On the Nine Network’s coverage of the opening NRL game of 2012, Phil Gould introduced the season as a pivotal moment for rugby league, as the NRL Commission takes control of the game.
Phil Gould again restated the commission as “independent” – the claim could not be further from the truth.
As the new boss of the Penrith Panthers, Phil Gould now has the same degree of control of the game in the voting structure of the NRL Commission as the NSWRL or the QRL despite these league bodies representing the other thousands of clubs.
The Independent Commission has stolen the game from the grass roots and given control to the 16 NRL clubs, with Gould a direct beneficiary. With just 14 clubs being able to remove any given commissioner irrespective of the views of the NSWRL and QRL, independence is not a term that describes the ARL Commission in its current form.
Gould’s erroneous claims show that intention of presenting the reality of the situation to the public on Channel 9.
The fact that the individual commissioners can be removed by the votes of just 14 NRL clubs is surely not lost on the new shepherds of the game. As reported in the Telegraph, Gould has wasted no time pressuring individual Commissioners for more support for the Panthers under the guise of protecting Sydney’s heartland from the AFL. (link: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/NRL/panthers-may-be-dead-in-10-years/story-e6frexnr-1226274646552)
Phil Gould has proven himself to be a master manipulator. He is presented by Channel 9 as an expert commentator of the game’s status. In western Sydney, he is regarded a guardian of rugby league.
The truth is, however, that he has hidden the deficiencies of the NRL Commission’s structure from the public while benefitting from its introduction.
He continues this campaign of misinformation as a commentator in 2012, with absolutely no disclosure that his position with the Panthers could make his commentary on the ‘independence’ of the NRL Commission a conflict-of-interest. This is a blatant sign of his contempt for the public.
Channel 9, also, must be wary of this situation – especially if any legal challenge to the NRL Commission’s voting structure is pursued.
No no no no no, Mr Gould.
Pete75
Guest
It's clear that you've drawn a line that connects Gould, the IC and the downfall of RL in general. None of the connections have been made very clear.... Gary, tell me, please tell me, as General Manager of Operations of the Panthers (not the CEO as you state), and having no official seat or role on or with the IC, how exactly is Gus Gould going to influence the IC for the exclusive benefit of the Panthers? How is he going to knock down the stadiums and kick out Brisbane and Melbourne? ?????
Pete75
Guest
Gary, "The NRLC doesn’t just replace the NRL – it also replaces the ARL, of which only the NSWRL and QRL were voting parties. You are confused on this point" No. I understand it perfectly. The QRL and NSWRL were shareholders in the ARL, which in turn was a 50% shareholder in the NRL. This meant that their shareholding in the NRL was valued at about two squirts of squid piss. The clubs develop the game in their own districts and the NSWRL and the QRL run the respective competitions in their states with income coming from, among other sources, grants from the NRL. Under the new system they, as you acknowledge, now have direct voting. "You boofheads continue to believe that it is the 16 NRL clubs that make all the revenues for rugby league – but they do not. It is the competition itself that makes the money for the clubs and for the game itself. Just ask the accountants from the Newtown Jets or North Sydney Bears. The clubs that make up the NRL benefit from their inclusion – the success of the NRL is not reliant on any of the clubs – Brisbane, Melbourne, Parra or Penrith" Ad hominem aside, nobody said that the "16 clubs" make all of the money. But they do make the very large majority of it. It's a fantasy to believe that it's the competition that makes the money - that's garbage. It is the clubs who invest the money to enter that allows the competition to exist. You see Gary, the competition cannot exist without the clubs, whereas the clubs would be perfectly capable of setting up their own competition if necessary. "I love the game of rugby league. As you don’t understand why the QRL (or NSWRL by the same logic) should be involved at all, it is evident that you love your club more than the game – or maybe just the television coverage" I don't doubt you love RL Gary, that's never been in question. I personally have invested many, many hours into junior rugby league - for no pay. I'd appreciate it if you didn't question my love for the game. M'kay? "The league bodies are the entities that have grown and nurtured the game.... As voted representatives of the thousands of rugby league clubs and with their sole purpose being the health of rugby league, they are exactly the stakeholders you want to control the game." They will continue to have the right to control that part of the game that they have constitutional control over - rugby league development and representative fixtures. Nothing has changed Gary. See, I think that this is where YOU misunderstand Gary. There is nothing in the charter of the NSWRL, QRL or ARL that states that they are responsible for running the NRL. They chose to invest in that competition. Nor is there anything in the charter of the NRL that states that the NSWRL, QRL, ARL, NTRL or WARL or the St. Clair Comets have a controlling interest in the game. Times have moved on Gary, it's time you moved with them.
Paul
Guest
I am so sick of all the politics in sport. I for one whilst i cant help reading about the game am determined to enjoy the season with out paying attention to all the nay sayers. I mean really, does it matter who controls the game? There will always be an accusaton of an alternate agenda, Gary Magpie may just have an agenda becuase the magpies are no longer in the comp or are being pushed out of the joint venture with the tigers. I for one want the game to expand but i dont want any other clubs to fold or relocate unless they choose to and so if the current clubs and any new clubs have control of the game why isnt that good. Im pretty sure if you look into it not much funding flows through to the grass roots from any major body in any major code. It is left to the Dads to coach and the mums to run the canteen and volunteers to help raise revenue through raffles and local sponsors of junior teams.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Garry You make too many assumptions about the clubs and commission,and a the kickoff has only just started on the admin side.If you have any current evidence what the i.C has done so far is detrimental to the game in general.back it up,spell it out. if you wish to hearken back to the bad ole days when administrators like Gallop,Arko etc had to have many ears available to attend to the needs of the many RLs ,with their whinings,agendas and working at cross purposes,then let's revert to the neanderthal times. I am sorry champ,but you are "sounding " like Rebecca Wilson with conspiracy theories at every bend in rugby league road to greatness.
peeeko
Roar Guru
What rubbish, "get rid of Brisbane, nz and Melbourne etc" . When did Gus say this?
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I take a bit of interest in sports administration generally, what works, what doesn't, etc. I don't know enough about the NRL commission to argue whether it will work or not, although I have heard this claim before that the clubs have retained far too much control. Does anyone out there know how that is different from the AFL Commisssion? (I'm embarassed to say that I have no idea what power the clubs have to appoint Commissioners,etc) - I'm just curious as to what differences might exist - if any.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
It'll have to wait another week... but I guarantee it won't be another lame article on how we can run a 20-team competition and whether Perth should come in next rather than Rocky or CC Bears. The dork with the glasses is correct - this is the most significant season of rugby league in decades. Yet, even on a dedicated rugby league forum, the significance is sadly missed by most. Despite all the rhetoric, most people can't even identify what decisions will be different under the Commission structure.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Hmm, maybe you should pay more attention when the commentators discuss the growth of the game outside of Sydney. Gould's ideal outcome would be to get rid of Brisbane, Melbourne and NZ, knock down the stadiums and build grassy "hills" around the grounds and just play on Sundays at lunch time. Hardly a promoter of growth...
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Please explain the decisions of the dinosaurs that you disagree with. Don't just use anecdotes - actually tell me the decisions you don't like. The Commission can be worse: 1. It can give an even greater percentage of NRL money to the 16 Clubs that have the privilige of playing in it - at the expense of the grassroots and regions. 2. It can delay, if not outright prevent, expansion of the NRL competition to other areas such as Perth; or improve representation in areas such as Brisbane or the Central Coast. Being at the mercy of the votes of the current clubs will have its impacts.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
The NRL Club mouths will just grow more hungry. The NRL Commission does not need to feed other mouths as a priority - only the 16 NRL Clubs can remove the commissioners!
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Not to mention the QRL's State-of-Origin team.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
You're wrong mate - you're just wrong. The NRLC doesn't just replace the NRL - it also replaces the ARL, of which only the NSWRL and QRL were voting parties. You are confused on this point. Yes, the NRL ran the national premiership - and the ARL held 50% of the NRL with News Ltd the other 50%. The ARL ensured that a share of the proceeds of the national premiership were distributed to the regions for the good of the game. You boofheads continue to believe that it is the 16 NRL clubs that make all the revenues for rugby league - but they do not. It is the competition itself that makes the money for the clubs and for the game itself. Just ask the accountants from the Newtown Jets or North Sydney Bears. The clubs that make up the NRL benefit from their inclusion - the success of the NRL is not reliant on any of the clubs - Brisbane, Melbourne, Parra or Penrith. I love the game of rugby league. As you don't understand why the QRL (or NSWRL by the same logic) should be involved at all, it is evident that you love your club more than the game - or maybe just the television coverage. The league bodies are the entities that have grown and nurtured the game. They were the only such entity prior to superleague, and they have been the balancing force since - until now. As voted representatives of the thousands of rugby league clubs and with their sole purpose being the health of rugby league, they are exactly the stakeholders you want to control the game. Your logic is logical - but only if your priority is to grow individual clubs at the expense of the other thousands, and of the game itself.
Pete75
Guest
"The QRL resisted the NRL Commission for a year" The question should probably be asked why the QRL are involved in the IC at all, quite frankly. They sought through the entire process to gain influence in areas that had nothing to do with them. "but because they wanted to ensure that the NSWRL and QRL maintained the majority vote for the removal of commissioners. Such a structure would have empowered the zones and regions through elected reps (thousands of clubs) rather than just the big city clubs" Why should they have that right? The QRL don't supply a team to the competition. In fact, I'm not sure what they supply at all to the NRL. You seem to be confusing the NRL, which is a rugby league competition, with the administration of the game itself. The QRL are a part of the IC as partners in the administration of the game, not the NRL competition. That's an important distinction. The QRL and Ross Livermore went thundering about, demanding more say in the running of the NRL when, in fact, they have nothing to do with that competition. The QRL demanded power well in excess of anything they contribute to the game. In the end, they signed aboard to the IC because, frankly, they need the IC more than the IC needs them. Essentially the QRL's position would have handed power of the game to the "thousands" of clubs you mention and reduced the power of the organisations responsible for the vast majority of the game's revenue - NRL clubs. In doing that, power would have been handed directly to the QRL. How could you argue that the game would have somehow been "more independent" in doing so? Surely you can see how that logic fails?
Pete75
Guest
"He is a paid CEO of a club, not a free commentator of the game" Cadswallop! Gould is not a "paid CEO". Phil Gould's position at the Panthers is General Manager of Operations. Phil Gold does not have a seat on the independent commission as a club representative.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Gaz Well I will spell my considered (despite them being under moderation) thoughts out in detail.. The i.C's aim eventually is to cover the increased salary cap of the clubs .They are not going to throw money willy nilly at them,when they have other mouths to feed. The clubs will be more than happy to have a grant from admin,that covers their salary cap,which it doesn't do so at present. They have never been responsible for the rest of the state or country ,that falls under the control of the ARL/NSWR/CRL and QRLAll now involved either under or in close touch with League central at Moore Park. The clubs have on occasions by trials ,kit assistance and in some cases funds assisted these areas. Lets assume the code secures the magic $1b($200m pa),leaving aside spponsorship ,and other income sources(eg SOO profits).Should the code expand to 18 clubs,the clubs could receive up to one report had it $7m x18=$126m. That leaves $74plus million for admin ,grassroots.A figure close to the current $83m pa from the current Tv deal (not incl SkyNZ) which covers grants to all 16 clubs,admin,and grassroots development.No wonder the code is financially stretchjed under the current setup. Provided the clubs have their cap covered ,they are in no position to complain.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
I disagree, Crosscoder. Keeping more of the NRL profits for the 16 clubs does benefit the 16 clubs - directly and financially. While they may put money into their own junior clubs - they're not responsible for the rest of the state or the country.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
Many posts justify the NRL Commission because of the failure of some of the former league bodies. You could have a Commission structure that both (a) allowed successful businessmen to make the decisions and (b) prevented control of the commissioners by the clubs (ie. because the clubs are paid to look after themselves only). The QRL resisted the NRL Commission for a year - not because they didn't accept a commission structure - but because they wanted to ensure that the NSWRL and QRL maintained the majority vote for the removal of commissioners. Such a structure would have empowered the zones and regions through elected reps (thousands of clubs) rather than just the big city clubs. Such a relationship would have allowed decisions to be made to consolidate existing clubs for expansion or prevented too much of the premiership profits from going to the 16 clubs. Any structure that allows the interests of the game to be subordinate to the interests of clubs is not independent. So, please, discuss the merits of the voting structure and power relationships of the NRL Commission - as this is the core issue.
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
The Telegraph wasn't very harsh on Gould at all in that article (have a read). I was a bit harsh, though it isn't undeserved. The NRL Commission has been justified by the poor administration of the game by the NSWRL, QRL and, by association, the ARL. And following the departure of the last real rugby league steward, Ken Arthurson, there hasn't been any progressive thought on expansion nor any well-structured plan for development of the grassroots. That said, I should acknowedge that the leagues have made some good decisions such as the expansion of the QRL to be more representative of the state over the past decade (from Brisbane centric to truly a statewide competition). But I would agree, the league bodies have not been as effective as a group of successful businessmen and women probably could be. It is not merely my view of the stucture - it is the structure of the NRL Commission that gives just 14 of 16 NRL clubs the ability to remove a commissioner. I AM NOT AGAINST THE FORMATION OF A COMMISSION STRUCTURE - I AM AGAINST THE STRUCTURE OF THIS COMMISSION. I expect that the 16 NRL club CEOs will vote to ensure the interests of their club are met - and I don't blame them one bit for doing their duty to look after their own clubs. That is their job and they have a legal and moral duty to do so, even if that means removing a commissioner who wants to redistribute funds to poor regions or consolidate Sydney clubs to expand the comp. Merging Sharks and Roosters, for example, is not a good outcome for either club if they can remain viable independently - and their CEOs should protect their club's interests by whatever means necessary if any commissioner suggests the merger. Phil Gould has a legal and moral duty to argue and bargain for the best outcome for the Panthers - not for rugby league - and this obligation extends to any public statements made by him while he is the CEO. This is why his comments regarding the 'independence' of the NRL Commision are a conflict of interest. The belief of large portions of the public that he is voicing an unrestrained view or that he is somehow a guardian of the game are misplaced. He is a paid CEO of a club, not a free commentator of the game. The NRL Commission is not an independent commission - its commissioners are at the mercy of the club vote.
Whites
Guest
I can't wait to see what Gary Magpie's next article will be about.
Boomshanka
Guest
Interesting to see the opening Super 15 rugby union match in New Zealand last week achieved a crowd of 30,000 after much World Cup hype and a top match up between Auckland and the Crusaders. The Warriors have sold over 31,000 for Sundays match with the promise of much more. And to think we're constantly told that union is No1 across the ditch.