Good news for the governance structure at Parramatta Eels today with the PNRL Club appointing five n...
3 days ago - 1 Likes
Recent claims that the establishment of an independent commission is now a "done deal" for 1 November are today looking rather questionable, at best.
Once again the Queensland Rugby League looks like it is the obstacle, though one suspects there are other entities with vested interests slowing the process down for their own benefit.
It appears that the ARL has been having private discussions with the QRL - with the QRL claiming News is much more open to a compromise model that is much more favourable to the QRL and the NSWRL.
What I find frustrating about this whole process is that as time passes the concept of an "independent commission" becomes even less likely.
The QRL had wanted the same representation for it and the NSWRL as the SIXTEEN NRL clubs!
This would effectively allow the ARL to retain its 50 per cent stake in the game...and would be the green light for continued duplication of administrations, and costs!
An independent commission is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a massive cut in the size and cost of the rugby league bureaucracy.
It is a complete nonsense that the game has highly paid CEO's of the ARL, NSWRL, QRL and NRL!
The AFL has ONE highly paid CEO!
At the present time the 16 NRL clubs have no direct say in the running of the game...though it could be argued Melbourne and Brisbane have a say through News Limited.
The QRL is playing clever politics. Unless it comes on board it is virtually impossible for the ARL to agree to the independent commission.
It is out there extracting every possible concession it can.
In the meantime the AFL is tipping millions in Western Sydney and South East Queensland knowing full well rugby league cannot match it.
The 16 club chairmen are meeting today.
They need to get serious - and demand a genuine independent commission be set up on 1 November.
The time for pussyfooting around is over!
- Footnote: I do not mind readers criticising my articles, which are my views and my views alone, for which I receive no payment whatsoever. But if you want to criticise them, and especially rubbish people I write about, isn't it only fair that as my name is on my column, yours appears on your response?