Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "My opinion is that any talk of "conflict of interests" is risible. We only have one governing body, it administers certain things including central funding, and it is responsible for essentially the running of the game and the competitions, teams and players. Therefore you could make some sort of "conflict" argument about pretty much ANY decision the RFL takes, but it would be as vacuous as asking "why is there only one Monopolies Commission".
The RFL has to carry out its role, nobody else can, and in any case where there is scope for accusations of real or imaginary potential conflict of interest, that clearly can't mean that the RFL can abdicate its responsibility to fulfil its function. That's just how it is. Ultimately the RFL answers to its members. The point most seemingly miss is that any money isn't "the RFL's" money, it is basically money held for the running and benefit of the sport.'"
Give over, yer 'avin a laff.
This issue isn't that we only have one governing body and the analogy to the Monoplies/Competition Commision is bizarre at best. I could give a long answer but to avoid drift I'll keep it short use one simple example from with our own game to illustrate the point.
We have an INDEPENDENT disciplinary committee. The Governing body recognises that sometimes, not always by any means, its duties in this area will compete and not be capable of resolution by means of a simple test of what is best for the game. Resultantly it creates the rules and guidelines in advance but outsources the decisions.
We should have appointed a suitably qualified independent panel to make all licence decisions from the outset, we didn't. Now we have a mess.
