between what the clubs want and junior development and representative football. Hopefully the constitution will provide that to make all parties happy.

I feel the hardest part is still to come - and that's all the legal stuff and the wording of the constitution. But this is a great step forward.

 

[Perth Red]

Not sure how I feel about it as a fan in a far flung place in need of development and dreaming of expansion. I'm concerned the clubs will veto expansion in order to increase their own grants but hope that an IC will do what is best for the long term future of the game, which has to mean expansion.

Will be interesting over the next couple of years to see how it goes. One things for sure it can't get much worse for us expansionists than its been under Gallop for the last 5 years.

 

[Goddo]

I think its time we start speculating on the board structure and roles of the 8 commissioners that the lawyers are likely to come up with. I would like to see people elected case by case for specific roles something like:

1. Australian Rugby League Commission CEO - Responsible for running the Commission, media relations et cetera. The public face of the game.

2. Treasurer - Responsible to the commission for all Media Rights, Sponsorships, club and State body fund alocations, funds for advertising, et cetera.

3. Deputy Treasurer - Big portfolio, good to have an offsider for this one.

4. State and Junior Development Representative - Responsible to the board for working with the Clubs, State RLs and Junior bodies for development of the game. Assumes responsibility for the current ARL Development body and an "Auskick" style junior program.

5. NRL and Club Representative - Responsible for liasing between the board and the clubs and NRL CEO (Gallop) regarding all things pertinent to the clubs and NRL.

6. Government and Marketing Representative - Responsible for liasing with the Federal and State Governments in all matters regarding Rugby League. Very important schmoozing role. Responsible for developing advertising campaigns and promoting RL events like Grand Finals, et cetera.

7. Representative Football Coordinator - responsible for working with NSWRL and QRL for State of Origin issues, Chairman of a selection pannel (including NSW, QLD and NRL reps) for coaching apointments and selection for the Australian side, All Stars matches, Four Nations and World Cup tournaments, acting as Australia's representative of the IRLF, et cetera.

8. Strategic Planning Representative - Responsible for developing future stratergies and a long term plan for the game, regarding expansion, growth, et cetera. Also responsible for the referees association, dealing with the players association, and rule changes.

This way we have clearly defined roles and responsibilities for which individuals are acountable for, but all decisions go back to the board for a vote. Each year say 2-3 Reps are up for re-election at an anual meeting with the clubs and state RL's.

I personally wouldn't mind if some people currently in similar roles are put forward for specific positions. For example, Colin Love would be good for no. 7, so long as he doesn't have many perks. If they fail to perform, they will get booted within 3 years, so its not such a big deal for me. Saying noone currently involved should be on the board shows the lack of trust between the ARL and News.

Any thoughts?

 

[Quidgybo]

Not sure how I feel about it as a fan in a far flung place in need of development and dreaming of expansion. I'm concerned the clubs will veto expansion in order to increase their own grants but hope that an IC will do what is best for the long term future of the game, which has to mean expansion.

Which brings us back to the AFL commission on which this proposal is modelled. Since it gained full autonomy in 1993, the AFL commission has introduced Fremantle, Port Adelaide and now Gold Coast and West Sydney. It has negotiated the effective elimination of one Melbourne club by merger/relocation to Brisbane and has invested tens of millions of dollars in grassroots development in NSW and Qld. Perhaps these decisions have all been driven by the motive of improving the lot of the elite clubs that appoint the commission. But if so, that hasn't prevented expansion and grassroots investment happening anyway as a by product of that motive.

I maintain that if there is any part of the game that a Commission built on this model could affect then it is not expansion of the elite club game or the grassroots levels below it but the levels above - Origin and International representative football. All available evidence for this model from other sports suggests expansion of the club competition is probable and the grassroots will be well nurtured. But representative competition that relies on highly paid elite athletes risking injury playing for a team other than their employer could be a potential target - eg AFL Origin, lack of serious rep football in American sports etc.

End Story - if Origin and Test football don't more than pay their way in terms of generating revenue and exposure for the game then a Commission will question the value of persisting. A Commission built on this model will not run rep football for the sake of running it. If the general public stop supporting it and rep football starts actually losing money, it's dead. But keep in mind, that might be true under any model. We just don't know because, since the game turned full time professional, Origin has remained one of our blockbuster events and Test football has, with one notable exception, generated respectable profits.

Leigh.

 

[Goddo]

^

I think the lack of competition is the main obsticle for the AFL and American sports in developing their international game. The AFL SoO also has trouble with one state being much better (Vic), and not having a viable format for competition (too many states).
Thats why our SoO works: we have two powerful fairly balanced states with a three game format that works extremely well.

Also, the Americans don't seem to want international competition. They like having a world series with themselves.

But the way AFL is desperately trying to develop international competition shows that it is not all doom and gloom with a commission.

 

[m0nty]

Goddo, I appreciate the thought that went into assigning all those roles to the board members, but I don't think the model will work that way. Development, marketing, liaison, financials... these are all roles for employees, not board members. Think about a corporate board, you don't see board members of BHP Billiton or Woolworths given duties managing departments. That's what middle managers are for. Board members are tasked solely with thinking about the overall direction of the game.

The independent commission is a model that removes a lot of the representative nature of old-style sports governing bodies and, for better or worse, introduces corporate structures, where decisions are made at the top level and the rest of the organisation is responsive to the board's directives. All this talk of board members representing this or that faction or stakeholder misses the point of the IC in the first place.

 

[Quidgybo]

I think the lack of competition is the main obsticle for the AFL and American sports in developing their international game. The AFL SoO also has trouble with one state being much better (Vic), and not having a viable format for competition (too many states).
Thats why our SoO works: we have two powerful fairly balanced states with a three game format that works extremely well.

I agree that's what makes Origin so valuable to the game - even a game run by a club appointed Commission. And as long as it remains valuable I don't think it has anything to fear from a Commission. A Commission will vigorously work to keep rep football valuable and grow its value, even if the motive for that is only the benefit the member clubs gain through increased exposure and additional revenue that can fund other parts of the game so the clubs don't have to themselves. But if despite all the best efforts possible, the rep game declines so much that it starts costing the clubs money and it appears there is no prospect of reversing that then I'm sure its continuance will be scrutinised. I seriously doubt it'll ever get to that point but if it did I'd suggest it would be because we, the fans, have largely stopped caring about its continuance anyway.

Leigh.

 

[Perth Red]

I don't see why it would decline though. Hopefully if ESL keeps developing we will see more competitive nations from Europe and with all the NZ eligible players in the NRL now and into the future they are always going to be competitive. The only thing that would kill Int RL is no competition or if the governing bodies in each country fail to develop and promote it.

Players love Int RL. 99% of them state pulling on a Kangaroo jersey, going on roo tours, WC wins etc as their most treasured moment in the game.

I don't see that Int RL has anything to fear from an IC.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Rep football has nothing ever to fear from an IC, and the reason can be explained in one word

Ratings

Origin rates like 3 grand finals.

 

[Quidgybo]

Rep football has nothing ever to fear from an IC, and the reason can be explained in one word

Ratings

Origin rates like 3 grand finals.

It has nothing to fear as long as it continues to more than pay its way and continues to add value to the game (in terms of exposure and revenue). Origin is the best example of rep football doing just that. And it seems unlikely that will change any time in the foreseeable future. But what about a less clear example - international football? Right now it is the healthiest it's been in many years with a strong Kiwi side, but even then there is still one team that has been the dominant force for nearly 40 years and the third of the big three has been off the pace for more than a decade.

You don't have to look back too many years to find a World Cup that lost money and problems getting Australian television to show Tests live. I know there are valid reasons for both those situations but it demonstrates that international football is a lot closer to the line than Origin. If England and NZ simultaneously go into an extended stretch where they struggle to compete (say a decade or more), and as a result crowds and ratings drop leading to more than a couple matches or tournaments losing money, then we might start to see a few tough questions from the club ranks.

I personally doubt it will ever come to the point where international football is under any significant threat from a club appointed Commission. But I see the theoretical threat to it as the most likely of the doomsday scenarios to become reality if any of them do.

Leigh

 

[Lockyer4President!]

will they keep that name though?

I like RLA, Rugby League Australia

Not talking about "NRL" that is the competition name. I think Rugby league Australia (RLA) is a good name for the commission instead of ARLC. The governing body of Rugby league Im talking about Red.

Cheers

Rugby League Australasia - just to keep our Kiwi and Kumul buddies happy :thumn

The point still stands as the commission will have a New Zealand vote on it.

Why does it need a reference to a place in the name? The Rugby Football League dont have one clearly. Just have it called the Rugby League Commission, RLC.

Sorry for the huge multi-quote but in the NRL Restructure document that News Ltd leaked a few months ago it said on point 15 that they should consider changing the NRL's name to ARL and also changing the name of the NRL Premiership to ARL premiership.

 

[ash the bash]

Thanks for clearing that up mate.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nce-to-take-time/story-e6frg7mf-1225840215368

Gallop says benefits of independence to take time

* Dan Koch and Stuart Honeysett
* From: The Australian
* March 13, 2010 12:00AM

THE NRL has warned there will be no immediate windfall from the creation of an independent commission.

However, its clubs and players will reap the rewards in the next television deal, in 2013.

Supporters of the commission were still celebrating yesterday after the ARL Board voted on Thursday to forge on towards independence without the backing of its Queensland directors.

"Everyone from the grassroots to the elite clubs will benefit from the rationalisation of the bodies and the brands in the game," NRL chief executive David Gallop said yesterday.

"It will give greater clarity to the public about rugby league. Wouldn't it be great if every six year old kid wears the same logo as Darren Lockyer when he captains Australia?

"It's a big step forward, but there's a fair amount of work to do in nutting out the details."

While acknowledging the long road ahead and the importance of the decisions still to be made, the brainchild of the entire process, Gold Coast Titans boss Michael Searle, admitted he was excited at seeing what began as an idea on a plane trip to New York so quickly become such a monumental move for rugby league.

"I fly to New York every year and I don't sleep much on planes," Searle said. "I was sitting back thinking about the game and its structure and the need we had to just streamline things, unify our branding -- just become one.

"So I ended up writing a paper, which I presented to the NRL on the potential threat from AFL to our game and the need for us to become more efficient in the way we did things.

"That was how it started. It has been a long road since, but people wanted this to work. There was genuine goodwill from both the ARL and News Limited, whose only concern from the outset was ensuring the structure we had was right to protect the game for the next hundred years.

"To get their support yesterday says to me the model we have got is the right one."

The decision means the NRL's current owners News Limited (publisher of The Australian) and the ARL will wind up their involvement and hand over control of the game to the 16 clubs, the NSWRL and the QRL.

A single governing body will give the game greater brand awareness, and the decision by News Limited to stand aside will end conflict of interest insinuations when Gallop sits down with both free-to-air and commercial television executives to hammer out a new deal when the current one expires.

"Any streamlining of the number of bodies and brands is likely to create greater efficiency and produce better results," Gallop said. "With or without News Limited involved in the ownership structure of rugby league, we are well placed to get a very good result in terms of our broadcasting rights because all the rights are up for grabs at the same time.

"A transparent auction of our rights is what we're aiming for."

There are predictions the next television deal could bring as much as $200m a season into the game, with plans to sell premiership games, Test matches, State of Origin and finals as separate packages to maximise revenue.

That could result in massive windfalls for clubs and players, with both the $3.3m annual grant and $4.2m salary cap poised to rise dramatically.

Closing the gap between the grant and the cap would bring relief to Sydney clubs that have become dependent on licensed clubs to stay afloat.

That would also be welcome relief to the licensed clubs.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/commission-to-deliver-tv-windfall-20100312-q44b.html

Commission to deliver TV windfall
BRAD WALTER
March 13, 2010

IT STARTED as a plan to regain control of the game from News Ltd and that desire led to the ARL effectively voting itself out of existence.

While the ARL will survive in name only, with the new independent body likely to be known as the Australian Rugby League Commission, officials ensured during the past eight weeks of negotiations that the NSWRL and QRL have two votes between them to block any proposed constitutional changes.

More than 15 years after launching a series of raids to lure clubs and players away from the ARL to the rebel Super League competition, News Ltd is set to exit the game at the end of this season.

News Ltd will retain the first and last rights of refusal on the pay-television rights over which the Murdoch empire started the Super League war, and it wants to extend that arrangement from 2022 to 2027.

However, the media company's only direct involvement will be as majority shareholder in Brisbane, as News intends to push ahead with plans to find a buyer for Melbourne.

Guaranteeing the Storm's losses for five years as a condition of the sale is one of the key issues to be resolved, as News Ltd wants $30 million to do so but others believe only about $13 million of funding is required if last year's premiers and grand finalists of the past four years were to operate on a more frugal budget.

Should the Storm be able to do so, a guaranteed $27 million will flow into the game over the next five seasons, as News take $8 million from the NRL each year.

But a far greater financial windfall is expected to come via an improved television deal as the game will be able to conduct a genuine auction for the broadcast rights for the first time in decades.

With the Packer family no longer owning Channel Nine and News Ltd giving up its 50 per cent stake in the NRL, no one is beholden to any of the bidding parties.

The fallout from NRL chief executive David Gallop's comments in the Herald supporting the new rugby league program hosted by Matthew Johns on Channel Seven indicates that Channel Nine bosses know it will game on when the free-to-air rights go on the auction block.

And even if there is no reality to the perception that News Ltd has an advantage in negotiations over the pay-TV rights - it has representatives sitting on both the NRL side of the bargaining table and Fox Sports side - some rival bidders do not believe they have a genuine chance, as evidenced by Kerry Stokes's decision to go to court over the dealings with his failed C7 network.

Angst over the superior television deal the AFL managed to negotiate was one of the key reasons representatives of the NRL clubs, led by Gold Coast Titans chief executive Michael Searle and Sydney Roosters chairman Nick Politis, approached News Ltd 18 months ago to inquire what it would take for the media organisation to hand back control of the game.

Tired of being blamed for all of the game's ills and conflict-of-interest accusations, News Ltd representatives indicated they were willing to exit - but were not prepared to allow the ARL to have charge of the code again.

A deal negotiated between News Ltd chief operating officer Peter Macourt, and Searle and Politis, entitled the 16 clubs to one vote each in electing the eight independent commissioners but gave the ARL no voting rights.

After initially insisting on the same voting rights as the clubs, ARL chairman Colin Love and chief executive Geoff Carr quickly realised that News Ltd would never agree to simply hand its 50 per cent stake to the clubs and allow its Super League war enemy to survive with its existing half share in the NRL.

To bring the issue to a head and guarantee the departure of News Ltd that so many in the game wanted, Love and Carr negotiated a deal that helped safeguard representative football and junior development by giving the two state bodies one vote each - sufficient, they believe, to prevent any clubs from exerting undue influence on a commissioner as 75 per cent - or 14 - of the 18 votes is required to gain election.

In addition, just two votes are required to block any constitutional changes - ensuring the clubs cannot band together to change the not-for-profit independent commission to a limited company and siphon money away from the grassroots.

 

[El Diablo]

Exciting times ahead especially when we get the tv deal the game deserves

 

[m0nty]

That detail about the clubs wanting the Storm to cut its costs is new. At least it's intra-league stuff now and not the old News vs ARL bulltish.

 

[The Tank]

Very exciting

 

[DRAGONZ_RULE]

It's starting to sound better and better ..... the NRL is finally getting its act together!!!!!


:crazy::crazy:

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...-and-power-games/story-e6frfgbo-1225842565708

A plumber, politics and power games

* Special investigation by Phil Rothfield
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* March 19, 2010 12:00AM

HE IS more used to fixing broken pipes and leaking taps, but 64-year-old Balmain plumber John Chalk can now lay claim to the greatest administration shake-up in the history of rugby league.

It was 2.15pm on Thursday last week when directors of the Australian Rugby League were deadlocked in the boardroom of the NSW Leagues Club in a spirited debate about establishing an independent commission.

Chalk, a plumber by trade, has had enough. He puts forward probably the most historic motion in the game's history, for an in-principal agreement to hand the game over to a commission to run rugby league in this country.

It's seconded by former dual international Mike Cleary and is carried six votes to five on the back of chairman Colin Love's casting vote.

Welcome to the most dramatic management overhaul in 102 years of rugby league.

Veteran official Chalk says he is happy to hand the administration over to the "big end of town". He has been involved in football since managing Balmain's Jersey Flegg teams in the 1970s, before becoming chairman of the Tigers in the '90s.

"I don't have a problem moving on," Chalk said.

"Old people have memories, young people have dreams.

"Our game is in great shape but we're in a very hostile market. The AFL is serious about western Sydney. Look at soccer and their World Cup bid. They've got corporate people like Frank Lowy behind them.

"We've got to park all our egos and get the big end of town involved in the administration of the game."

The ARL had been stalling for months before Chalk, who had been revved up by Roosters boss Nick Politis before the meeting, paved the way for the long-awaited decision to hand over control.

No less than 32 positions on four different boards will be declared redundant by the end of the season as the search begins to find eight business types with no connection to the 16 clubs.

Like Chalk, a number of officials are happy to get out but others will be dragged kicking and screaming, most notably from Queensland.

Some will be handing in their blazers after more than 50 years in various positions in the game - saving rugby league an estimated $1.5 million in board fees, travel and accommodation.

Fees for directors differ on each board, depending on whether they are representing News Limited or the Australian Rugby league.

News Limited pays between $35,000 and $50,000 a year to its directors. Harvey Norman boss Katie Page gets $35,000 but donates it to charity. Stephen Loosley is rumoured to get $50,000.

On the ARL board, Love gets a minimum of $50,000 and the other directors receive $10,000 each.

Politis is paid to be on the NRL partnership board but has his $20,000 cheque sent to the Roosters.

Of the 31 photos on this page, only three will survive - Page, who is considered a certainty for the commission, Love, who has been offered the chair, and David Gallop, who will be offered four years as the CEO.

Roosters boss Politis has been one of the most powerful and influential officials in the game for more than three decades but says he is looking forward to moving on.

"I was hoping the partnership meeting we had last week was going to be my last," he said.

"We've got the NRL structure in place, we've got an in-principal agreement from News and the ARL, so there should be no reason for this to drag on for months.

"I'm looking forward to having a backseat role and just supporting the Roosters from here on."

Try telling that to the Queensland directors, who voted against the commission at an ARL board meeting last week.

"They're struggling to accept reality," one source told The Daily Telegraph.

"Which isn't surprising considering they were originally against the Broncos entering the Sydney com- petition and then the Titans coming into the NRL. They didn't even turn up for the All Stars game on the Gold Coast.

"They'll have to come around eventually because it's going to happen whether they like it or not."