Originally I was dubious as to whether or not our former Prime Minister would want to chair the independent commission of the NRL. Whilst he is a sports fan, it seemed to me like a no-win outcome for a former Prime Minister.
If it went well, Searle would get the credit. If it went badly, then Howard would get the blame.
But never did I think that the NRL clubs would openly campaign to reject having the former Prime Minister chair such a committee at the behest of a Labor minister.
By way of background, I am one of the few who actually has little problem with New Limited being involved in the game. I think we casually discard the fact that they have invested a substantial amount of money into the game and continue to support clubs with marginal commercial prospects.
Despite my lack of objections, the independent commission still made sense from a conflict of interest point of view. One of the biggest things with conflict of interest is making sure other stakeholders see that you take it seriously.
Now, given that a large part of what this commission will achieve is the perception of fairness, does it not serve us well to have as visible chairman as possible?
It beggars belief that clubs would openly campaign against a former leader of the country as the chair person simply because of his political alignment.
This move can only be one of two things: an admission that our game is in such dire straits that a man who has run a country will not have the necessary experience to chair a committee to guide the code through its current vein of strife, or a neon sign that the game is held hostage to the political alignment of clubs and that the next election is seen as more important than the future of the game.
Sadly, I fear it is the latter rather than the former.
I say this as a person who is definitely not a fan of John Howard’s time as Prime Minister but understands that the commission needs a high profile chairman and, given Jennifer Hawkins is busy hawking Myer shares, who else available has a higher profile than the former Prime Minister?
What makes this more outrageous is that we are willing to still consider him for a seat on the committee. This means that the clubs recognise he has the ability to contribute but are unwilling to provide what they see as free kick to the liberal party.
Shouldn’t the game be more important?
Sport is supposed to be an escape from the every day struggle of life’s myriad of trials: the mortgage, the political alignment, the weekday grind are supposed to be forgotten as the whistle blows and the boot meets the ball for kick off.
If we, as fans, allow this to happen, we are not just condoning but outright endorsing the use of our game as a political pawn. And if we do that, then we may as well blow full time on the concept of sport.
mushi
Roar Guru
It is not a crime in to make money on your investment, many believe it may actually be the whole point.
Dan Wighton
Roar Guru
I think the issue is not so much related to party politics as it relates to John Howard's standing within the game. Rugby league, more so than any other sport in Australia, is synonymous with the working class - Howard does not represent this at all. I think thats where the majority of the objection comes from. Having said that, maybe the appointment is a positive move that will result in people being less willing to stereotype league as a 'working class game'....but this is unlikely. I agree with CrossCoder - JH is a very divisive character and the game doesnt need that right now.
Dan Wighton
Roar Guru
Haha thats hilarious. You'll convert 50% of the population in no time.
Crosscoder
Guest
The last people you want involved in heading a NRL commission are former PMs no matter how qualified of either persuasion.Approx 1/2 of the rl fan base will be upset,the other half thrilled.No more division plaaaaese.The Sl war did enough of that. There are plenty of qualified/ eminent people out there, who have either have a strong or passing interest in the game.One example is the bouncing, effervescent former governor of the Reservge Bank:Bernie Fraser. Even look within the code.Todd Greenburg is one example of what can be done with a club,imagine his input in a power position within the control of the game. Of course you could be really daring,and poach John O'Neill >he could do with a little entertainment right now.
Tom Alexander.
Guest
It could be worse, they could've asked Mark Latham to chair. Now that would throw a cat amongst the pigeons. Atleast with News Limited Rugby League has access and exposure to the worlds media that it never had before. If people think that the ARL under Colin Love are any better, they should've read the SMH article highlighting the 2 million dollar worth of payments he made to both himself and his daughter via his legal firm while also collecting directors fees in what was supposed to be effectively an honourary role. A complete outrage that has never been adressed. And he seriously wants the chairmanship (to go with the other 3) of this new body. Rugby League in Australia have some issues around accountability amongst other things, that seriously need addressing in the coming months.
macavity
Guest
if ms ellis is reading, according to my wife this is the difference: league: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GIchwvJ-aNk/SXpOJNAK7ZI/AAAAAAAAFNU/lXOW6n1A6ug/s400/Australian+Matt+Cooper+Gods+of+football.JPG union: http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/02/dunning.jpg
macavity
Guest
to what "investment" in the game from News Ltd do you refer? they pizzed hundreds of millions away attempting a hostile takeover, nearly broke the game, set it back 2 decades and took what they wanted (broadcast rights) for a pittance.... and are now skimming 8mil a year from the meagre profits the game makes in order to pay for their "investment". there was never any "investment" in league. There was an investment in establishing foxtel (which is all superleague was ever about) - which the game is now paying to them. talk about double dipping - i wish someone would pay me for my efforts setting up a pay tv money printing machine. i cant believe anyone still buys this myth that News Ltd made an "investment" in league.
Robbo
Guest
If you are Searle who are you honestly going to take more seriously - John Howard or Anthony Albanese? In my opinion a minister putting pressure on an organisation not to appoint someone is borderline corruption.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
It's merely a follow up on macavity's observation. No need to analyse the comment too deeply!! Ms Ellis is no different to the majority of Southerners on that score.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
What? Kate Ellis? Who famously didn't know that their were 2 Rugby's being played in Australia.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Failing that - what about our Sports Minister. She's of the right political hue - she's brainy - and she is an absolute spunk!!
Pippinu
Roar Guru
+1
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
Mushi, I have to ask you when you say you don't object to News Ltd involvement in the game. Do you not think we get ripped off in the market due to the conflict of interest they possess? As for the article, politicians are always going to be a bit divisive. I thought Howard would be a great choice, but if it is going to cause these sorts of problems, then we are better off going a different direction. Really we just need to get this thing up and running ASAP.
macavity
Guest
vote 1: Jen Hawkins. Howard is divisive - Hawkins will unite the nation.
Mick from Giralang
Guest
Mushi: I don't think the door is closed on Howard just yet. A lot of this was simply Albanese wanting to take a pot shot at a former foe. Like you, I was no fan of Howard the politican but I can appreciate the organisational skills, contacts and downright ruthlessness he would bring to the table. But more importantly, your suggestion of Jennifer Hawkins is brilliant (based of course only on her footballing brain. She was after all a Newcastle Knights cheerleader!!!)