Rugby league's "boardroom revolution" was in the hands of the Queensland Rugby League "after a dramatic day of talks between club and state powerbrokers kept alive hopes of constitutional change after all looked lost," according to Brent Read of THE AUSTRALIAN. The day began with suggestions the vote on constitutional change -- scheduled for the end of next week -- "should be delayed and finished with officials hopeful the parties could be in position to put a proposal" to the Australian Rugby League Commission by Friday. The only "stumbling block" appeared to be the QRL, which "insisted on having one of its directors appointed to the independent commission as part of the overhaul of the game's peak body." The QRL also wants to retain its veto power, which gives it "ultimate say on whether constitutional change can go ahead." A handful of clubs including Gold Coast and Brisbane "railed against that plan, as well as the insistence of the NSW and Queensland Rugby Leagues that the commission increase to nine members rather than the 10" proposed by Australian Olympic Committee President John Coates in his independent review of the game. A club chair said, "If there is to be no constitutional reform in the current guise it would be because the QRL has sought to overreach." It is understood talks "culminated in renewed confidence" the NSW Rugby League could agree to "a form of compromise." The "sense of urgency was no doubt amplified by the prospect of the embarrassment for the code should reform plans fail" (THE AUSTRALIAN, 2/15). In Sydney, Adrian Proszenko reported at least five National Rugby League clubs "oppose NSW and Queensland state directors holding a position" on the ARLC. While all clubs favor reforming the board of the independent commission, "there has been a split in clubland over the form it should take." Some powerbrokers "moved to strip" Gold Coast and Newcastle -- two clubs currently owned by the league -- "from having a vote because of a perceived conflict of interest." However, both "see themselves and their boards as being capable of making calls independent of head office, a view that is shared by some of their club colleagues." It is "another point of contention" holding up a process many fear will not "reach conclusion" (SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 2/14).
