An agreement has all but been reached which will see rugby league in Australia be controlled by the 16 current NRL clubs – with no effective representation from grass-roots clubs and non-Sydney regions.
The deal effectively protects the financial interests of the 16 current NRL clubs at the expense of the game of rugby league throughout Australia by controlling how profits from the national premiership are distributed and by denying the future inclusion of teams from regions such as the Central Coast, Coffs Harbour, Redcliffe, Logan and Ipswich in the national competition (not to mention any expansion outside NSW and QLD).
Assisted by non-reporting of the details by ex-player commentators and journalists, the truth about the proposed “independent commission” is that it is actually LESS independent than the current control arrangements – and rugby league players, fans and officials are being deceived by well-executed emotional appeals without being provided accurate details of what is actually being proposed.
The proposal to introduce the Independent Commission wraps several issues into one – but most importantly for the structure and future of rugby league, the proposed IC will replace both the NRL and the ARL organisations and isolate the NSWRL and QRL.
If you are not sure what this means, basically the NRL currently manages the 16-team national competition and that is all – whereas the ARL is the peak body responsible for the game of rugby league throughout Australia (under guidance from the NSWRL, QRL and other state bodies) and controls the distribution of proceeds from the game. This obviously has serious ramifications.
Many fans rightly support ‘independence’ in order to limit the power of financially self-interested groups (such as News Limited and their well-documented and self-identified conflicts of interest following the Melbourne Storm scandal). However most rugby league fans are blindly supporting the current Independent Commission proposal simply because of its title and assuming it is independent.
So what deal has been reached? While the QRL was steadfast for most of the year in order to protect the interests of its clubs (and, ironically, regional NSWRL clubs), their representatives have suddenly back-flipped allowing the takeover of rugby league to progress in the off-season – with little media coverage, if any. I note now that these ‘representatives’ are now being touted as becoming paid commissioners by the model they have now decided to support.
The QRL’s original model provided a voice for grass-roots clubs and for the interests of the game by providing a counter-balance to the all-powerful 16 current NRL clubs. The below table shows the votes allocated to each group under both the original QRL proposal and the deal that has been struck this week:
Original Current
QRL Agreement
Proposal
Current NRL Clubs (1 each) 16 16
“Independent Commissioners” * 16 8
NSWRL and QRL (combined) 16 2
TOTAL VOTES 48 26
So why would the ARL (the rugby league oversight body) agree to being disbanded and taken over by the 16 current NRL clubs – who will naturally seek to retain the profits of the game and prevent expansion beyond the current clubs? This is a good question and perhaps could be answered by the ARL CEO, Geoff Carr, or perhaps the Sydney-based NSWRL CEO, Geoff Carr.
Hang on – how can Geoff Carr be independent if he holds two positions that do not have the same objectives? Alternatively, you could ask the ARL Chairman, Colin Love, or the Sydney-based NSWRL Chairman, Colin Love. Everyone should note this conflict of interest when reviewing any proposal put forward by these non-independent personalities – especially when these Sydney-based appointments are at odds with the rugby leagues of other regions.
Importantly, rugby league fans may want to find out how the “independent commissioners” in the new structure will be appointed. Under the current agreement, the original members will be decided by the current ARL and News Limited board members – and subsequent appointments will be decided by those independent commissioners being replaced. That is, the commissioners that will be selected by non-independent parties will self-select all future commissioners. How is this independent?
The truth is that the only currently independent parties – that is, those representing the best interests for rugby league in Australia – are the QRL, the NSWCRL as well as the rugby leagues of the other states as these bodies represent the grass-roots of the game (not the NSWRL due to the obvious and disgraceful bias of the current board’s incumbents). While both proposals are not independent of self-interested clubs and do not give full ownership to “the people”, the QRL’s original proposal best serves all clubs of Australia and the game of rugby league and its future. Conversely the current agreement reached only serves the interests of only 16 clubs (predominantly Sydney-based) at the expense of all other clubs throughout Australia and at the expense of the game of rugby league.
It has been fortunate that the QRL has had the strength and resolve to ensure the interests of rugby league beyond the interests of the 16 current NRL clubs. However it appears that this resolve has recently been influenced by unknown parties. It is important that all players, fans and club and regional officials throughout Australia become more knowledgeable on the details of the so-called “Independent Commission” proposal; and more active in their own resolve to protect the interests of their clubs, their regions and their game.
What can you do?
Forward this email to those who are passionate about rugby league.
Individuals can email or write to your local MP highlighting your concern that the rugby league Independent Commission may reduce support to your local club and negatively impact your local community. Your MP’s contact details can be found at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf
Individuals can email, write to or phone your local radio station to highlight the lack of detail being provided by any source on the Independent Commission (note that ex-player feedback columns may not publish articles supporting regional representation). If you don’t know the contact details for your regional media, google them now! Club and league officials throughout Australia should seek official clarification from their regional and state-level league headquarters – and they should provide this feedback back to all players and members in their clubs.
Club and league officials, irrespective of what level competition they represent, should protest any proposal that seeks to consolidate control of rugby league to the NRL clubs which will minimise the distribution of profits among all clubs and regions. They should be encouraged to stay and fight – and not be bullied into resigning their position. They are representatives of the grass-roots regions and therefore the game of rugby league.
All players, fans and officials should become informed of this issue. While the details are largely being misrepresented by ex-players in the media, the changes planned for the off-season should be monitored in rugby league and sports media in the coming months to ensure any mandatory disclosure does not sneak through unchallenged.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Today they have been given part ownership in the new company. You have been conned by the phrase "Independent Commission".
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Not just a vote - 16 out of 26 votes. I totally agree - NRL clubs should have absolutely no voting rights whatsoever. The Independent Commission is a scam and a snowjob on the fans and supporters of regional rugby league. PS. Tell your friends. Write it on Facebook. Spam the world so people can finally know what is being done.
John
Guest
Please tell me that the 16 NRL clubs are not part of the commission. The NRL clubs should have no voting rights nor any voice outside of being consulted by the commision or as requied/needed.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
... any model that allows clubs - whose officials are paid to look after only the clubs' interests - to vote on any matter impacting on rugby league throughout Australia is a flawed model. Only the ARL, NSWRL and QRL should select the executives who will manage the game. The clubs will concentrate on ensuring their own success - not that of Dubbo juniors or anywhere else. The Independent Commission model is wrong - and should be rejected by anyone who loves the game more than a club.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Hooray, Whites! While your heart can't quite accept it just yet, your brain has finally realised the truth about the Independent Commission - that it is not independent. The 8 independent commissioners only have 8 out of 26 votes. What's worse is that the QRL and NSWRL only get 1 each even though they are the bodies responsible for the game across all regions. The clubs get 16 votes despite only being responsible for their own success. In case you don't know, the heads of the NSWRL also hold the same positions for the ARL - and they are being promised positions on the inaugural IC board if they vote for the IC. QUOTE from QRL June 2010 http://www.qrl.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=26564 Key among our [QRL] concerns is the ARL has agreed to a code restructure, which gives one vote each to the NSWRL and the QRL, providing them same membership rights as each of the 16 NRL clubs and the eight commissioners. This decision effectively means that the ARL is prepared to walk away from its 50 percent stake in the game for a share equal to less than 8 percent (the NSWRL and QRL being 2 of 26 members), while handing the NRL clubs more than 60 percent control (16 of 26 members). This position is highly advantageous to the NRL clubs who represent the game’s elite and disadvantageous to both the NSWRL and QRL who foster the game’s grassroots development and run representative programs including State of Origin. The game has many more stakeholders than the elite NRL clubs, a number of which are privately owned, and includes senior, junior and school players, parents and supporters, volunteers and referees. The QRL takes its role as a custodian of the game in Queensland seriously, and is prepared to take the strongest possible action to ensure the grassroots rugby league community is protected and represented under any new structure. UNQUOTE The independent commissioners are therefore reliant on club support for their jobs - and therefore the commissioners cannot be expected to vote independently. No no no no no I hear you say. Well I'm afraid you've fallen for the biased reporting of some ex-players obviously keen to pick up a position as a commissioner or maybe a position on a club board. Well it is actually yes yes yes yes yes.
Col the Bear
Guest
Gary if the Bears were back at NSO.. there would be no team on the CC, don't kid yourself.. look at illawarra.. they could not sustain it, and thus merged with St George. the whole idea of the Central Coast Bears is to cater for both districts.. North shore and CC.. more and more are excepting the CCBears.. and this is now growing on a regular basis.. I do the stalls for the CCBaers on the Central Coast, and so I can say first hand.. the CC are excepting the Bears..they are seeing this as their own team.. yes there are some nay sayers, but the day we get the nod, watch the memberships excel over night.. today the Bears are at Bateau bay shopping centre for another membership drive, and our calender is booked up until the rest of 2010.. we are now beginning work on our 2011 calender.. If you isolate the north shore, you loose a lot of financial support straight up and also not mention members..most of the sponsors who have come on board, are CentralCoast Bears supporters, they see the Bears as an iconic brand, which is 102 years old, and they want to be apart of that.. To have an NRL licence you have to show you can sustain it.. and i'm telling you now with the business plan coming together the CCBs will be the envy of most other clubs..just wait and see,,,
Whites
Guest
This post doesn't make sense. It will be the 8 commissioners voting on things. Please tell us where you got the idea from that the 8 commissioners plus the 16 clubs plus the NSWRL and QRL will all sit in a room together and make decisions. Why bother having commissioners if the 16 clubs plus the NSWRL and QRL also vote on everything.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
The current IC proposal (which the QRL is rejecting but the NSWRL is accepting) has 26 votes made up as follows: 16 votes from the NRL Clubs 1 vote from NSWRL 1 vote from QRL 8 votes from Independent Commissions The only vote that will be made solely by the 8 Independent Commissioners is the election of replacement commissioners - however the original commissioners are selected as part of the proposal sign-off agreement (currently being agreed by the NSWRL and the NRL clubs as being, you guessed it, the NSWRL cronies). All other votes are dominated by the NRL clubs - 16 votes to 10 votes - and this is so even if the QRL, the NSWRL and the 8 Independent Commissioners are in agreement against the clubs. The clubs dominate the votes - and this is the objection of the QRL. Thus, the current proposal doesn't give the power to the Independent Commissioners - it gives it to the 16 NRL clubs.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
How will the votes be controlled by the clubs?.the I.C. will only have themsleves voting on measures.There is no NRL club,looking over their shoulders at board meetings.if someone the likes of a don Argus involved,you think he is going to take notice of one club pushing its agenda. The clubs can protest via Gallop,about decisions that may not suit either a particular club or a few,but they don''t have the final say,the i.C.commission does in the end. We elect a govt,on platofrms,they change these when it suits to get the economy back on track.Some people are hurt,including those who vote for them,but it is supposedly for the good of the country. BTW I agree that no one from the QRL,NSWRL should be involved on the new I.C.Gallop should remain CEO.There has to be on the i.C at least one person who has played the game and is qualified enough, such as S Price.Are we therefore to assume ,he will ensure the Bulldogs, will get preference.
Gary Magpie
Guest
Yes, there have been several changes as I noted - but they all have the same flavour and stem from the same initial proposal. All variants proposed by the NRL clubs or the NSWRL start with the inaugural commissioners being the current NSWRL executives - and these cronies go on to select all future commissioners in perpetuity. The QRL wants to ensure that no official from the NSWRL, the ARL or even the QRL itself is allowed to be the an inaugural commissioner. The reason is that they want any IC make-up to be truly independent - and this should be totally acceptable to any group that truly believes in independence. But the NSWRL and ARL don't like the sounds of that! They want to keep high-paying jobs but also sign-over control of the game to 16 clubs (who, by the way, under the current structure have NO VOTE WHATSOEVER - and nor should they). The current proposal is yet anther meaningless variant of the original proposal. The 16 clubs must agree on the model - and this includes how the inaugural ICs are selected - and currently the people who will be selected are the people giving the game to the clubs. Dare I say the C word? It is ironic that google searches return pages for the Independent Commission for Corruption.
Paul J
Roar Pro
Gary That IC proposal you've quoted from the SMH has been changed a few times since then. The latest version, the one they are writting into the constition as we speak, gives the clubs no power in voting for commissioners. "Under the proposal they have agreed to, the 16 clubs, the NSWRL and the QRL would each have one of 18 votes - although they would only be able to remove commissioners, not appoint them. Instead, the eight commissioners would decide on the replacements for any departing colleagues." http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/commission-could-take-shape-next-week-20100831-14fmd.html
Gary Magpie
Guest
Although it has changed during the year, the proposals for the inaugural commission make-up are well-documented along with their origins. Sydney Morning Herald: Under the proposed model for the independent commission, the 16 clubs would elect eight independent commissioners to run the game and the ARL would be wound up. To gain appointment, a commissioner would have to win 75 per cent support from the clubs. Commissioners would be unable to sit on the board or have a role with any club or league body. However, the first commission will be appointed by News Ltd and the ARL, with ARL chairman Colin Love to be inaugural chairman of the new body for a period of one or two years. ( http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/super-league-ii-breakaway-on-agenda-20091211-kome.html ) The NSWRL hierarchy (who are exactly the same as the ARL hierarchy) want to release the control of RL (both national funding and the management of the national comp) to 16 clubs through the current proposal. Why would they want to do that? It is actually at odds with their charter to manage RL around the state and around the nation. The backroom deals for commission positions currently being promised is becoming more well-known and, soon enough, it will be exposed. The inaugural commissioners select all future commissioners so it's important we get honourable people in there first-up - not self-interested puppets. One of the QRL's current demands is that nobody who has held positions in News Ltd, the ARL, NSWRL or QRL in the past three years should be allowed to be in the inaugural commission. Why do you suppose this to be so? They have effectively prevented themselves from being on the commission. If you believe in independence, the QRL demands are fair, honourable and true to the best interests of the game. If you believe otherwise, what are your motives?
Gary Magpie
Guest
...but I'm sure the grass-root supporters of the current Central Coast teams would rather have their own identity - not that of relocated Sydney club. I bought a Centenary of RL Bears jersey for my son in 2007, not because his grandparents live on the Central Coast, but because he was born at Royal North Shore - where the Bears should be. Central Coast United should come from Central Coast clubs! And, yes, they definitely should be in the national comp!
Col the Bear
Guest
agree Paul...and so say all the Central Coast Bears supporters who want to be back in the NRL
Paul J
Roar Pro
From what i've read, the constitution that has been agreed upon has... ...the inaugural commissioners are voted in by News Ltd and the ARL (they vote in 4 each and they both have to agree with all nominations). In future, all commissioners will be voted in by the existing commissioners only. The clubs get NO say in who the inaugural or future commissioners will be, which i think most people will agree is a great thing.
Gary Magpie
Guest
The current proposed I.C. identifies how the commissioners are to be selected - and the clubs have the power (in perpetuity) for the selection of initial and subsequent commissioners.
Gary Magpie
Guest
I supprt an I.C. running Rugby League and agree with all the benefits you have written about - but it cannot be independent if the votes are controlled by the clubs. I fear the known - that people act in the interests of those who control their future. If the clubs elect the independent commissioners, the commissioners will look after the clubs' interests. As I originally wrote, the issue are being intertwined to trick the fans and public. There are benefits of independence - but there is no independence in the proposed structure.
Gary Magpie
Guest
Crosscoder, you have highlighted that the game needs an independent body to ensure that grass roots rugby league is looked after - and this will have a flow-on benefit to the elite national competition. But I agree with this - and so does the QRL. What you have failed to justify, however, is how an independent body that looks after rugby league can be controlled by 16 clubs whose boards are elected to look after their clubs alone - not look after the clydesdales, dolphins or stingrays. The clubs will ensure the profits benefit their clubs - not Dubbo and not Mt Isa. That is what their club memebers want them to do and that is what they should do. But this issue isn't about the clubs - it's about the game. The interests of the game of rugby league - not 16 rugby league clubs - can only be preserved through a national structure that is not aligned to any clubs other than representative teams. None of your response addresses this issue - you only highlight the need to look after grass roots - and you suppose that the clubs probably have some benevolence for the grass roots so they can profit in the future. If you don't want 48 votes in the IC - then cut the 16 club votes. The clubs had absoluely no vote in the past, have absolutely no vote now(other than through puppets in the NSWRL and ARL) - and the clubs shouldn't have a vote in the future .
Gary Magpie
Guest
Mushi - you are 100% correct. The clubs should look after their own interests (as they will) - and the leagues should look after the interests of the game. Good neighbours have good fences. That is why the proposed structure of the IC is so very wrong - and obviously being manipulated by individuals with interests different to the game's.
Gary Magpie
Guest
Col the Bear - if the NRL clubs have 16 votes and they select the commissioners who have another 8 votes, how does the QRL single vote and NSWRL single vote have the power to include any new teams? They don't - and why would existing Sydney clubs vote themselves out to relocate; and why would existing non-Sydney clubs want to dilute their supporter-base (eg. if Redcliffe joined, Brisbane would lose supporters).