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

[Perth Red]

I'd have 8 independent commisioners with each of the NSWRL, QRL, affiliated states and 2NRL club reps to have one vote each for nominated commisioners. Commisioner needs a majority vote to be elected. That way the commisioners will need to represent both club and non prof levels to be elected.

 

[Paul J]

The constitution isn't even written yet.

The commissioners will be independent and they will not be able to stay on indefinitely.

For the commission that everyone wants (except the QRL) to be corrupt, a club would have to find a person who is suitable to be a commissioner, i.e. a highly intelligent, highly motivated person with excellent credentials from the business sector.

This person would then have to defy all the other 7 commissioners by suggesting that they should take all or most of the funding from junior development and give it to one or some of the clubs. The other 7 commissioners would then have to agree with this madness or all be corrupt themselves.

How likely is this to ever happen? Seriously?

The AFL have a independent commission where the commissioners are all industry heavy weights and they are VOTED FOR BY THE CLUBS ONLY. Their IC has grown their game massively and they now have more money for everything - expansion, salary cap, junior development. They have spent obscene amounts on Auskick and junior development, especially in NSW/Qld.

If we get the independent commission that has been initially suggested the 8 commissioners call all the shots. The clubs and state bodies have 1/26 voting power each and that is it. How could the clubs or state bodies find and then elect 8 corrupt commissioners and then continue to find corrupt commissioners indefinitely as their terms expire?

The commissioners will run the game. No more in house fighting and self interested parties.

It will grow our great game to new heights that we have never even imagined.

 

[Quidgybo]

The NSWRL is soft and always has been. We need the NSWRL and QRL to have more than 1/26 vote in the commission as they are the custodians of junior league etc in our main states. For NRL clubs to have 16/26 voting rights it crazy and for Colin Love to be the 1st chairman in even crazier.

Bear in mind that the original proposal (and the AFL model on which it was based) had a requirement of 75% support to elect a commissioner. To meet a 75% threshold would require 20 of 26 votes so even if the 16 clubs voted as a block for a candidate, they wouldn't be able to appoint a commissioner without support from another four parties. Essentially that would mean that no candidate could be appointed that wasn't acceptable to the majority of the elite clubs (at least 10 of 16) and no candidate could be appointed who was unacceptable to all but the elite clubs.

The NRL club elected commissioners do have an agenda. The agenda of the people that elect and re-elect them. The NRL clubs are already trying to railroad the NSWRL directors into taking funding away from one of our biggest grassroots bodies. Why do people think the commissioners would be immune from similar pressure from the people who are directly appointing them? The self interest of NRL clubs must be balanced in whatever model is adopted and the QRL model gives that balance. The News Ltd model does not.

The QRL model promotes factionalism over consensus. And if there is anything this whole sorry farce is demonstrating, it is how damaging and paralysing factionalism is for the game. The good of the game gets lost and vital decisions deferred in an ongoing game of one upmanship. Queensland vs NSW, News vs ARL, elite clubs vs state bodies, private clubs vs members clubs, Sydney clubs vs expansion clubs. The advantage of a Commission elected by a 75% "consensus" of a common electorate is the Commissioners are not left representing different constituencies, they represent the game as a whole. We can debate all the different permutations of that electorate - whether it be dominated by the elite clubs or some other makeup. But ultimately the true test of independence will be whether the factional battles we're watching today are carried thru to a series of eternal turf wars within the new Commission or whether they are once and for all consigned to the past with the new Commission free to concentrate on doing whatever it sees as best for the game.

I could have sworn that elected members could only ever serve one term on the board.

That has never appeared in any report or official statement about the Commission that I can recall. I did raise this as a suggestion earlier in this thread which might be what you're remembering. Such a limit would allow the Commissioners to govern without having to worry about how their decisions would impact their re-election chances. On the flipside it would see good and effective administrators and experienced administrators forced out even if they were doing a stellar job.

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

Their IC has grown their game massively

Where has this happened outside of their own press releases?

Aussie rules is interesting to people in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania and and there appears to be genuine interest in WA. But that's it. That's all there was 100 years ago.

The RL commission has been designed by News Ltd to allow them to bail out of their committments.

The same BS is being used that sucked people into Super League & this time around there is no strong ARL to fight them. It is not hard to get the private team owners on board - there is only one bottom line for them and that is their personal cash-flow.

The only body that is interested in something other than their own immediate finances is the QRL. Rather than discussing any issues the pro-commission group have shown their hand by threatening to withold financing to the QRL - proving once and for all that this is all they are concerned about. It is about getting their hands on the money the game generates. They can only think of the game in dollar terms - this is a direct result of the News Ltd influence and is also the main reason the structure proposed is wrong.

If News Ltd want out then let them go. No strings attached.

 

[Paul J]

The AFL is much bigger and wealthier now than they were before they got their independent commission.

"The RL commission has been designed by News Ltd to allow them to bail out of their committments."

News Ltd started the dreaded Super League war and an independent commission is the best way to get rid of News for good.

"The only body that is interested in something other than their own immediate finances is the QRL."

Yes, the QRL are interested in their own finances and in staying in power, to the detriment of the game. Look at Quidgybo's excellent comments; he explains the situation really well.

 

[Parra]

I don't know that Quidgybo's model exists anywhere except in this thread.

The campaign to have this commission is being run by News Ltd, for the benefit of News Ltd.

I still say if they want out, then let them out. And this is a benevolent stance. If they want to break the deal they should have to pay a premium, not dictate terms. Given their previous experience in manipulating the sport for their ends, and given blind support as seen in this thread, why would they bother? They would be stupid to do anything other than propose what they want and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[MacDougall]

Can we get the independent commission already?

 

[Perth Red]

tbf although teh AFL clubs vote the AFL IC in, the state bodies are not behest to the AFL for funding like ours are with the ARL/NRL. In WA for example the two AFL clubs licenses are held by the WAFL and the WAFL's income is over $10mill a year without any $'s from the AFL.

 

[Quidgybo]

The campaign to have this commission is being run by News Ltd, for the benefit of News Ltd.

You're suggesting Phil Gould is campaigning on behalf of News Ltd in a Fairfax newspaper?

I still say if they want out, then let them out. And this is a benevolent stance. If they want to break the deal they should have to pay a premium, not dictate terms. Given their previous experience in manipulating the sport for their ends, and given blind support as seen in this thread, why would they bother? They would be stupid to do anything other than propose what they want and laugh all the way to the bank.

Or they could do exactly what they've got the option to do and say "screw it, we're staying put". You can spout all this moralistic bullsh*t about how News should beg our forgiveness as they back towards the door. But it doesn't change the fact that legally they don't have to move an inch for years to come. Given that legal reality, News has given the game a choice - we can get rid of them today if we hand control to an independent commission not beholden to the ARL or state bodies; or they can keep their 50% ownership and control of the NRL for the negotiation of the next two television deals at least. Those are the only two options on the table and legally News doesn't even have to give us that. Which do we choose?

Leigh.

 

[Magumba]

1) Who's writing the constitution? Colin (pay me 300k to run the world cup) Love and a News Ltd rep.
2) Has anyone seen the constitution? NO
3) Why? The News Ltd rep was pulled off of co-writing the constitution to help sort out the Melbourne debacle.
4) Why will Colin Love be the 1st chairman? Because he bent over and sold the ARL, NSWRL and CRLs weighting in the commission.
5) Has the QRLs request to present and answer questions regarding their commission model to the NRL clubs been granted? No
6) Why? You tell me.
7) Does Michael Searle have the right to offer roles in the commission to people? No.

And the 2 most impotant Q and A's
8) Does every NRL fan want an independent Commission? Yes
9) Do we want a commission formed of jobs for mates, deals and brown paper bag payments? NO, the future of our game is at sake here and we only get one shot at it!!!

 

[Magumba]

At the end of the day I feel sorry for the QRL. They are business savy and doing a great job up north unlike our NSW mates. It's like the proposed model is saying thanks for your great work, now F off you only get a 1/26 vote!!!!! PS NSWRL you run a busted ship so we'll give you the same 1/26 right. It's bull sh*t.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

The commissioners will be independent and they will not be able to stay on indefinitely.

For the commission that everyone wants (except the QRL) to be corrupt, a club would have to find a person who is suitable to be a commissioner, i.e. a highly intelligent, highly motivated person with excellent credentials from the business sector.

This person would then have to defy all the other 7 commissioners by suggesting that they should take all or most of the funding from junior development and give it to one or some of the clubs. The other 7 commissioners would then have to agree with this madness or all be corrupt themselves.

How likely is this to ever happen? Seriously?

The AFL have a independent commission where the commissioners are all industry heavy weights and they are VOTED FOR BY THE CLUBS ONLY. Their IC has grown their game massively and they now have more money for everything - expansion, salary cap, junior development. They have spent obscene amounts on Auskick and junior development, especially in NSW/Qld.

If we get the independent commission that has been initially suggested the 8 commissioners call all the shots. The clubs and state bodies have 1/26 voting power each and that is it. How could the clubs or state bodies find and then elect 8 corrupt commissioners and then continue to find corrupt commissioners indefinitely as their terms expire?

The commissioners will run the game. No more in house fighting and self interested parties.

It will grow our great game to new heights that we have never even imagined.

Excellent point that so many choose to overlook, and the qrl try to fool you on

a more likely scenario is that in future all various sectors with 1/26 voting power will be more inclined to work together and be moving in one direction. Cutting off money for future players is like slitting your wrists.

The commissioners will be above reproach. You see, the QRL and others allude to the fact that a club may want to try and elect "bob" the "nobody" from down the road, tie his hands up, pay him off, and tell him to take a weapon to all the meetings so he can intimidate the other commissioners into doing what he wants......and as you can see from the quoted post (great work again btw) that is not going to happen.

Imaging you are the one nominating a commissioner...put yourself in those shoes....you have no say in how the game is run, but the guy you nominate may....and lets not forget, being CEO of a football club is your job, its your future, it pays off your house, it feeds your kids, its what you do in life....

Would you trust someone who you know is going to be corrupt with your clubs', the comps' and indeed your own future? Would you elect someone who has no clue as to whats going on, someone who is unproven or would never - to your estimation - be able to prove themselves? Would you elect someone who you did not respect?

And you see, it works both ways to the people who claim news ltd are just setting themselves up for the next lot of years.....well the arl have to approve as well on the nominations, and its not like a position goes forever, and also that the people in mind are high-class candidates.

Some people need to get off the conspiracy theories a bit. There was always going to be some perks.

 

[Magumba]

No conspiracy theories. Just key players trying to ensure they are in the best position themselves to stay on the gravy train.

Rugby League has a history of rushing into things. I just believe that all parties and scenarios should be transparent. At the end of the day my kids and grand kids will have to live with choices made now.

 

[Magumba]

No conspiracy theories. Just key players trying to ensure they are in the best position themselves to stay on the gravy train.

Rugby League has a history of rushing into things. I just believe that all parties and scenarios should be transparent. At the end of the day my kids and grand kids will have to live with choices made now.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

No conspiracy theories. Just key players trying to ensure they are in the best position themselves to stay on the gravy train.

Rugby League has a history of rushing into things. I just believe that all parties and scenarios should be transparent. At the end of the day my kids and grand kids will have to live with choices made now.

ok

but look

The system is very transparent

And in the beginning BOTH the ARL and News ltd must decide on the candidates.

Its been shown that the massive duplication within the game will largely end. In years to come, when the commission decides how funds are distributed to the various leagues, that will sort out the gravy train robbers out there.

Have some faith.

RL has a history of rushing? RL has a history of being attacked. The sl was the genesis for a fair bit of rushing, hardly our fault. Dont talk to me about that wrong thread

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

You're suggesting Phil Gould is campaigning on behalf of News Ltd in a Fairfax newspaper?


Or they could do exactly what they've got the option to do and say "screw it, we're staying put". You can spout all this moralistic bullsh*t about how News should beg our forgiveness as they back towards the door. But it doesn't change the fact that legally they don't have to move an inch for years to come. Given that legal reality, News has given the game a choice - we can get rid of them today if we hand control to an independent commission not beholden to the ARL or state bodies; or they can keep their 50% ownership and control of the NRL for the negotiation of the next two television deals at least. Those are the only two options on the table and legally News doesn't even have to give us that. Which do we choose?

Leigh.

A win for news across the globe has often been "if we can;t win then neither do you"

this would be directed at the arl, in the form of they dont control anything anymore, and the IC in fact is just a great way to end it so league is better off, thus doing away with any negative publicity.


and the qrl can blame themselves for pointing out once again why factions such as themselves and old-league thinking has screwed the game and will continue to do so.

rule by consensus. and brains

 

[Parra]

You're suggesting Phil Gould is campaigning on behalf of News Ltd in a Fairfax newspaper?

One journalist in one independent paper.

Buy the Daily Telegraph to see what I am talking about. You will only get one opinion there. There is no attempt to hide the bias.

Or they could do exactly what they've got the option to do and say "screw it, we're staying put". You can spout all this moralistic bullsh*t about how News should beg our forgiveness as they back towards the door. But it doesn't change the fact that legally they don't have to move an inch for years to come. Given that legal reality, News has given the game a choice - we can get rid of them today if we hand control to an independent commission not beholden to the ARL or state bodies; or they can keep their 50% ownership and control of the NRL for the negotiation of the next two television deals at least. Those are the only two options on the table and legally News doesn't even have to give us that. Which do we choose?

Leigh.

If the cost of getting them out is so high - and I am saying it is way to high - then yes "screw it, we're staying put" is exactly the right option. When the cost is right, then you take the deal. Nothing moralistic about this at all - if you want an emotional slant on this go right ahead.

As usual the devil is in the detail. As long as the argument can be kept above any level of detail then it simply wont be scrutinised.

Another one to ponder - if people are so sure that the NSWRL and ARL are so incompetent, why are the same people so quick to endorse the NSWRL & ARL decisions in this regard. Surely anything so important deserves wider consideration. Apparently not in this case - if it's good enough for Colin Love and Geoff Carr then it is supposed to be good enough for everyone. I say this is bullsh*t.

Everyone should question any deal that has guaranteed positions for Colin Love & David Gallop. Again we are expected to just assume that this is supposed to be good enough for everyone. bullsh*t again.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

That has never appeared in any report or official statement about the Commission that I can recall. I did raise this as a suggestion earlier in this thread which might be what you're remembering. Such a limit would allow the Commissioners to govern without having to worry about how their decisions would impact their re-election chances. On the flipside it would see good and effective administrators and experienced administrators forced out even if they were doing a stellar job.

In that case, if there were those on the IC that were doing such a great job, we could still keep them in the game after they have served their time on the IC board. I know that the AFL often give jobs in their organisation that were previously on their IC.

But if a person is doing some seriously good stuff on the board, I think it should be in the constitution that along with both NSWRL and QRL votes, plus 10 of the clubs votes of support, a board member can be invited to serve another term on the board. I think a 3 or 4 year recycle of board members would be ideal aswell.

 

[m0nty]

1) Who's writing the constitution? Colin (pay me 300k to run the world cup) Love and a News Ltd rep.
2) Has anyone seen the constitution? NO
3) Why? The News Ltd rep was pulled off of co-writing the constitution to help sort out the Melbourne debacle.
4) Why will Colin Love be the 1st chairman? Because he bent over and sold the ARL, NSWRL and CRLs weighting in the commission.
5) Has the QRLs request to present and answer questions regarding their commission model to the NRL clubs been granted? No
6) Why? You tell me.
7) Does Michael Searle have the right to offer roles in the commission to people? No.

And the 2 most impotant Q and A's
8) Does every NRL fan want an independent Commission? Yes
9) Do we want a commission formed of jobs for mates, deals and brown paper bag payments? NO, the future of our game is at sake here and we only get one shot at it!!!

1-3) I agree that the constitution creation process has suffered from a complete lack of transparency. This is probably the biggest valid criticism that can be leveled against IC proponents at the moment. I do wish the NRL would get off its arse on this issue and release something, anything, for fans and other stakeholders to feel like they're part of the process.

4) This is not ideal, but necessary. In the current NRL structure it's always a choice of the lesser of two evils, and in this case Love's obsequious toadying does actually get things achieved, as opposed to Ribot's firestarting.

5-6) The QRL's proposed structure involved them having veto powers over every vote, which is ludicrous and unworkable. They obviously don't respect the concept of the IC in the first place. A QRL questionnaire would only be a media stunt.

7) Well at least someone is thinking about something other than the next paycheck! FFS, this is the sort of groundwork that is mandatory at this stage, sounding out prospects and identifying candidates. Of course he can't offer commission spots, but someone has to prepare a shortlist and the QRL's intransigence shouldn't make everything else about the process stop until they've finished their tantrums.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

we cant let this thread die, just like we can let an IC die on the nose