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

[Bluebags1908]

AFL has no international game so it's a pointless comparison. They don't have to do anything to promote or support international football because they don't have any. We do and the clubs have shown they can't be trusted to do the right thing by it, as evidenced by the demise of the World Sevens.

And can we forget about this "Grassroots WILL be better off... um... because... it just will be" line. It's not based on anything, just a assumption that the clubs will do the right thing by the grassroots, even though, once again, there is plenty of evidence to show they don't do a very good job now. Richardson wants to cut funding to the QRL to strong-arm them into doing what he wants. This is the kind of mentality we're up against. He wants to hurt grassroots football to get what he wants for his privately owned club. It's as obvious as you can get.

I'm with East Coast Tiger on this one. And here's further proof of Richardson's antics - only doing what's best for his club and their private owners istead of the game as a whole. He then did the biggest backflip of all time when we was forced to release Burgess to play for England.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...uest-for-burgess/story-e6frexnr-1225860962152


Rabbitohs snub Poms request for Burgess

• David Riccio
• From: The Sunday Telegraph
• May 01, 2010 4:11PM

Bumped ... The Rabbitohs have told the Poms Sam Burgess is unavailable for selection.



SOUTH Sydney are refusing to allow star forward Sam Burgess to play for England next month in a move certain to inflame international relations.


Rabbitohs chief executive Shane Richardson said he "couldn't care less" about helping England, who want Burgess to return for a one-off Test against France on June 12 - the same weekend South Sydney are due to play the Broncos at Suncorp Stadium.

Newly-appointed England coach Steve McNamara, whom Burgess played under during his four seasons at Super League giant Bradford Bulls, called the Rabbitohs second-rower on Tuesday and asked if he could line up for the one-off Test.

It's also understood that McNamara told Burgess he was the front-runner to replace Jamie Peacock as England captain in the next two years.
It's believed that a patriotic Burgess was ready to answer McNamara's call by returning home for the first time since his arrival at Redfern last December.

Burgess has played six matches for England and two matches for Great Britain, and scored two tries in his most recent appearance against Australia in the 2009 Four Nations final.

"It's not like you knock back the chance to play for your country every day - of course he was keen to play," a source close to Burgess told The Sunday Telegraph yesterday.

However, with the Rabbitohs scheduled to play the Broncos on Sunday, June 13, Burgess has been told by South Sydney management he will be unavailable to represent his country.

"Sam will be at Suncorp Stadium on June 13, playing against the Brisbane Broncos," Richardson told The Sunday Telegraph last week. "I've spoken to Langy [coach John Lang] and Sam and he's fine with it."

Asked what England officials would think of the decision, Richardson replied: "I don't care what they think.

"Sam has a contract with the South Sydney Rabbitohs and as far as we are concerned he'll be in Brisbane on that weekend.
"You don't see the UK-based Kiwis coming out for the Anzac Test - and let's be honest, this is just a one-off match against France."

Richardson refused to concede the decision could have a detrimental effect on Burgess' ambitions to be a future England and Britain captain.

"If I was Steve McNamara, I wouldn't think that would be a factor to any decisions down the track," Richardson said.

Widely regarded as potentially one of the best English imports to play in the NRL, Burgess has had little trouble adjusting to the style of football in Australia or the lifestyle.

The 21-year-old has delivered on the hype that surrounded the announcement that he had signed a four-year deal with the Rabbitohs, and most believe that with further experience in the NRL he will be an even better player.

But Souths officials believe he has yet to hit his straps this season because a severe injury toll to the pack has forced the strike forward to play a variety roles for coach Lang.

 

[Bluebags1908]

AFL has no international game so it's a pointless comparison. They don't have to do anything to promote or support international football because they don't have any. We do and the clubs have shown they can't be trusted to do the right thing by it, as evidenced by the demise of the World Sevens.

And can we forget about this "Grassroots WILL be better off... um... because... it just will be" line. It's not based on anything, just a assumption that the clubs will do the right thing by the grassroots, even though, once again, there is plenty of evidence to show they don't do a very good job now. Richardson wants to cut funding to the QRL to strong-arm them into doing what he wants. This is the kind of mentality we're up against. He wants to hurt grassroots football to get what he wants for his privately owned club. It's as obvious as you can get.

And while we're on the subject of representative football, how's the AFL State of Origin going?

It's dead. And I wonder why? Because the club-run AFL Commission killed it off!

 

[hellteam]

The clubs don't represent junior development or the international game. They never have. They want what is best for THEM

 

[m0nty]

Prove that it won't. I don't have to prove anything. Your the one advocating a major change so you can come up with the evidence that it will be beneficial. But that's the problem with this proposal. It was written behind closed doors by News Ltd and a few club bosses and there is absolutely no details gauranteeing it will work.

But there are plenty of logical reasons why the clubs will influence the commission because they are the ones electing and re-electing it. They have already tried to hurt grassroots football in Qld by pressuring the NSWRL into cutting funding to the QRL. If this is what the clubs are going to be like every time they don't get their way it's pretty clear they should not be handed ownership of the sport. If the clubs and News Ltd are fair dinkum about providing a balanced structure for the ownership and administration of rugby league in Australia why draw up secret plans with no detail and then try to railroad it through without consultation with the traditional, non-profit, representative owners of the sport and without due consideration of all the facts?

And if you want to suggest that this commission WILL benefit the entire sport, not just the elite level, then why don't you actually show us the detail in the plan that gaurantees this. Otherwise stop telling blatant lies. You have no idea what this commission will or will not do because there are no details to it. No one knows what is even being suggested because the whole plan was written by News Ltd and privately owned clubs to benefit News Ltd and the clubs, otherwise it wouldn't have been done in secret and without the input of the non-profit governing bodies. Show us the document that gaurantees the protection of both grassroots football and international football, otherwise stop peddling the line that this News Ltd commission is certain to benefit the whole game.

I don't agree with ECT's conclusions, but I can't fault him for making them in the absence of a public proposal for a constitution. The longer the league holds the drafts in-house, the more political points the anti-IC crowd can accumulate with opportunistic rants like this. Surely there must be enough of a document by now to be able to release to the public. The IC proponents have to let the sun shine in on the process.

 

[Paul J]

Prove that it won't. I don't have to prove anything. Your the one advocating a major change so you can come up with the evidence that it will be beneficial. But that's the problem with this proposal. It was written behind closed doors by News Ltd and a few club bosses and there is absolutely no details gauranteeing it will work.

But there are plenty of logical reasons why the clubs will influence the commission because they are the ones electing and re-electing it. They have already tried to hurt grassroots football in Qld by pressuring the NSWRL into cutting funding to the QRL. If this is what the clubs are going to be like every time they don't get their way it's pretty clear they should not be handed ownership of the sport. If the clubs and News Ltd are fair dinkum about providing a balanced structure for the ownership and administration of rugby league in Australia why draw up secret plans with no detail and then try to railroad it through without consultation with the traditional, non-profit, representative owners of the sport and without due consideration of all the facts?

And if you want to suggest that this commission WILL benefit the entire sport, not just the elite level, then why don't you actually show us the detail in the plan that gaurantees this. Otherwise stop telling blatant lies. You have no idea what this commission will or will not do because there are no details to it. No one knows what is even being suggested because the whole plan was written by News Ltd and privately owned clubs to benefit News Ltd and the clubs, otherwise it wouldn't have been done in secret and without the input of the non-profit governing bodies. Show us the document that gaurantees the protection of both grassroots football and international football, otherwise stop peddling the line that this News Ltd commission is certain to benefit the whole game.

You're obviously a passionate supported of grass roots footy. So am I.

We are going around in circles here.

From what I’ve read in different forums, those opposed to the independent commission oppose it because of 2 reasons.

Firstly, that the independent commission will be run by clubs or that the clubs will have an influence in what direction the commissioners take with the game.

After the ARL & News elect the first commissioners the clubs can nominate new ones and they get one vote each. This is the only power they have. They will have no say at all in the decision making and leadership of the game. No say at all, nada, nil, zero, zip, zilch - ever.

Also the 16 clubs make up only 60% of the voting block and 75% is needed to get anything through. The clubs will receive their grants after the state bodies receive theirs.

For example, if a commissioner were to retire, Bruno Cullen could say “I wish to nominate former Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon as the new commissioner”. Bruno would then make one of the twenty six votes, 75% would be needed to get Geoff Dixon on the commission. If the vote is successful Bruno and the rest of the clubs and state bodies would then have NO say over what decisions Geoff Dixon and the other commissioners make.

The second reason given to oppose the independent commission is that the independent commission will starve junior development and rep footy.

As the NRL commission is not yet in place, we can make any fantastic prediction we like. However if we look at the independent commissions currently in place we get an excellent idea of how they work and what they achieve.

The AFL commission has generated huge funds and has spent big time on junior development. Why, because it should be blatantly obvious to every average Joe on the street – let alone the high achievers on the commission – that the junior level is the life blood of any sport.

There is no logical reason why the NRL commission will decide to starve junior footy and rep footy. Why would any sport do this? It would be obviously suicidal. (Remember the clubs have NO power, the 8 commissioners would have to decide to kill off junior footy and State of Origin, which of course they won’t).

There is more chance of the NRL commissioners walking into McDonalds with an AK-47 blazing away than them destroying junior and rep footy.

How the commission will be structured has already been reported in the media many times, but I do agree that there should be more transparency on the fine print. Michael Searle (not News Ltd who will be giving away all their ownership of the running of the game) is the chief architect and he’s stated that it is based on the highly effective AFL & NFL models.

I hope the fans are shown the constitution as well as the clubs and state bodies before it is put into place, if the QRL ever lets it happen.

I reckon the QRL will be taken to court.

 

[griff]

But the point is that grassroots footy and junior development are not one and the same thing.

Of course the clubs wont neglect junior development. This is their raw material.

What they will (and currently do) neglect is grassroots open age footy. A random club from the bush staying afloat or not has no bearing at all on the NRL clubs so they dont really care. But a governing body of the game (as distinct from a governing body of the elite competition) has to care. Thats why ECT makes so much sense and why what we can tell about the IC proposal is fundamentally flawed.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Correct. Although I actually belive the NRL clubs also fail to do enough for junior development as well. They may NEED it but they often don't behave is though they do. But Griff is absolutely right about open age football. NRL clubs simply don't care about any player over the age of 20. What happens to any player who is not signed up by this age or has been spat out the under 20s without a contract is of no concenr to them at all. Some people might think that senior grassroots football doesn't matter either as long as there are juniors playing up to 18. But without senior football to draw crowds, sponsors and provide many of the coaches to the junior sides, not to mention refs etc, there will be no junior football. Many of the people involved in junior RL have an interest because they are also involved in senior RL as a player, coach or whatever. NRL clubs simply don't care about these people. They offer NRL clubs no direct benefit, and that is all NRL clubs want. They are selfish, wasteful and often quite dysfunctional organisations who put success in first grade above virtually everything else. I don't want them owning the game and I certainly don't want them setting the agenda for the whole sport of RL in Australia. Say what you like about the ARL and other RLs but they are non-profit, not conflicted by private ownership, are democratic and representative and generally put the overall good of the game ahead of making money or winning premierships. The individuals involved might not always make the right decisions and I'm first to criticise when they don't, but they are still the keepers of the game and we need them to ensure commercial and selfish influences don't over-run the administration of RL.

 

[griff]

Say what you like about the ARL and other RLs but they are non-profit, not conflicted by private ownership, are democratic and representative and generally put the overall good of the game ahead of making money or winning premierships. The individuals involved might not always make the right decisions and I'm first to criticise when they don't, but they are still the keepers of the game and we need them to ensure commercial and selfish influences don't over-run the administration of RL.

I agree. I think the current administrations of the RLs are crap, but that is a function of their current position. They would attract a better quality of administrator if they were in a position of genuine power with decent revenues to disburse.

A person like John Quayle for example isnt going to work for an organisation with no power and no money, whereas someone like Geoff Carr is going to throw himself at the job and cling tooth and nail to stay there because that is his only realistic prospect.

 

[Paul J]

But the point is that grassroots footy and junior development are not one and the same thing.

Of course the clubs wont neglect junior development. This is their raw material.

What they will (and currently do) neglect is grassroots open age footy. A random club from the bush staying afloat or not has no bearing at all on the NRL clubs so they dont really care. But a governing body of the game (as distinct from a governing body of the elite competition) has to care. Thats why ECT makes so much sense and why what we can tell about the IC proposal is fundamentally flawed.

Why mention what the NRL clubs currently do or what they want? An independent commission will run the game, NOT THE NRL CLUBS.

As i posted earlier...

From what I’ve read in different forums, those opposed to the independent commission oppose it because of 2 reasons.

Firstly, that the independent commission will be run by clubs or that the clubs will have an influence in what direction the commissioners take with the game.

After the ARL & News elect the first commissioners the clubs can nominate new ones and they get one vote each. This is the only power they have. They will have no say at all in the decision making and leadership of the game. No say at all, nada, nil, zero, zip, zilch - ever.

Also the 16 clubs make up only 60% of the voting block and 75% is needed to get anything through. The clubs will receive their grants after the state bodies receive theirs.

For example, if a commissioner were to retire, Bruno Cullen could say “I wish to nominate former Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon as the new commissioner”. Bruno would then make one of the twenty six votes, 75% would be needed to get Geoff Dixon on the commission. If the vote is successful Bruno and the rest of the clubs and state bodies would then have NO say over what decisions Geoff Dixon and the other commissioners make.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So why not hand 50% of the vote to the traditional governors of the game? Remember the original News Ltd plan gave 0% to anyone other than the clubs. This 25% say to the NSWRL and QRL was only offered later on when News didn't get its way immediately. That in itself has to raise questions about its motives. With only a quarter of the vote there is no way the traditional owners will be able to get any potential commissioner near the job unless virtually all the clubs support them. The huge flaw in the argument that the commissioners will have no influence from anyone is the refusal of the architects of this proposal (notably News Ltd) to give up club majority ownership of the game. If commissioners are truly independent why are they unwilling to allow the owners of the code to maintain even a 50% stake? - something gauranteed in the 1997 agreement that even News Ltd is bound to. The motives of the people who wrote this proposal, which is far from a complete plan anyway, have to be questioned when you consider these facts and that fact they deliberately failed to include the views of the RLs when writing it. If they wanted to be open and frank and truly work towards the best and fairest solution they would not have come up with this proposal and would not have come up with it in the fashion they did.

 

[griff]

Why mention what the NRL clubs currently do or what they want? An independent commission will run the game, NOT THE NRL CLUBS.

As i posted earlier...

From what I’ve read in different forums, those opposed to the independent commission oppose it because of 2 reasons.

Firstly, that the independent commission will be run by clubs or that the clubs will have an influence in what direction the commissioners take with the game.

After the ARL & News elect the first commissioners the clubs can nominate new ones and they get one vote each. This is the only power they have. They will have no say at all in the decision making and leadership of the game. No say at all, nada, nil, zero, zip, zilch - ever.

Also the 16 clubs make up only 60% of the voting block and 75% is needed to get anything through. The clubs will receive their grants after the state bodies receive theirs.

For example, if a commissioner were to retire, Bruno Cullen could say “I wish to nominate former Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon as the new commissioner”. Bruno would then make one of the twenty six votes, 75% would be needed to get Geoff Dixon on the commission. If the vote is successful Bruno and the rest of the clubs and state bodies would then have NO say over what decisions Geoff Dixon and the other commissioners make.

Because the NRL clubs would own the game. It doesn't take too much thought to realise that if you own the game you would expect the board to operate in the interest of its owners.

It is also pretty plain that with limited input from grassroots organisations that their interests would be put into second place behind the interests of the elite clubs.

The amount of info out there on the model is minimal, but I think there are better models in which the interests of RL as a whole would be much better served. We shouldn't rush into a model in the euphoria of News Ltd exiting.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

You can make up all the assumptions and mythical scenarios you like, there is still no detaill to this proposal so not even you, the self-appointed oroacle, know what it means. All we know is that News Ltd did write it, Searle can't even run his own club never mind a whole league, and the ARL has not given it a tick because the QRL, the only truly independent board of the lot, have not backed it. Everything you say includes words like WILL. But you don't have a clue what WILL happen. It's just a weird bloke who everyone on here thinks is a fruit loop and a pain in the arse making stuff up and passing it off as undeniable fact. The most ridiculous of all being that the QRL are a just faction only interested in itself while the clubs are a great benefactor to the whole game. The QRL represents the game in that state. From under 6s in Brisbane and Townsville, Mt Isa and Roma and everywhere in between right up to the elite evel where the best players are playing Origin and for Australia. And guess what? The NSWRL do the same in NSW. Before News Ltd came along they also ran the elite club competition in Australia. That's what representation is about. The clubs are their own faction who only represent a small % of their fans or their shareholders and owners and only care about their elite interestes. A system that gives the clubs and the traditional governing bodies an equal say means every part of the game is represented, has a say and is looked after. This proposal has no balance and opens the game up to more problems down the track as a result.

wow, and the same goes for you. I guess you can spot it, because you are one too, right.

talk about blowing hot air...

The QRL's model is not an independent commission because self interested parties will be running the game.

The QRL suggestion that an IC will not look after grass roots footy is illogical. Grass roots footy, all rugby league in general, will be beter under an IC. IC's make more money for everyone.

At the moment we're speculating on something that doesn't even exist.

Well, let's look at something that does exist - The AFL independent commission.

Here's a link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission

The AFL Commission is responsible for the administration of the competition and its constitution proclaims it as the "keeper of the code", the body universally responsible for the sport of Australian Football. Since forming in 1985, the AFL Commission has become increasingly wealthy and powerful and has had control of the sport in Australia since 1993 and internationally since 2005.
There are eight members that comprise the AFL Commission who are elected by the 16 AFL clubs, with each club entitled to make nominations.

I would love rugby league to have this exact commission structure. Click on the link and have a look at who makes up the CEO, chairman and 8 commissioners. You'll find highly successful businessmen, Australian trade unionist and a judge from the Family Court of Australia.

These commissioners negotiated an excellent TV broadcast deal, have spent huge sums on junior development, and have amassed a war chest to fund expansion.

These are the type of people who will be on the NRL commission.

People, tell me one thing that is not great about this type of leadership?

Tell me why it won't work for our great game?

Have posted this link in the past. Many seem to skip over it to their detriment.

AFL has no international game so it's a pointless comparison. They don't have to do anything to promote or support international football because they don't have any. We do and the clubs have shown they can't be trusted to do the right thing by it, as evidenced by the demise of the World Sevens.

And can we forget about this "Grassroots WILL be better off... um... because... it just will be" line. It's not based on anything, just a assumption that the clubs will do the right thing by the grassroots, even though, once again, there is plenty of evidence to show they don't do a very good job now. Richardson wants to cut funding to the QRL to strong-arm them into doing what he wants. This is the kind of mentality we're up against. He wants to hurt grassroots football to get what he wants for his privately owned club. It's as obvious as you can get.

Like everyone else says, you have nothing to say it won't. But one thing we do know is that under and IC there WILL (fact, dude) be MORE funds available.

It is a perfect comparison, regardless of international footy.

People who support the QRL myths that an independent commission will starve junior development or will be run by the clubs frustrate me no end.

Please show one link or give one logical reason to show why the NRL clubs or the NSWRL or QRL will have any say in the NRL independent commission, or that an independent commission will hurt junior footy.

Just one.

Otherwise be so kind as to stop telling these blatant lies.

They frustrate me too and are completely groundless.

You're obviously a passionate supported of grass roots footy. So am I.

We are going around in circles here.

From what I’ve read in different forums, those opposed to the independent commission oppose it because of 2 reasons.

Firstly, that the independent commission will be run by clubs or that the clubs will have an influence in what direction the commissioners take with the game.

After the ARL & News elect the first commissioners the clubs can nominate new ones and they get one vote each. This is the only power they have. They will have no say at all in the decision making and leadership of the game. No say at all, nada, nil, zero, zip, zilch - ever.

Also the 16 clubs make up only 60% of the voting block and 75% is needed to get anything through. The clubs will receive their grants after the state bodies receive theirs.

For example, if a commissioner were to retire, Bruno Cullen could say “I wish to nominate former Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon as the new commissioner”. Bruno would then make one of the twenty six votes, 75% would be needed to get Geoff Dixon on the commission. If the vote is successful Bruno and the rest of the clubs and state bodies would then have NO say over what decisions Geoff Dixon and the other commissioners make.

The second reason given to oppose the independent commission is that the independent commission will starve junior development and rep footy.

As the NRL commission is not yet in place, we can make any fantastic prediction we like. However if we look at the independent commissions currently in place we get an excellent idea of how they work and what they achieve.

The AFL commission has generated huge funds and has spent big time on junior development. Why, because it should be blatantly obvious to every average Joe on the street – let alone the high achievers on the commission – that the junior level is the life blood of any sport.

There is no logical reason why the NRL commission will decide to starve junior footy and rep footy. Why would any sport do this? It would be obviously suicidal. (Remember the clubs have NO power, the 8 commissioners would have to decide to kill off junior footy and State of Origin, which of course they won’t).

There is more chance of the NRL commissioners walking into McDonalds with an AK-47 blazing away than them destroying junior and rep footy.

How the commission will be structured has already been reported in the media many times, but I do agree that there should be more transparency on the fine print. Michael Searle (not News Ltd who will be giving away all their ownership of the running of the game) is the chief architect and he’s stated that it is based on the highly effective AFL & NFL models.

I hope the fans are shown the constitution as well as the clubs and state bodies before it is put into place, if the QRL ever lets it happen.

I reckon the QRL will be taken to court.

Great points. Sit up and take notice ECT.

Your guts should be dropping to the floor so hard right now its making a hole.

Because the NRL clubs would own the game. It doesn't take too much thought to realise that if you own the game you would expect the board to operate in the interest of its owners.

It is also pretty plain that with limited input from grassroots organisations that their interests would be put into second place behind the interests of the elite clubs.

The amount of info out there on the model is minimal, but I think there are better models in which the interests of RL as a whole would be much better served. We shouldn't rush into a model in the euphoria of News Ltd exiting.

Well if you know of a better model then put it forward. To say that the grassroots is 2nd place is such a cop out. They are not running the game anymore. Thats what ECT seems to forget - those days are GONE....gone forever. Get over it.

The commissioners on the commission will run the game. And its for the best the states get only a minimal say. Their future job will be much different from what it is now.

Greater brains than yours and mine, ect, are working on this. Leave them to it. The grassroots will be fine, pal.

I hardly think that this model being put forward is an unworkable compromise. If anything its the right balance. It really defies belief that some people think their chunk of the game will be left to waste. ALL of RL is valuable so it should all be looked after.





The big thing is the word 'grassrooots'. Its such a media token term or buzz word. And it does not encompass the situation. The scope is wider than this part of the pie.

Just think of what people, free from all the sh*t will be able to do in RL. Its time to move forward.

The details bullsh*t really gets to me too. Can't people see that they have a goal to work towards, and are in a place at the moment....so if they know the goal they can nut out the details....it may be a longer process than coming up with the commission model, but by god, things will fall into place, so fear not.

Leave your pessimism and negativity at the door, the IC will be good for ALL the game.
WILL. Or you can keep going like we are.

 

[Parra]

Stop believing everything you read in the Daily Telegraph.

The pro stance seems to be "Everything will be better. Trust us".

The answer is "No".


This is the response that should be sent back to News Ltd and their commission proposal:

You can break the current deal on three conditions -

1. News put $30 million in a trust account to be used to provide a grant to the Storm over the next 5 years

2. News can bid for any media rights when they become available

3. News must leave immediately.

 

[Big-Steve]

To say that the grassroots is 2nd place is such a cop out. They are not running the game anymore. Thats what ECT seems to forget - those days are GONE....gone forever. Get over it.

And its for the best the states get only a minimal say.

The grassroots will be fine, pal.

It really defies belief that some people think their chunk of the game will be left to waste. ALL of RL is valuable so it should all be looked after.

The big thing is the word 'grassrooots'. Its such a media token term or buzz word. And it does not encompass the situation. The scope is wider than this part of the pie.

The biggest impass here is that we have a phylisophical difference of opion.

As someone who is involved in a club that is not an NRL club I have seen how when given the change NRL clubs treat other levels of league and so to see the NRL clubs looking to wrestle control from my current and ONLY represenative being the NSWRL looks a bit bleak to me.

What I believe is that the big end of town already has massive power and giving them more would be a recipe for disaster based on my experiance.

The Sporting communittee via their representatives should run the sport not the big end of town because only the sporting community really cares about the sport.

The big end of town has to consintrate on maintaining they are the big end of town but the sports itegrity has to be protected so that grass roots clubs can continue to serve the community.

Clearly News and the NRL believe they should run the sport because (as they have thrust down our throats for the last 10 or 20 years) it is big business.

But as the SL war showed RL survived because people cared about the sport first. News has only been involved in RL for 20 odd years the Community has been there since 1908.

So we may never agree!

 

[Perth Red]

Out of interest, aside from giving the NSWRL and QRL more voting %, how else would you see the concerns being answered? It seems to me it is purely a question of secured $'s, after all why would you want the NRL IC running grass roots RL on a day to day basis in any State? Surely that will remain the role of the States RFL bodies. If it is just a question of $'s it shouldn't be too hard to ringfence a % of income for State bodies to run jnr and grass roots. Then if it remains poor like today we might start blaming the likes of NSWRL old tie club instead of News Ltd?

In WA at least we will have some say as the WARL will own the NRL club and control its vote.

 

[Dogs Of War]

What they will (and currently do) neglect is grassroots open age footy. A random club from the bush staying afloat or not has no bearing at all on the NRL clubs so they dont really care. But a governing body of the game (as distinct from a governing body of the elite competition) has to care. Thats why ECT makes so much sense and why what we can tell about the IC proposal is fundamentally flawed.

As long as the NSWRL/QRL etc are funded, then wouldn't it be there responsibility to ensure those teams survive as much a possible? If you fund the game properly at the junior levels, the supply of players will be there, not to mention more people actively involved in the sport who can assist in making clubs work at those levels into the future (or don't mind sponsoring a club etc)

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Out of interest, aside from giving the NSWRL and QRL more voting %, how else would you see the concerns being answered? It seems to me it is purely a question of secured $'s, after all why would you want the NRL IC running grass roots RL on a day to day basis in any State? Surely that will remain the role of the States RFL bodies. If it is just a question of $'s it shouldn't be too hard to ringfence a % of income for State bodies to run jnr and grass roots. Then if it remains poor like today we might start blaming the likes of NSWRL old tie club instead of News Ltd?

In WA at least we will have some say as the WARL will own the NRL club and control its vote.

Of course it's not just about money.

Firstly, they need to decide what this plan actually means for the state bodies and the ARL. If the state bodies keep all their powers the IC is essentially no different to the NRL as it is now. If they do lose powers then the IC will be making decisions on the direction of any funds given to the RLs. If this happens there has to be real concerns about the agenda of the IC and its majority club ownership.

In addition to money it's about power. For example, if NRL clubs have the power to set the agenda we may never even see a Perth club. If clubs decide their best bet is to protect their piece of the pie and reject any expansion the commision they vote for is going to be under a lot of pressure to shelve any franchise plans for places like Perth. The ARL has helped the Perth bid far more than anyone else by helping the WARL get the Reds off the ground again and all the junior and senior development work there is being done by ARL officers. The NRL clubs certainly aren't falling over themselves to help Perth get a team. Even Souths playing in Perth is all about making money for that club, not pushing for Perth's own club.

So even if you somehow secure an iron-clad agreement that delivers a certain anount of money to the state bodies there is no gaurantee the commission will make the right decisions on spending it. In fact we don't even know what powers the IC and the state bodies will and will not have. An IC representing the clubs simply can't be trusted to deliver the right decision for the good of the whole game, not just the NRL clubs. We need balance in the power base of the game, not just promises of money.

 

[Paul J]

Of course it's not just about money.

Firstly, they need to decide what this plan actually means for the state bodies and the ARL. If the state bodies keep all their powers the IC is essentially no different to the NRL as it is now. If they do lose powers then the IC will be making decisions on the direction of any funds given to the RLs. If this happens there has to be real concerns about the agenda of the IC and its majority club ownership.

In addition to money it's about power. For example, if NRL clubs have the power to set the agenda we may never even see a Perth club. If clubs decide their best bet is to protect their piece of the pie and reject any expansion the commision they vote for is going to be under a lot of pressure to shelve any franchise plans for places like Perth. The ARL has helped the Perth bid far more than anyone else by helping the WARL get the Reds off the ground again and all the junior and senior development work there is being done by ARL officers. The NRL clubs certainly aren't falling over themselves to help Perth get a team. Even Souths playing in Perth is all about making money for that club, not pushing for Perth's own club.

So even if you somehow secure an iron-clad agreement that delivers a certain anount of money to the state bodies there is no gaurantee the commission will make the right decisions on spending it. In fact we don't even know what powers the IC and the state bodies will and will not have. An IC representing the clubs simply can't be trusted to deliver the right decision for the good of the whole game, not just the NRL clubs. We need balance in the power base of the game, not just promises of money.

"If the state bodies keep all their powers the IC is essentially no different to the NRL as it is now."

No different? How exactly?

"If they do lose powers then the IC will be making decisions on the direction of any funds given to the RLs."

Exactly. This is how highly successful IC's work. They generate more revenue and then decide where and how it is distributed.

"For example, if NRL clubs have the power to set the agenda..."

I have run out of ways to tell you that under the IC proposed, the clubs will have NO power.

Can you please tell me just how the clubs will have power under the IC?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

"If the state bodies keep all their powers the IC is essentially no different to the NRL as it is now."

No different? How exactly?

"If they do lose powers then the IC will be making decisions on the direction of any funds given to the RLs."

Exactly. This is how highly successful IC's work. They generate more revenue and then decide where and how it is distributed.

"For example, if NRL clubs have the power to set the agenda..."

I have run out of ways to tell you that under the IC proposed, the clubs will have NO power.

Can you please tell me just how the clubs will have power under the IC?

Because they have the electoral power of the commissioners. How hard is that to understand. If you have the power to elect and re-elect people into a position of governance then you are the one with the power. If this is not the case then why have News and the clubs drawn up a proposal ensuring their huge majority ownership? They didn't even offer this "veto power" to the RLs until well after the drew up the proposal, but not because they wanted to, because the RLs didn't bend to their will immediately.

If the commission is telling grassroots organisations how to run their business we are fecked. Some bozo in Sydney elected by a bunch of NRL clubs is not going to know or care how the game in the bush should be run. And if the state bodies remain in control of these decisions then there is effectively no change in the structure of the game at all. All the old boards will still be needed. If one of the main reasons for an IC is that "there's too many governing bodies" a proposal that retains state bodies making decisions will not achieve this. The only difference will be that instead of an NRL board at the top holding all the cash there will be a commission. They need to tell us which of these they are proposing. Are they getting rid of the state bodies, keeping them but stripping their power or keeping them and letting them retain their power? It's just another example of why this secretive, incomplete and seemingly ever-changing proposal cannot be accepted, because we don't know what the hell is being proposed.

 

[Paul J]

Because they have the electoral power of the commissioners. How hard is that to understand. If you have the power to elect and re-elect people into a position of governance then you are the one with the power. If this is not the case then why have News and the clubs drawn up a proposal ensuring their huge majority ownership? They didn't even offer this "veto power" to the RLs until well after the drew up the proposal, but not because they wanted to, because the RLs didn't bend to their will immediately.

If the commission is telling grassroots organisations how to run their business we are fecked. Some bozo in Sydney elected by a bunch of NRL clubs is not going to know or care how the game in the bush should be run. And if the state bodies remain in control of these decisions then there is effectively no change in the structure of the game at all. All the old boards will still be needed. If one of the main reasons for an IC is that "there's too many governing bodies" a proposal that retains state bodies making decisions will not achieve this. The only difference will be that instead of an NRL board at the top holding all the cash there will be a commission. They need to tell us which of these they are proposing. Are they getting rid of the state bodies, keeping them but stripping their power or keeping them and letting them retain their power? It's just another example of why this secretive, incomplete and seemingly ever-changing proposal cannot be accepted, because we don't know what the hell is being proposed.

Is this just a wind up?

This is the last time i repeat this.

"Because they have the electoral power of the commissioners. How hard is that to understand."

The clubs make up 60% of the vote, 75% is needed to successfully elect commissioners. Apart from each getting a vote for commissioners, the clubs have NO power.

"If this is not the case then why have News and the clubs drawn up a proposal ensuring their huge majority ownership?"

Michael Searle is the chief instigator for the IC, NOT news. News did NOT propose the IC. The proposed IC removes NEWS Ltd from the game. It gives the clubs no power.