I’m pretty impartial either way on Ricky Stuart.

But what is clear is that there is subversive elements at play using the media to hurt him. It is a multi-pronged attack and it will not stop until he lives in England. The usual players are all involved and the usual minions are writing the script. This is how rugby league works in Sydney – in fact it is the way the NRL now works.

The people involved don’t think they are the bad guys – but when you take sides you are by definition somebody’s bad guy…

Oh, the judiciary is comprised of ex-NRL players? Hmm, that’s interesting…

Irrespective of the degree of ‘intent’, in this example Tate was put into an extremely dangerous position and this is the exact type of tackle the NRL wants to stop. Time should have been given without a doubt and the excuse that the defending lawyer did a good job comparing it to other tackles is embarrassing for our game.

Your statement that ” At present the judiciary’s hands are tied because of the inconsistency of the gradings handed out by the MRC. ” is very wrong.

Firstly, the MRC grading is effectively the recommendation handed to the Judiciary. The Judiciary can downgrade or indeed upgrade the MRC grading.

Secondly, the Judiciary is not obliged to follow precedent rulings – either Judiciary rulings or MRC gradings. Yes, we all want to see consistency, but you claim the Judiciary’s “hands are tied” and that “the Judiciary are left with little choice” which are both incorrect assertions.

The Judiciary make the rulings and should be held accountable for their history of inconsistent and poor decisions.

Hayne, like so many others, is potential lost… Everybody sees that he could be great and everyone is wanting – or waiting – for him explode. But he rarely does. He is well suited to the Eels in that regard…

Sideline’s comment have gone unchecked.

No hand between the legs – no downward pressure? I had to go and watch the video again.

Reynolds did in fact put is hand inside one of Tate’s legs and Reynolds did in fact push Tate downwards in the tackle – almost a downwards shot put.

Give yourself an uppercut – but don’t worry about getting any time for it unless you severely injure yourself.

I only read the first half of your article – you’re boring…

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.

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…

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.

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!

Not to mention the QRL’s State-of-Origin team.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SQUAWK!

Do I sound like some derro from western Sydney playing pokies with my kids in the car while worshipping Phil Gould? I don’t think so…

More Sydney clubs need to be removed from the national premiership in order to let the game grow. Unfortunately the clubs now control the NRL and I don’t think they’ll start voting eachother out anytime soon.

One team from Brisbane and how many from Sydney?

Souths Logan Magpies
Est. 1908

I disagree. Five tackle kick is a sound tactic during certain phases of the game to protect field position. Some of the best games I’ve seen have done 5-tackle-kick for 15 minutes – a real arm wrestle.

It is a tactic of discipline though, which is why many clubs fail at it and lose matches. Teams with individual brilliance often fail at it because they default to MSU (make stuff up) rather than sound tactics. The best “teams” will use 5-tackle-kick during establishing periods – and importantly after they have conceded a try rather than panicing and passing to Benji or Sandow to do something exciting (but brash).

But I’m also a test cricket fan and don’t find T20 amusing at all…

Paul obviously like the picture, Crip!

But, seriously, I think David Gallop is genuinely interested in The Roar. It isn’t just a publicity opportunity on the eve of the 2012 competition. He is probably just so passionate and excited about rugby league that he is awake at 1230am writing on this blog. I mean why would David Gallop, CEO of the NRL, want to publish articles on a website where the fans of the game all visit – it’s obviously more than just a job to him – cough cough buship…

So, all you “well done David Gallop for writing crap on our webpage” fools can just bugger off to www.lemmings.com and listen to commentary about how independent the new Commission is.

If you want the truth about the NRL Commission’s inependence and the future of rugby league, research the facts yourself!

The only team the Central Coast will get, unfortunately, is the Central Coast Sharkies.

Yeah, the 16 NRL Clubs should all support Commissioners who want to give more money to the QRL clubs rather than dispersing it among themselves.

Let’s see, 16 votes for NRL clubs and 1 vote from the QRL… I wonder who will win… While we’re at it, let’s also get the 16 NRL Clubs to vote for Commissioners who want to relocate some of them to Perth, Brisbane or Ipswich.

QGIRL, don’t hold your breath waiting for this ‘dependent’ commission to disperse funds and opportunity away from the current 16 NRL clubs that now control the Commission’s members.

Crossy,

I like business people running the game. It would certainly be better than having ex-forwards and maybe even ex-backs – definitely better than Love and Carr.

But as I keep saying, the voting power is with the bozo club execs. The brilliance of the individual commissioners cannot be realised under the constitution of the curren NRL Commission model.

Magpie

QGIRL,

You don’t seem to get it. Club execs are paid to look after their clubs – and that includes Bronco execs, Gold Coast execs and Cowboys execs. They are NOT paid to look after the interests of the game – that is the job of the QRL. But now, three clubs have three votes and the QRL has only one.

Why would Broncos or Titans want Ipswich, another Brisbane, or indeed the Souths Logan Magpies, to join the NRL and take some of their profits? They wouldn’t.

Therefore, having three QLD teams in the NRL Commission does not prevent a NSW centric view – it reinforces it. The NSW clubs don’t want to fold – and the QLD clubs don’t want any competitors.

Magpies since 1908.

“A fund is established under an instrument of trust to manage and/or hold property on trust for a sporting organisation. The fund is not a society, association or club.”

w.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/nfp00267713nat73773.pdf

No. You are mistaken. But I understand how you have been tricked. You see, this is just another misrepresentation by many of the clubs.

You see, the clubs present themselves as a single entity to the public but they are actually two different entities – they playing “football club”, which is actually seperate to the “leagues club” that owns all of the assets. When the NRL clubs quote losses, they are only really quoting the accounting loss on the football club and disregarding any accounting of the leagues club.

This is similar to the use of “holding companies” and “trading companies” in the business world. For example, some gymnasiums were structured so that the “trading company” sold annual memberships to the public but then used all of this money to rent the equipment and facilities from the “holding company”. The trading company declares itself bankrupt – folds – and then a new trading company is established to repeat the process.

While the NRL clubs may not be ripping off the public (apart from the price of pies at parra stadium), they are certainly not poor. They are securing their assets for the future (their stadiums, facilities, clubhouses and even branding). This is a smart thing for them to do – but the accounting loss on the football club is not necessarily linked to the “club” as you know it.

A couple of the football clubs are actually companies, such as the Broncos. In their case, they don’t own a stadium (they pay to play out of Lang Park – and for a couple of years out of QEII Stadium). Also, they are a one-town team in the best rugby league region in the world; they have been emminently successful; their jerseys are constantly revamped and interesting which all make the financial success of the club a no-brainer.

That said, there are some clubs that are truly on shaky ground. Each will have their own reasons for that – but I would suggest that the real financially stressed football clubs are those in the crowded Sydney market with poor advertising revenue and relatively few income streams (such as jersey sales). Cronulla, for example, represents a tiny area and have been relatively unsuccessful on the field – once ET left, they also lost any appeal to women… But the new administration seems to be on track – spending below the cap and revamping the commercial aspects of the broader club.

But, in the main, I stand by my comments. The claim of financial stress is a ruse by the clubs to get more of the NRL Premiership booty for themselves. But it is not true.