The NRL clubs proposing the Independent Commission have attempted to gain traction for almost two years. However, it doesn’t have the backing of all the game’s stakeholders. Let’s analyse the basics of the proposal to see why.
The NRL clubs suggest that there is currently no “independence” in the structure because News Ltd controls 50 per cent of the national competition (the ARL hold the other 50 per cent).
This may be true for the national “NRL” competition, which is jointly managed by the ARL and News Ltd as a result of the Super League reunification agreement. But it is not true for the “ARL,” which is responsible for the game of Rugby League throughout Australia.
The ARL is the umbrella organisation that distributes funding throughout the regions, manages representative football, and controls the structure of Rugby League competitions. The NSWRL and QRL must both agree to any structural changes, and as these bodies are elected by the rugby league community, they are independent of corporation interference (or should be by definition).
The 16 current NRL clubs (many of which are actually companies, not clubs) currently do not have a vote in the distribution of proceeds or the structure of rugby league – and nor should they.
The board of an NRL club is elected by its club membership (or appointed by the club owners) to look after the interests of that club. They are not appointed to look after the interests of the Central Coast, Ipswich, Coffs Harbour, Redcliffe, Orange or Dubbo.
That is the job of the ARL, the NSWRL, the CRLNSW and the QRL.
The Independent Commission is a proposal created by the 16 current NRL clubs and seeks to replace not just the management of the national NRL competition, but also replace the ARL, and therefore control the distribution of all proceeds, and control the team membership of the national NRL competition.
So the group of 16 current NRL clubs – who currently have no vote in the structure of rugby league in Australia – are proposing an Independent Commission whereby they are suddenly given control of Australia-wide funding and the membership of the national competition.
To assist this, the current NSWRL board (who are the same persons holding positions on the ARL board) has agreed to vote itself out of existence – which effectively removes all representation of NSW regions and clubs that are not currently in the NRL competition.
The QRL are resisting the proposed Independent Commission.
The QRL are elected to look out for Queensland regional rugby league and that is what they are doing. They question how a national body can be “independent” if it is controlled by 16 clubs rather than non-aligned elected officials.
They question why the NSWRL would vote themselves out of existence to the detriment of regional NSW. And they question why the current NSWRL officials who are voting themselves out of existence are being offered high-paying positions on the Independent Commission board.
As Roy Masters says, you may want a republic, you may want carbon trading, and you may want an Independent Commission, but you should always reject a bad model.
And this is a bad model.
At the heart of the issue is just one question: should the funding and structure of rugby league throughout all of Australia be controlled by the 16 current NRL clubs/companies at all?
Of course, the current proposal is a total joke as it gives overall control to the clubs.
But should they have a vote in all rugby league matters at all. Or maybe just the national NRL competition? Or should they simply be the invited guests of the ARL’s competition?
What do you think?
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Crosscoder, once again you have not identified a single reason why any NRL team should have a vote on any decision made on rugby league in Australia. Just because the Titans (or any other team) invest money in some limited "development" so that they can be better off in the future does not mean they are looking out for the best interests of the game. They are a busines - a privately owned profit-focused business. You fail to realise that regional rugby league clubs (that is, the real clubs - not businesses) spend 100% of their time on development. The regional clubs, the divisional leagues and upwards to the league bodies are the game. The Titans and other NRL clubs are just businesses - and most of the Sydney ones are bad business which still can't turn a profit. The clubs are not going to spend money on the heart and soul of rugby league - the regional areas. The Independent Commission is a scam and a snowjob on all rugby league fans and officials.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Yet the very same people who criticise the I.C as it currently stands,are the very same people who bag the NSWRL(due to their perceived or otherwise inadequacies) and now want them to have 8 votes ,on an unwieldy 40 vote/commissioners. Give me a break,getting consensus with 40 ,with differing interests,you need 8 poeple with business and sporting nous to make the hard decisions. The very same Titans that you dismiss as companies ,spend a lot of money and time in development work in SEQ amd Nth NSW.Comapnies are out to maximise income,and the way they do this is increase the number of consumers(fans/players),so they become committed to the RL cause. There are even people on the QRL who agree with the current model.Don't get me started on Ribot. I repeat the ARL development is centred at the new headquarters of the game where the I.C. sits,and to suggest the game will somehow neglect development from Perth to Byron Bay,from Melbourne to Cape York is nonsense.In Vic a non rl state, there are now 9 D/Os I can imagine the ARLD mob, thinking; lets ignore Qld regional areas and give open slather to other codes,already sniffing around.Who pays the D/Os that frequent NQLD and Regional Qld? If the game secures more funding(and a centralised management saves a lot),then development as a consequence will secure more funding,more development officers. That is the reality.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
These are all meaningless additions from the past 12 months. The QRL raised appropriate concerns - the clubs do not own the game, the ARL (and by formation QRL and NSWRL) does. They added the clause that NSWRL and QRL can side together to block; but this is hardly a safeguard when the QRL (and maybe NQ) are the only bodies looking out for regional QLD and even Brisbane and Gold Coast development (Broncos and Titans are not "club" clubs, they are companies). They added the clause that the 16 club and QRL/NSWRL votes can remove commissioners but not select them - but they can keep being removed until one is acceptable to the clubs and leagues. Therefore the clubs DO have a say in the commissioners - in fact they have a 14 to 2 majority over the leagues to veto commissioners. The QRL put forward a compromise - 16 votes clubs, 8 votes QRL, 8 votes NSWRL, 8 votes commissioners - but the clubs and NSWRL cronies won't accept this. Why not? The excuse that there is too many people is stupid - the clubs want the power and all the clauses they submit ensure they retain the majority vote over the leagues. It is wrong. The NSWRL supporting it is worse than wrong. That, my friends, is the bottom line.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
SQUAWK !!!
Paul J
Guest
This is the latest I’ve read on constitutional change: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/constitution-drawn-up-for-leagues-new-body-20100902-14rqx.html As a safeguard for the game's grassroots, any constitutional change will require the support of 14 of the 16 clubs and either the NSWRL or QRL, or both – giving the NSWRL and QRL a blocking vote by siding together. This is the latest I’ve read on changes to the Commissioners: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/commission-could-take-shape-next-week-20100831-14fmd.html • “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.”
Paul J
Guest
"If the clubs end up with a majorityvote (16 out of 26), " What is this to vote on?
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Paul, it isn't a matter of 'which' clubs will benefit, it is a matter of which bodies are responsible for the prosperity of the game of rugby league in Australia (answer is ARL, NSWRL, QRL etc) and which bodies are responsible for the prosperity of their own club (all club executives are employed or elected to solely look after the interests of their clubs). If the clubs end up with a majorityvote (16 out of 26), their influence will be so great that funding to regional RL will decrease to feed the ever-growing appetite of the 16 NRL clubs. The future restructuring of both the NRL competition (to cater for expansion in order to make it a truly national competition) and other RL-wide issues (eg. the keeping of rep teams as the pinacle of the sport) can become influenced by what is best for the clubs' prospects in the NRL comp. I love rugby league more than any single club. I realise others hold their club more dear than the game, and good for them. But in any rational discussion, it must be acknowledged that those paid to look after the interests of a club should not be expected to look out for regional development. Therefore, nobody who represents a single club should have any vote on a national body.
Paul J
Guest
Gary Magpie Out of interest, which NRL clubs do you think will benefit the most if the IC is club controlled?
AdamD
Guest
Souths Magpies Forever!!!!!!!!
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
There is no need for a new model - but the present model needs to be more open and elected positions be held more accountable for their decisions. The NSWRL currently has an ineffective hierarchy that doesn't look out for the state's development - and the CRL hasn't held them to account either despite it being the regions that are the losers out of the Independent Commission proposal. That is, the CRL are equally to blame for the poor performance of the NSWRL because the CRL executives have not carried out their fiduciary duties and obligations of their appointments. No regional RL body should be supporting a model that relinquishes control of RL financing from regional, state and national league bodies to a group of 16 NRL clubs. I would suggest that CRL officials could be legally liable if they are held to account by the regional divisions and regional clubs they were elected to represent.
Mushi
Guest
So by that reasoning we do not have a democratic govnerment rather one that is independent from the democractic process.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
How can people on the commission push individual club agendas,when they come from a broad range of backgrounds, and are supposedly people of the highest business or sporting background integrity and their remit is to advance the game. I understand that one NSWRL/ARL honcho will be retiring anyway,another NRL exec of the old school is planning to go into politics(and I believe he will be successful).that is two from off my head.No names, no packdrill. We are again jumping the starter's pistol.
Stu
Guest
Just reading through this forum is reason enough as to why the IC won't work. People will always push their Own agendas. Also, are we expecting the people the ARL and the NRL to step down from their current positions and new ones arise as part of the IC? Don't be silly, the same people will be there with new titles on their email signatures. These guys wont talk themselves out their job, they're too bust justifying their position as it is. That's why no actual work is being done. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
I bought my son a Bears jersey for when he turns 18. I want the Central Coast to be represented in the national comp. But this thread started by asking why the 16 NRL clubs should have any vote in the IC. The clubs exist to look after themselves - and they will. The league bodies exist to look after the game - but they aren't (except QRL - event the CRL have sold out and are not meeting their fudiciary duties). The current IC model is wrong. It is a proposition for the clubs, from the clubs and by the clubs - many of which are privately owned. I say yes to an overhaul of management and to remove News Ltd. But I say no to 16 self-serving clubs gaining a majority vote at all.
Col the Bear
Guest
what are you talking about you got the last round of expansion in the gold coast being admitted..6 sydney teams had to merge at the end of the SL war..you lost crushers who were around for 3 seasons, and you lost the gold coast there for 10seasons then readmitted.western reds who were lost; there for 3 seasons..adelaide who were there for 3 seasons.. Hunter there for 1 season..so in total the loss of years for those clubs..20years the loss of the 6 arl clubs that had to merge. Illawarra..16 years. Balmain..92 years westernsuburb 92 years st george.. 77 years. Manly..53 years.. but reinstated after 3 years.. Bears... 92 years and still counting... yes mate it was very equatable what they did to the NSW RL teams...
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Yeah - I already acknowledged that. But both leagues registered in 1908. QLD had political issues and didn't start the comp until 1909.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Paul J, the "3 year ineligibility" rule is a proposal from the QRL that the clubs and the NSWRL execs are disputing. The QRL have 'probably' put that clause in because the NSWRL and ARL are less likely to sign away rugby league if those signatories can't be life-members of the commission. Self interest...
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Ahh yes - the first Kangaroos wore a uniform of sky blue and maroon - in recognition of both states. It's a shame Sydneysiders can't remember that these days...
Col the Bear
Guest
Oh and if you want to start throwing names around Gazza, the 1st captain of the kangaroos.. Dinny Lutge. was a north sydney porduct from the shoreman.....yes reps would flow until the wee hours.. but alot of Qld rep players have played for the Bears over the years as well, just the 90s for example.. in Gary Larson, Billy Moore, Peter Jackson,Martin Bella.. to name a few..
Col the Bear
Guest
we actually have remained North sydney since 1908..and still play as North sydney in the NSW cup.. the reserve grade to the NRL..don't let me start on our heritage, as i'll be over and into the next page... The Bears first mooted the idea to relocate to the Central Coast in 1991.. the Bears members agreed to change their name to the Central Coast Bears in 1997 and registered the name,, the only thing that stopped the CCBears not being in this competition since 1999 is due to the fact our stadium wasn't finished at Gosford due to the weather..for the 2000 season.. In 2001 the Bears members voted again to call ourselves Central Coast Bears once we are finally on the CC playing out of the Bear den at gosford.. Central Coast Bears constitution has already been written up.. staff already relocated to erina, our office and base are up and running on the Central Coast and have been since early 2009..directors already allocated.. CEO already allocated, Inaugral Coach already allocated. players ?? Now it's time to rectify that wrong...