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

[m0nty]

Genuine question - see my reply above.


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

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

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

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

Independence does not mean no RL background. ICs in other sports are built largely on commissioners with backgrounds in the sport, usually as ex-players. It does mean no affiliation with current clubs, yes.

The model is very much based on corporate boards, as opposed to a democratic process. You may say democracy is more representative, but in practice, especially in RL, it has only led to cronyism and the blazer brigade running the show like it's their own personal fiefdom. The IC structure brings professionalism and accountability, not through elections which at that level are usually nobbled before they begin, but by adherence to established corporate governance standards.

I agree that "beancounters and lawyers" are not suitable for populating a commission. Those sort of functionaries should be employees, not decision makers. Ideally, commissioners would be entrepreneurial types, the sort who have already proven successful in business and can apply an energetic, aggressive attitude towards growing the game as a whole.

Of course, finding ex-players who have gone on to solid careers in the business world is fairly difficult.

 

[Parra]

Where does the accountability come from? Established corporate governance standards? The only time you need these is to wave in court.

There needs to be more accountability than this.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Where does the accountability come from? Established corporate governance standards? The only time you need these is to wave in court.

There needs to be more accountability than this.

I was taking the piss earlier. I hope this is informative for you and everyone. The quotes contain extracted and relevant info, so be sure to read them, and if you please the web pages I listed.

The accountability comes from the roles the commissioners are allowed to play.

Take the European Commission http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/comm/index_en.htm

The European Commission

The Commission is independent of national governments. Its job is to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole. It drafts proposals for new European laws, which it presents to the European Parliament and the Council.

It is also the EU’s executive arm – in other words, it is responsible for implementing the decisions of Parliament and the Council. That means managing the day-to-day business of the European Union: implementing its policies, running its programmes and spending its funds.

Like the Parliament and Council, the European Commission was set up in the 1950s under the EU’s founding treaties.

What is the Commission?


The Commission consists of 27 women and men — one from each EU country.
The term ‘Commission’ is used in two senses. First, it refers to the team of men and women – one from each EU country – appointed to run the institution and take its decisions. Secondly, the term ‘Commission’ refers to the institution itself and to its staff.

Informally, the appointed Members of the Commission are known as ‘commissioners’. They have all held political positions in their countries of origin and many have been government ministers, but as Members of the Commission they are committed to acting in the interests of the Union as a whole and not taking instructions from national governments.

A new Commission is appointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. The procedure is as follows:


José Manuel Barroso heads the EU executive as President of the European Commission
The Member State governments agree together on who to designate as the new Commission President.

The Commission President-designate is then approved by Parliament.

The Commission President-designate, in discussion with the Member State governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission.

The Council adopts the list of nominees by qualified majority and communicates it to the European Parliament for approval.

Parliament then interviews each nominee and votes its opinion on the whole team.

Following Parliaments vote of approval, the new Commission is formally appointed by the Council, acting by qualified majority.
The present Commission’s term of office runs until 31 October 2009. Its President is José Manuel Barroso, from Portugal.

The Commission remains politically accountable to Parliament, which has the power to dismiss the whole Commission by adopting a motion of censure. Individual members of the Commission must resign if asked to do so by the President, provided the other commissioners approve.

The Commission attends all the sessions of Parliament, where it must clarify and justify its policies. It also replies regularly to written and oral questions posed by MEPs.

The day-to-day running of the Commission is done by its administrative officials, experts, translators, interpreters and secretarial staff. There are approximately 23 000 of these European civil servants. That may sound a lot, but in fact it is fewer than the number of staff employed by a typical medium-sized city council in Europe. The ‘seat’ of the Commission is in Brussels (Belgium), but it also has offices in Luxembourg, representations in all EU countries and delegations in many capital cities around the world.

Where is the Commission based?

The ‘seat’ of the Commission is in Brussels (Belgium), but it also has offices in Luxembourg, representations in all EU countries and delegations in many capital cities around the world.



What does the Commission do?

The European Commission has four main roles:

to propose legislation to Parliament and the Council;

to manage and implement EU policies and the budget;

to enforce European law (jointly with the Court of Justice);

to represent the European Union on the international stage, for example by negotiating agreements between the EU and other countries.

And the web page goes into more detail. Very informative.

As you can see the commission has set roles. It does not have free reign to be a power unto itself. Nor does its members.


Commissions are enpowered, they are not the source of the power. They have clearly defined objectives. The people on them are to uphold those objectives. And that goes for the people elected. BUT its not a perfect world, and things can get awry, but that does not mean a commission or its members will be corrupt.

From webpage:

The Commission remains politically accountable to Parliament, which has the power to dismiss the whole Commission by adopting a motion of censure. Individual members of the Commission must resign if asked to do so by the President, provided the other commissioners approve.

The Commission attends all the sessions of Parliament, where it must clarify and justify its policies. It also replies regularly to written and oral questions posed by MEPs.

In our structure we will have a commission AND it seems a board beside the commission. Our commission will have similar powers and constraints. But they, like the EU one, will make many important decisions.


THE AFL Comission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission#Organisation_Structure_and_Members

Organisation Structure and Members

The AFL Commission has a simple structure. There are formal corporate titles for members which currently consists of a chairman whose role is to oversee meetings and a Chief executive officer who typically also oversees the operations of the Australian Football League.
Commissioners are elected by the 16 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions only with over 75% of votes.[1]
[edit]Current Membership
Current membership of the Commission is:
Name Current Role Appointed
Mike Fitzpatrick Chairman 2007
Andrew Demetriou Chief Executive Officer 2003
Colin Carter OAM Non Executive 1993
Bill Kelty Non Executive 1998
Chris Langford Non Executive Commissioner 1999
Graeme John AO Non Executive 2000
Bob Hammond AM Non Executive 2001
Linda Dessau Non Executive 2007
Sam Mostyn Non Executive 2005
Christopher Lynch Non Executive 2008
[edit]All-time Membership
[edit]Chief Executive Officers
Andrew Demetriou (2003-)
Wayne Jackson (1996-2003)
Ross Oakley (1994-1996)
[edit]Chairmen
Mike Fitzpatrick (2007-)
Ron Evans AM (1997-2007)
John Kennedy, Sr. (1993-1997)
Ross Oakley (1986-1993)
[edit]Executive Commissioners
Alan Schwab (1986-1993)
[edit]Commissioners
Linda Dessau (2009-)
Christopher Lynch (2009-)
Sam Mostyn (2005-)
Andrew Demetriou (2004-)
Mike Fitzpatrick (2003-)
Bob Hammond (2001-)
Graeme John (2001-)
Chris Langford (1999-)
Bill Kelty (199
David Shaw (1997-1998)
Craig Kimberley (1997-1998)
Wayne Jackson (1995-2003)
Colin Carter (1993-2007)
Terry O’Connor (1993-2000)
John Kennedy, Sr. (1993-1997)
John Winneke (1993-1994)
Michael Carlile (1991-1992)
Albert Mantello (1988-1992)
Ross Oakley (1986-1996)
Graeme Samuel AO (1985-2002)
Peter Scanlon (1985-1992)
Peter Nixon (1985-1990)
Richard Seddon (1985-1987)
[edit]Life Members
Colin Carter (2009)
Graeme Samuel (1995)

Commissions seem to be the most efficient and trustworthy way of running things. But they have a narrow and focussed scope......which is why we still need govts....they have a broad and all-encompassing scope.


And the game will be better run by a commission charged with the appropriate powers. (I make that to be everything in our case)

Commissioners will be of high value to our game. Their independence comes from that they are not aligned to any club or stakeholder and do not act in the interests of any club, but of the whole game. There is little room for deviation from this in its structure, if any at all.

How is the Commission's work organised?

It is up to the Commission President to decide which commissioner will be responsible for which policy area, and to reshuffle these responsibilities (if necessary) during the Commission’s term of office.

The Commission meets once a week, usually on Wednesdays in Brussels. Each item on the agenda is presented by the commissioner responsible for that policy area, and the whole team then takes a collective decision on it.

The Commission’s staff is organised in departments, known as ‘Directorates-General’ (DGs) and ‘services’ (such as the Legal Service). Each DG is responsible for a particular policy area and is headed by a Director-General who is answerable to one of the commissioners. Overall coordination is provided by the Secretariat-General, which also manages the weekly Commission meetings. It is headed by the Secretary-General, who is answerable directly to the President.

It is the DGs that actually devise and draft legislative proposals, but these proposals become official only when ‘adopted’ by the Commission at its weekly meeting. The procedure is roughly as follows.

Suppose, for example, that the Commission sees a need for EU legislation to prevent pollution of Europe’s rivers. The Directorate-General for the Environment will draw up a proposal, based on extensive consultations with European industry and farmers, with environment ministries in the member states and with environmental organisations. The draft will also be discussed with other Commission departments and checked by the Legal Service and the Secretariat-General.

Once the proposal is fully ready, it will be put on the agenda of the next Commission meeting. If at least 14 of the 27 commissioners approve the proposal, the Commission will ‘adopt’ it and it will have the whole team’s unconditional support. The document will then be sent to Council and the European Parliament for their consideration.

I do think our game would run like something above. I hope the detail of this post has filled in some of the nooks and crannies - gaps - in your picture of what a commission is and what the people on it do.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Oh and who is on it already?

David Gallop is to be the first commissioner, Love the first chairman. http://www.rugbyleague.com/rugby-league-news/nrl-to-have-final-commission.html

QRL chief executive Ross Livermore described the vote as a "dark day for grassroots rugby league" but he will no doubt welcome the final harrah afforded his powerbase - picking four of the eight commissioners. Identities already mentioned include former Qantas chief Geoff Dixon, former Billabong chairman Gary Pemberton and current NRL director Katie Page.

And Q&A about commission details in this web page http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/independent-commission-explained/story-e6frfgbo-1225820991879

 

[Ray Mosters]

No sale of the Storm, no News disowning the game.

The salary cap scandal has scuppered this for the time being, at least for 2 or 3 years.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudge!!!

 

[taipan]

Genuine question - see my reply above.


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

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

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

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

Yep.If Katie Page were on the board of the new I.C.She has no direct affiliations with any club.She has a passion for the game.
Any rl background? If for example the former Qantas CEO had played junior rl ,before hitting the high spots in industry,can't see that as a problem.

No! Independence does not mean no interest in rl ,quite the contrary.In fact having an interest,is a plus rather than a minus,because the person has some affinity with the game eg the rigours of the game on players,the support in various regions the popularity on TV.

The I.C. won't be fronting sponsors.It will be a directive to a professional group,maybe involving Gallop,then left to the pros to do the negotiations.
Disinterrest? Why would any code want people disinterested?The poeple suggested at various stage have had an interest pr played the game at some stage in their lives.

Unqualified? You serious! The game is a big business now,has been run unsuccessfully and successfully in the past by people with various levels of business acumen or even little business acumen.
It would be nice to have people on the I.C with a lifelong interest in the game(and I understand that would be a great asset),but no direct club affiliations such as eg a Steve Edge.
That being said I could imagine a John Quayle involved though an Easts man,showed his independence.
I don't want bean counters or lawyers ,but I do want people with business acumen(preferably with a love of the game) who can grow the game in the current competitive environment,with other codes banging on the door.
I have seen also some people with lifetime involvement in rl,bring the club and game to its knees on occasions.Lifelong involvement is no iron clad guarantee of prosperity.
The game has lived off league's clubs' profits (via pokies) in the past.The game has to wean itself off that reliance IMO and become entrepeneurial.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

No sale of the Storm, no News disowning the game.

The salary cap scandal has scuppered this for the time being, at least for 2 or 3 years.

No news of this. They seem to be holding onto the storm but pushing ahead with the commission (they still have to nut out the details), if anything the issue has only been made more complex by the storm scandal, not stopping it from happening.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudge!!!

If you give this guy a penny for his thoughts, you get change back.

You have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the ideas!!! lol
:roll: :lol: :shock:

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cap-rort-weakens-news-grip-20100513-v1pn.html

League's future goes back to the drawing board as cap rort weakens News' grip
ROY MASTERS
May 14, 2010

News Ltd's bargaining position with the ARL over a future independent commission to rule rugby league has weakened as a result of the revelations of salary cap rorting by the Melbourne Storm.

ARL negotiators have not met News Ltd chief operating officer Peter Macourt since the Storm were savagely punished for the breaches, with one ARL director saying: ''They are not going to get everything they want now.''

News Ltd has imposed four conditions on its exit from the NRL: a role in the appointment of commissioners; a financial package for the Storm; an extension on its first and last broadcasting rights; and the code restructured into a non-profit organisation where the members are the 16 clubs and the NSWRL and QRL.

Only the last of these has been agreed, with the ARL making a major concession to News by agreeing to only one vote each for the NSWRL and QRL, the same membership right as each of the 16 clubs. The mood among QRL directors is that News's claims to appoint commissioners have been undermined by the role of the Storm's board in its failure to detect rorts. They argue if News could not appoint board members to supervise the Storm, how can it anoint commissioners to run the game?

The ARL and News have agreed to a process whereby each body must agree on a commissioner before he or she is appointed. It is possible the process could involve the first 10 or 11 names being struck out before agreement is reached on, say, the 11th, or 12th candidate, devaluing the field.

News also sought a package of $26 million over five years from the NRL to fund the Storm. NRL clubs were initially opposed to this, insisting money be spent only marketing the code in Melbourne, with no funds directed to a football department which had already played in four successive grand finals.

Now, following the revelation News's annual $6m subsidy to the Storm was inflated by secret payments, NRL clubs argue News does not need $26m and, in any case, must take responsibility for the financial mess created. News has asked for a five-year extension on its first and last broadcasting rights fee past 2022, meaning it seeks effective control over the most popular product on pay TV until 2027. The AFL sold its first and last rights to Channel Seven for a fee and, when the contract expired, vowed never to auction it off again because a powerful, wealthy media entity frightens off potential bidders for the rights.

However, News is exiting the game eight years ahead of the 20-year period agreed at the 1998 peace treaty signed at the end of the Super League war, and there is a view at ARL headquarters that its partner should be compensated.

Because News takes an $8m annual dividend from NRL revenues and plans to exit eight years ahead of time, some say it has a $64m entitlement and this can be equated to an additional five years of first and last TV rights. News is already owed $15m for monies deferred in the early years of the NRL partnership when incentives were given to Wests/Balmain; St George/Illawarra and Norths/Manly to merge.

NRL clubs have become more vocal since the Storm debacle in promoting their own candidates for the independent commission.

Former federal sports minister John Brown is the preferred candidate of Wests Tigers. He said: ''I've been asked to be the representative of Wests Tigers on the independent commission and I'm very happy to accept their imprimatur.''

Brown, who formed the Australian Sports Commission, was responsible for introducing legislation to grant tax averaging for professional sportspeople; led the push to build Parramatta Stadium and served on the NSWRL Drug Appeal Board as well as Canterbury's board during the Super League war.

He took a leading role with Neck Safe following a spinal injury to one of his sons. ''I drove [NRL chief] David Gallop mad with phone calls every Monday morning complaining about spear tackles,'' he said. ''Fortunately, they did something.''

A former Wests Presidents Cup player, he said: ''Now is the time for an independent commission to grasp all of the opportunities for the game, driven by the great play we see on the field.''

His critics point out he is approaching 80 but that's the same age as the most influential man in league, News Corporation chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Roy Masters' article in the SMH today (p. 30) is worth reading - but it introduces major concerns about the independent commission.

1. the IC will have NSWRL, QRL and 16 clubs all with one vote. This is a disaster. The Commission needs to be independent of the clubs - focussing on best interests and proper management of the game. Clubs have shown for decades that they are totally self-focussed - especially as they are run predominantly by good ol' boys - most of whom should NOT be entrusted with multi-million dollar businesses.

This IC set-up will also cruel expansion. One of the biggest hurdles for the CC Bears in teh last 11 years has been the clubs. A strong CC Bears will be great for the game for many reasons (financially strong, 2 strong regions supporting rugby league etc). But, the clubs (many of whom are in dire financial straits) don't want a club that will make them look as sad as they are. This is a massive conflict to overcome.

2. We need to see through the News Limited bullsh*t. they have not lost money - they have made a fortune from PayTV for owning the game - but their spin doctors have us believe that rugby league still owes them millions - and that they have been disadvantaged. I suggest that the ARL argue that their monopoly has made them hundreds of millions of dollars - and that they should net any monies "owed" against this. They still have TV rights for another 8 years. That should be enough.

Maybe we should just wait out News Limited for another 8 years - then they will have no more entitlement to this masive "golden goose". But first, to get a decent TV deal, we need to get rid of Gallop and any other compromised person to ensure the proper value of TV rights brings the right money to the game.

 

[Goddo]

Careful Ronnie, your agenda is showing...

 

[Knownothing]

But first, to get a decent TV deal, we need to get rid of Gallop and any other compromised person to ensure the proper value of TV rights brings the right money to the game.

Good luck, Ronny. And when you have achieved that, you can get to work on a cure for cancer, world wide peace, and the alleviation of global poverty. Should be a walk in the park for you.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

This IC set-up will also cruel expansion. One of the biggest hurdles for the CC Bears in teh last 11 years has been the clubs.

So you speak in less than glowing terms about other clubs being self focussed and then make statements self focussed about your own.

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

What we got here is failure to commumicate

 

[Quidgybo]

This IC set-up will also cruel expansion.

Rubbish. That argument simply isn't backed up by the history of the AFL Commission on which the IC proposal is modelled. The AFL Commissioners are appointed by agreement of 75% of the 16 member clubs exclusively - unlike the IC proposal, the state organisations have no vote at all. Since it gained full autonomy in 1993, the AFL Commission has introduced expansion clubs in 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 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.

Leigh

 

[Parra]

But it is the model outlined by Roy Masters that is being touted. Not some wonderful body made up of highly skilled business people who will put the sport before their own interests. If you believe that then I have a bridge you might like to buy.

Why is relying on tv money any better or worse than relying on pokies?

It would be good to see some facts instead of motherhood statements. Hence my original question. A lot of people keep trotting out the mantra that RL needs an IC. But no-one really knows what an IC is yet.

 

[Quidgybo]

But no-one really knows what an IC is yet.

Again rubbish. We all know exactly what it is, how it will operate, how independent it will be in practise and the benefits it will bring because we've had an example of exactly the model of Commission being proposed operating right in front of us for the last 18 years - the AFL (it was actually formed 25 years ago but didn't get full autonomy until 1993). And that Commission has been kicking our administration all over the place in terms of television revenue, stadium development, grassroots funding and expansion. Why should we expect any less success from a Commission modelled along exactly the same lines? Those in favour of the IC are not asking for a leap into some great unknown, they're just asking for the game to learn from the path already forged by our competitors and to give ourselves a chance to at least match the best run of them. This is an effective model for running a game the size and profile of Rugby League in Australia and it has been proven by 18 years of real world testing in the Australian market.

Leigh.

 

[maple_69]

Why is relying on tv money any better or worse than relying on pokies?
.

TV money is sustainable and a direct reflection of the strength of the games product. Pokies are unsustainable in the current climate and allow the actual rugby league side of the clubs to cruise and just leech of a grant.
If teams and clubs perform (as well as our leagues administrators) we will get a massive windfall from television and this will flow onto club and player sponsorships.
Attendance and memberships are the other missing link which we're obviously working on. This would make the structure of most successful leagues in the world..

 

[Parra]

Again rubbish. We all know exactly what it is, how it will operate, how independent it will be in practise and the benefits it will bring because we've had an example of exactly the model of Commission being proposed operating right in front of us for the last 18 years - the AFL (it was actually formed 25 years ago but didn't get full autonomy until 1993). And that Commission has been kicking our administration all over the place in terms of television revenue, stadium development, grassroots funding and expansion. Why should we expect any less success from a Commission modelled along exactly the same lines? Those in favour of the IC are not asking for a leap into some great unknown, they're just asking for the game to learn from the path already forged by our competitors and to give ourselves a chance to at least match the best run of them. This is an effective model for running a game the size and profile of Rugby League in Australia and it has been proven by 18 years of real world testing in the Australian market.

Leigh.

Don't keep us in suspense. What is the structure of this IC? You claim to know exactly what it is. Will News Ltd have a say on who is on it? Will the clubs or the RL's? What is the charter?

I am claiming that no-one knows these things yet. You have called that claim rubbish.

What you *want* it to be is irrelevant. Why a game with no international or representative presence is being used as a model is another reasonable question. Is it more than just choosing style over substance?

 

[Quidgybo]

What is the structure of this IC?

The proposal is that NRL will become a membership based organisation with membership open to current NRL clubs and the NSWRL and QRL. The game will be run by a board of eight commissioners appointed by the members with each commissioner appointed for a four year term. The board members must not be current club officers. The terms will be staggered so that two positions are up for re-election every year. The Commission will elect its own chairperson who will hold office for one year but have no casting vote. The Commission will appoint the CEO who will not be a member of the board or entitled to a vote. The CEO will appoint all other staff.

Will News Ltd have a say on who is on it?

After the initial Commission is up and running, News Ltd will no longer have any ownership stake in the NRL and will have no say in future appointments to the Commission. The initial eight Commissioners will be appointed by the outgoing Partners, News Ltd and the ARL. The appointments will require consensus of the Partners. If a News Ltd nominee is unacceptable, the ARL can block the appointment.

Will the clubs or the RL's?

After the initial Commission is up and running, each one of the 18 members (16 clubs plus NSWRL and QRL) will be able to submit nominations for a vacancy on the Commission. Under the original proposal before modifications requested by the ARL/NSWRL, the voting requirements to appoint a Commissioner would have been identical to the AFL system. Each of the 16 clubs would get one vote with a nominee needing 12 votes (75%) to get elected. With 18 members, a 75% threshold would require 14 votes to elect a Commissioner.

What is the charter?

In its simplest form - to act as the ultimate authority for all levels of Rugby League in Australia. The Commission will subsume the functions of both the existing NRL and ARL. It will run the elite professional club competition, manage State of Origin and the Australian national team, and fund grassroots development and expansion.

What you *want* it to be is irrelevant.

I don't think this is the best possible structure. Never said I did and have even explicitly stated as such earlier in this thread. But I do think it is a significantly better structure than the mess we have now and if no better alternative is realistically possible then I'll happily accept this and hope we can improve on it in the future. So this isn't about what I want. It's about your head in the sand claims that we're somehow all in the dark about what is being proposed and how it is likely to work in practise. You may not *want* to accept the fact that the details of the proposal have been well publicised and plenty of practical evidence exists to support its likely success for our game from another major sport using the same model. But simply claiming that we don't know these things, in an effort play on peoples natural fear of the unknown, doesn't make it so.

Leigh.