THE push for an independent commission exploded in acrimony last night thanks to the stance of the QRL.

The Queensland Rugby League took the extraordinary step of distributing a fact sheet to supporters and volunteers attempting to justify its stance on the game's most pressing issue.

In a move which prompted an angry response from club bosses, the QRL described itself as a "custodian of the game" and claimed it could not walk away and leave rugby league in the hands of the 16 NRL clubs.

South Sydney chief executive Shane Richardson, on the club committee charged with working on the independent commission, accused the QRL of self-interest and ignoring the game's shareholders.

Under the existing proposal, the Australian Rugby League and News Limited (publisher of The Weekend Australian) would hand over control of the game to an independent commission.

The inaugural commissioners would be appointed by the ARL and News Limited. From then on, the clubs would nominate commissioners.

"Clubs would spend more money on development than the QRL would. That's on top of the money we spend on the NRL.

"It's an absolute furphy. There's no way they're custodians of the game. It's rubbish."

The QRL has been widely blamed for standing in the way of an independent commission, a charge it has constantly denied.

However, its opposition to the current proposal is made clear in the three-page document, which was also posted on the QRL website yesterday.

"The ARL has 50 per cent ownership position and we believe it would not be in rugby league's best interests to eventually hand full control to the clubs," the document said.

"In other words, why would the ARL as custodians of the game walk away and place the game's future in the hands of the clubs, a number of which are privately owned?

"The QRL takes its role as the custodian of the game in Queensland seriously, which is why we will not compromise on our commitment to the grass roots of the game, nor are we prepared to gamble with its long-term future."

The latest developments cast serious doubt over the likelihood of the commission being in place before the start of the season, a goal outlined by the clubs last month.

Richardson said the QRL was the only body involved in the game which didn't see the formation of an independent commission as the way forward.

"We're the ones who are losing $30 million," Richardson said.

"We're the ones who are taking all the risks.

"There's no way they can stand there and say they are custodians of the game.

"It's another way of saying they're protecting themselves. They're not protecting the game.

"What we're saying is we want the game independently run. What they're saying is they don't want the game independently run.

"It's a recipe for disaster."

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Jethro said the following on Thu Feb 11 22:15 2010

Quote: author=nodd Do we really want Rugby league in Australia run solely by the 16 NRL clubs? Not me ! Quote: author=nodd They are businesses, and at the end of the day all they are really worried about is what is best for them. They don't really give a rat's about the junior clubs in far north QLD or the far flung NSW country. My thoughts exactly. This is one of my main concerns as I pointed out in the other Independent Commission thread. Quote: author=nodd NRL is not the be all and end all of league. Agreed. Quote: author=nodd Why are the clubs afraid of a 50-50 split? Loss of $$$ to them. Quote: author=nodd Because they want sole control maybe? Yes, for their own self-interests as they can then restrict further expansion of the NRL etc. The salary cap comes to mind as if a new media deal comes into reality and increases income, why then would they want to water down whatever their salary cap can be increased to by introducing say a team from Central QLD or Gosford or another interstate team. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no problem with an independent body to look after Rugby League in Australia but the main thing that I want is to see is News Ltd out of ownership of our game. I have no problem with them handing over their 50% share of the NRL to the 16 clubs. The ARL should not be forced into giving up their share of the company. I believe that there should still be the 50/50 partnership agreement in the company (under a new name i.e. Rugby League - Australia) and that both the ARL & the Clubs should have equal voting rights with an independent chairman (or committee) overseeing everything and who has voting rights (with one vote) only when there is a voting deadlock in normal company voting circumstances. By giving the 16 NRL teams full control would be like getting a class full of kids and saying okay kids, here is your classroom and all of your books and all of the information that you will require to learn. If you want to learn, teach yourselves as nobody will be here to teach you. Can you really see them teaching themselves? Some probably would go on and try and teach themselves but the majority would be just looking after their own self interests by doing whatever they felt like doing whereas if there was a teacher present (the governing body), they would be more inclined to do the right thing and learn.

SeaEagleRock8 said the following on Thu Feb 11 17:51 2010

Quote: author=nodd Do we really want Rugby league in australia run solely by the 16 NRL clubs? They are bussinesses, and at the end of the day all they are really worried about is what is best for them. They don't really give a rat's about the junior clubs in far north QLD or the far flung NSW country. NRL is not the be all and end all of league. Why are the clubs afraid of a 50-50 split? Because they want sole control maybe? An understandable concern, but the proposal is not that the clubs will run the game. It will be run by an independent commission. True, the proposal is that the clubs will have to appoint members to the commission, but the commissioners will be charged with responsibilty for all levels of the game and the welfare of the game overall, not just the welfare of the NRL clubs. Individual clubs won't be appointing commissioners, each commissioner will have to receive a majority backing as I understand it.

ManlyBacker said the following on Thu Feb 11 14:37 2010

Renewed hope despite doubts GLENN JACKSON AND GREG PRICHARD smh.com.au There is renewed hope an independent commission can be established before the start of the NRL season. Today is a month from the opening match of the year, and while it had appeared there was little chance the 16 clubs would achieve their wish of a commission in place by March 12, there is renewed hope after yesterday's board meeting of Australian Rugby League, which resolved to expedite the process, even if officials from News Limited remain unconvinced. Heavyweights among the clubs believe the establishment of a commission could be as easy as - or as easy as easy gets when it comes to the long and drawn-out negotiations so far - getting all parties to sit down in a room and agree to it. It is believed that once an agreement is reached between the ARL and News, the process of the actual establishment of the commission is comparatively simple. ARL chief executive Geoff Carr admitted there had been passionate debate at yesterday's lengthy board meeting in Sydney, but the fact that the resolution at the end of it was to ''reinforce its commitment to move towards a commission'' was taken as a positive sign. Of course, there is also still the prospect of a catastrophic breakdown in negotiations, and it remains clear the Queensland Rugby League is seen as the last major obstacle between the ARL and News agreeing to hand over ownership of the game. The Herald understands that News's reaction to the QRL's push for the ARL to form a 50-50 partnership with the clubs if News exits the game, as revealed in the Herald yesterday, is that the media company simply won't let it happen. News genuinely wants to relinquish its 50 per cent share of control and help establish a commission, but won't move aside to allow what it would see as a situation in which one dysfunctional structure replaced another. Its determined view is that independence means independence, and that if it agreed to the forming of a commission that was not free of vested interests then it wouldn't work because reform would be stifled. That said, the company feels that while negotiations have been going on for a long time without the final result having been achieved, there has still been significant progress made and many obstacles removed. News officials are not counting on an agreement being in place by the start of competition, but remain confident that, in the end, the commission will be formed and will take the right shape. Since the Super League war in the mid-1990s, News has - rightly or wrongly - been blamed for many of the game's ills, and is sensitive to that. If it wasn't totally convinced about the structure but signed it just to get a commission formed, and if it were to subsequently fail, News would risk being blamed, even though it was no longer in charge. The ARL has formalised a negotiating committee - made up of two representatives from both NSW and Queensland - to ''try and expedite negotiations with News''. ''We're committed to it,'' Carr said. ''We're trying to get on with it.''

Join the Discussion