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

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...itch-grab-for-vote-rights-20100806-11oju.html

QRL in last-ditch grab for vote rights
BRAD WALTER
August 7, 2010

QUEENSLAND officials are again pushing for themselves and the NSWRL to have eight votes each on the independent commission - the same as the 16 NRL clubs combined.

However, the move is widely viewed as a face-saving exercise as it would create a perception the QRL and NSWRL had gained additional power without actually increasing the ability of the two states to influence decisions on the new body, which is due to be operational by November 1.

According to a ''compromise'' model for the independent commission put forward by QRL directors Terry Mackenroth and Bruce Hatcher at a meeting last Friday with News Ltd legal affairs manager Ian Philip, there would now be 40 votes - eight each for the QRL and NSWRL, 16 for the NRL clubs and one each for the eight commissioners.

To effect any change to the constitution would require 75 per cent support or 30 votes - meaning the 16 clubs could not do so without the backing of at least one of the state bodies. But under the proposal already widely agreed upon by the ARL, News Ltd and representatives of the clubs, 14 of the clubs and either the NSWRL or QRL - or both - must be in agreement before any constitutional change can be effected.

Put simply, the NSWRL and QRL have the power to block any changes to the constitution by siding together - regardless of whether they have one vote each or a combined 16 votes.

While much of the focus in negotiations for the independent commission has been on voting rights for the various parties involved, they will rarely get the opportunity to use them as the clubs and leagues can only remove commissioners, and will have no formal say in electing them.

As with most publicly listed companies, the commissioners will make any new appointment to the commission.

To ensure there is widespread consultation before such decisions are made, 14 of the 26 votes - one each for the 16 clubs, NSWRL, QRL and eight commissioners - are all that is needed to sack a commissioner. Such dramatic action has occurred only once in the 25 years since an independent commission took over the running of the AFL, but those involved in the league negotiations believe Australian football's requirement for 75 per cent of the vote to remove a commissioner is open to legal challenge as under the corporations act a simple majority is all that is needed.

Clubs in the AFL, English Premier League football and US Major League Baseball are all involved in electing their commissioners but it is felt that by leaving it to the existing NRL commissioners to replace any colleagues would prevent lobbying by the various parties for candidates they believe would be sympathetic to them.

Such a move is designed to ensure the commissioners are ''truly independent'', and the ability for 14 of the 16 clubs to sack a commissioner by voting together should guarantee no appointments are made that are unacceptable to them.

The Herald has also been told that the clubs would be ''consulted'' on the appointment of the initial eight commissioners, after a meeting of club chairmen on Wednesday raised concerns that they were being handpicked by News Ltd and the ARL, which each make four nominations that can be vetoed by the other party.

The chairmen demanded the clubs have ''direct input'' into the appointment of the inaugural commissioners but the Herald was told News Ltd and the ARL would not want to install commissioners only for them to be removed by the new independent body.

The independent commission:

● News Ltd and ARL to hand over to Independent Commission on November 1

● New body comprises eight commissioners, with no ties to clubs, leagues or News Ltd for 3 years.

● Inaugaral commissioners appointed by News Ltd and ARL.

● Commissioners then to choose replacements after term expires.

● Clubs and NSWRL/QRL cannot appoint commissioners, only remove them.

● 14 of 26 votes (one each for 16 clubs, NSWRL, QRL and 8 commissioners) to sack a commissioner.

● NSWRL and QRL can block any constitutional change by voting together.

 

[The Observer]

Not many posters on this thread seem concerned about the threat to boycott of the Kangaroos and the Four Nations:

CEOs mull player boycott over commission delays
NRL stars won't rule out strike
Four Nations boycott illegal, warns Carr

Shane Richardson has been the most vocal advocate of potential strike action. Interestingly, in the latest issue of Rugby League Week, he is now subtly suggesting that players should boycott State of Origin instead, because it is the competition people take serious (not the 4N).

It begs the question: if clubs force a boycott of the Kangaroos, and especially Origin, what will prevent more players following Sonny Bill, Gower, Luke Rooney, Brad Thorn in crossing codes to either play international football or go for more money? Is this what fans want to see?

 

[m0nty]

Interesting that Masters reckons Fox Sports will only pay an extra $15m per year, while Bec Wilson said the maximum that the overall rights would rise by is $30m per year. Seems like the parties involved are dampening expectations all round.

 

[docbrown]

Interesting that Masters reckons Fox Sports will only pay an extra $15m per year, while Bec Wilson said the maximum that the overall rights would rise by is $30m per year. Seems like the parties involved are dampening expectations all round.

The FTA networks can still buy the entire rights package or split it between them and sell it back to Fox, as 7 & 10 did with the fumbleball.

How much will Fox be willing to pay then to retain 60% of its most watched programmes?

 

[R2K]

http://www.r2k.info/robertcorra.htm

IN EVERY DREAM HOME - A HEART ACHES

By Robert Corra​

Much has been written and said about the proposed Independent Commission to run the game of Rugby League in Australia and amongst the many thousands of words a few definite statements can be made. Firstly, and without a doubt, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to change the administrative structure of the game.This seems to have been strengthened by the 'whitewash' following the investigation into the Melbourne Storm salary cap rort.​

Secondly, and perhaps more worryingly, the establishment of this Independent Commission seems to be taking some time. In fact, a lot of time. Many Rugby League supporters are perhaps starting to wonder if the dream of an Independent Commission will ever become a reality.​

In any high level negotiations there are always going to be factors which lead to its success OR, conversely, lead to its failure. In this case, we have a large number of governing bodies with a large number of diverse individuals. But firstly, you have to ask the question; 'Does the game of Rugby League need to change its administrative structure?' Overwhelmingly, the answer to this question seems to be 'Yes'. The game has too many governing bodies all going off on their own tangents. We need one governing body to pull the game together and ship it off in the right direction. But this doesn't seem to be happening.​

Under the NRL, the image of the game has become somewhat tarnished and in recent times very murky as News Limited's 'conflict of interest' became embarrassingly apparent. And yet, we are told that David Gallop (CEO of the NRL) has to play some part in the Independent Commission. Why? If the same administrators are going to be part of the new structure the process seems meaningless. Its a 'new car - same driver' scenario. Perhaps David needs to be told that he's - lets say - 'damaged goods' and a new structure should be accompanied by a general clean-out. Ditto Colin Love.​

Of course, in any negotiatios of this type, people in positions of power and prestige are going to have to relinquish those positions. And, in the game of Rugby League, a nuclear bomb will be required to dismantle these concrete fortifications. Nevertheless, some administrators appear ready to make the sacrifice. BUT, there's a 'bad guy'! And with one click of a type-writer, with one blurted opinion on radio or TV, the main-stream media has set us on a course for FAILURE. The 'bad guy' we are informed is the Queensland Rugby League and identifying the 'bad guy' will have one quick result. It will get their backs up!!! And harden the stance they've taken!!! NEGOTIATIONS OVER and there have already been some petty threats to take legal action over any minor conflict that arises. Sit back and watch the gaps widen.​

The QRL has some concerns about the make-up of the Independent Commission and how much representation the QRL will have in the new structure. Sure, this is a worthwhile concern but its not the MAIN game. The main game is to get News Limited out of the games administration. Squabbles over how many people your going to have and how many they have are secondary. The main game is News Limited. And once they are removed, the games image and the supporters faith in the administration can start to be restored. It won't be an easy task as News Limited has a reputation for dictating - not negotiating.​

Along the way, various individuals have stuck their heads up to make the whole situation a little more interesting. One of those, is the former Prime Minister John Howard, who is seen by Gold Coast CEO, Michael Searle, as a possible leader of the Independent Commission. No matter what your political persuation, John Howard is viewed as a divisive character. Rugby League needs harmony - not division and perhaps Michael Searle's judgement needs to be questioned.​

Another to appear is one - John Ribot de Berseac - who has apparently gained some influence with the QRL. How this happened is perhaps a story in its own right. But John needs to realise that his Rugby league legacy has already been written. Anything after Super League is superfluous to his cause.​

The November 1st dead-line for the creation of the Independent Commission seems a long way away. For Rugby League supporters, the Independent Commission seemed like some sort of El Dorado - a hoped for dream. But unfortunately, for the game of Rugby League, in every dream home - a heart aches.​

Yours in Rugby League,​

Rob Corra​

 

[Goddo]

John Ribot de Berseac - does anyone else's blood boil when they hear this frenchmans name? Maybe thats just my English genes...

 

[In-goal]

My thoughts are that the commission wont be in place until some time next year, my issue with it is that it all seems quite rushed and without due process.

I think RL as whole, is unsure of it's future, however, the game once managed itself and look what happened! I understand that their are to many boards controlling interest in RL, however NEWS LTD don't own the game, they just have a 50% share in the NRL. This is certainly overlooked by many, in a leap of blind faith to garner a new commision.

I can't forgive the ARL and it's part in the Super League war, nor can I forgive news, but with new directors comes new bagage, and this will change the landscape forever.

Every part of the game will end up restructed from junior League in Perth to the NRL, the clubs want a competition like the AFL yet they still want their juniors, can you already see the conflicts of intrest?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

John Ribot de Berseac - does anyone else's blood boil when they hear this frenchmans name? Maybe thats just my English genes...

Absolutely.

Anyone who has given that pill a position in Rugby League post-SL needs to be hunted down. That he has been given a position at all is testament to the indifference to the game itself of the people who handed him that position.

There are too many people riding the gravy train and they won't give up their seat on it without a fight.

 

[Quidgybo]

● News Ltd and ARL to hand over to Independent Commission on November 1

● New body comprises eight commissioners, with no ties to clubs, leagues or News Ltd for 3 years.

● Inaugaral commissioners appointed by News Ltd and ARL.

● Commissioners then to choose replacements after term expires.

● Clubs and NSWRL/QRL cannot appoint commissioners, only remove them.

● 14 of 26 votes (one each for 16 clubs, NSWRL, QRL and 8 commissioners) to sack a commissioner.

● NSWRL and QRL can block any constitutional change by voting together.

Interesting evolution. Now neither the clubs or the state leagues choose replacement commissioners, the commission chooses its own. Minimum of 5 clubs needed to remove a commissioner (assuming the other 7 commissioners and the 2 state bodies are on board). Clubs voting as a block can remove a commissioner without the support of the commission or the 2 state bodies.

If the removal of a commissioner required the support of at least one commissioner or at least one state body then I think we'd be pretty close to actually having a truly independent commission. Neither clubs or state bodies appoint the commissioners, and removal could not be achieved by the clubs alone. That would seem to give the commissioners a lot of security to take hard decisions.

Leigh.

 

[axl rose]

Absolutely.

Anyone who has given that pill a position in Rugby League post-SL needs to be hunted down. That he has been given a position at all is testament to the indifference to the game itself of the people who handed him that position.

Ribot back would fit in beautifully with his old super league head lawyer Gallop. Lets get the whole gang back together. Pity Morgan, Moore & Frilingros cant be here as well. Such honesty & integrity is missed in the game.

 

[Brutus]

Do you think the new IC will improve radio rights?

Last night we had a situation where the network that were awarded sole commercial rights during Sat and Sun chose to call a match from Brookvale Oval out of an interactive studio then of course completely ignored the the two Sydney games after that - one of course involving two high profile Sydney teams still gunning for spots in the top-eight.

Let's just hope radio listeners be better off under an IC and every game is broadcast by the various networks - just like it is down in Melbourne. Stations that are willing to do the hard yards for the game should be permitted to call it.

 

[Quidgybo]

I've long thought there wasn't enough money in domestic radio rights to justify limiting access. The value is in the exposure, not the monetary return. In my (ever so humble) opinion we'd be better off giving the radio rights away cheap to ensure every match is covered and universally available via the NRL website.

Leigh.

 

[Brutus]

I've long thought there wasn't enough money in domestic radio rights to justify limiting access. The value is in the exposure, not the monetary return. In my (ever so humble) opinion we'd be better off giving the radio rights away cheap to ensure every match is covered and universally available via the NRL website.

Leigh.

One can only hope that if we get what we deserve during Tv broadcast negotiations then awarding exclusive radio rights will become a thing of the past.

Accepting chicken feed for exclusive radio rights in the past shows just how short of cash the NRL were and the tragic cost minimisation strategies that went with that.

 

[Perth Red]

Absolutely.

Anyone who has given that pill a position in Rugby League post-SL needs to be hunted down. That he has been given a position at all is testament to the indifference to the game itself of the people who handed him that position.

There are too many people riding the gravy train and they won't give up their seat on it without a fight.

we have a CEO whose hands are very much covered in blood from the SL war, and he is guaranteed to still be there after this coup. The game doesn't exactly have great integrity with who it appoints!

I see no reason why the IC shouldn't have to put the CEO's position out to general advert and lets see wo is the best candidate. If Gallop doesn't get it he can be paid out of his current contract.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I don't necessarily think its bad that Gallop is guaranteed a job after the commission is in place. I think we need a smooth transition and he has been in the job for a while. He isn't the greatest, but getting rid of him straight away wouldn't necessarily be good business. It takes a while to really feel comfortable in a job. Plus id rather have his mind on the job right now when there are broadcasting contracts going on, the comp is still running, etc, etc. I think its good to know that when the commission takes off at the end of the year, Gallop would hopefully have his mind on the job and not worrying about if he will still have one for next year. Paul Osbourne is still getting used to being CEO of Parra.

TBH, I don't mind the QRL's proposal (assuming that's exactly it in the SMH article), its a little bit more power to the state bodies then I would like but its still rather good and fair. I'm a little concerned about the commissioners choosing their replacements, I can see self interest taking hold there.

I'm also happy with the model proposed by the ARL, I'm actually happy with virtually any model but only if all parties agree to it. Different opinions are good in these situations and take the media's bias articles away, all parties seem to be pretty genuine and fair in their negotiations. The clubs are obviously desperate for the money that could be had thus their demanding, but its good in that we could have this thing going forward and a goal set for this, set by the clubs.

My biggest fear is how we could trust the commissioners, how assured can we be that they wont take advantage of the game?

 

[Perth Red]

I'd like to know where they think the multi millions in savings are going to be made? Aside from the money currenty going to News Ltd how else will savings be made?

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

The ice is starting to melt.

We'll either have a successful coup if the QRL and ARL turkey's continue to stall, or we'll have an outright war of SL proportions come the weeks after the GF.

I will hazard a guess that no club director will put their teams run to the GF in jeapordy before then, but come mid Oct, I think it will be on for young and old.

I think if the clubs threatened to start their own comp (which I doubt) the ARL would just over rule the QRL and make the deal happen. The QRL aren't in any position to argue here and the fact that the NSWRL (thus the ARL) are still willing to negotiate with them is rather generous.

 

[Perth Red]

The ARL can't totally over rule without changing their constitution which would be very difficult to do. The NRL know they have to have both the NSWRL and QRL on board for it to work.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I'd like to know where they think the multi millions in savings are going to be made? Aside from the money currenty going to News Ltd how else will savings be made?

Id imagine the money in little things that the ARL, NSWRL and QRL spend. Like copyrights of logos, use of facilities, wages paid to the staff of the governing bodies, travel costs, etc etc etc.

If Michael Searle is to be believed, each month there's $1million in savings being wasted without the commission every month. So $12million a year. So the $8million from News, you would imagine there is another $4million from the governing bodies.

 

[Quidgybo]

My biggest fear is how we could trust the commissioners, how assured can we be that they wont take advantage of the game?

Take advantage in what way? By setting their own remuneration at an excessive rate? By using their position to help their other business interests? I think ultimately these are basic human weaknesses that we risk no matter what board structure we put in place. The structure needs to inherently avoid installing commissioners with clear conflicts of interest (eg. current club or state officers) and a removal mechanism that is both hard enough to provide security of tenure while not being impossible to trigger when less obvious conflicts of interest come to light. I think most of the variations we've seen meet those aims to varying degrees. Certainly more than the current structure.

Leigh