An Independent Commission for Australian Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

There are a couple of things which are certain in all of this, whether or not one thinks that Mark Abib and Peter Cosgrove are the right people to be saying it.

1. The current system is a shambles and needs to be replaced.

2. The ARU board and their state counterparts are incapable of instituting any meaningful change.

What should replace it is more problematic, but the task needs to be given to 2 or 3 people to do, with consultation, but without reference to ARU or State rugby committees etc. You get a committee to design something and you probably just end up with a similar shambles and as many vested interests as possible protected.

Abib and Cosgrove seem as good a choices as any to me as they possess the ability to get things done, stepping on toes where required. One suspects that the machinations of the NSW Labour party are not that dissimilar from the network of blazer wearers who currently populate rugby administration, where power, influence, self-advancement and self-protection seem to take precedence over actually running the game.

To me the whole concept of state unions getting in between the ARU and the grass-roots is incongruous and a relic of the steam train and telegram era. The ARU should run the game, without the need for any parallel state bureaucracies. The ARU then fund and support regions, schools and clubs with development, finance, etc.

Other than historical reasons, I can think of no real reason for State Unions to exist. Perhaps in the smaller rugby states they could act as regional co-ordinating bodies, but do we really need 2 parallel administrations shuffling papers, e-mails and money backwards and forwards?

I favour an independent board, it certainly is not a cure-all, but it would have the ability to be decisive and act in a unified way for the good of the game.

 

[Man on the hill]

Are we at a watershed moment? The Arbib-Cosgrove report. JON's early departure. A progressive chairman in Hawker.

For what its worth, to those that say 2 seats reserved for the states or a seat reserved for a players delegate - that defeats the purpose. For it to be truly independant, it has to be (as far as reasobnably possible) devoid of precommitted alliances or vested interests.

So to 2 issues - what does the ENTIRE rugby landscape look like after the change and finding the people to lead it at board level.

The structure & relationships in play at the moment are convoluted and geared to self preservation - you need look no further than Junior Rugby in NSW - SJRU / CJRU / NSWJRU / NSW Schools - each have a hand on the wheel, and each wants to steer to their own best course, or in the direction of the disconnected Waratahs.

From the tone of this forum - I feel that the grassroots stakeholders of the game are more than ready for change, but how do we change the beast at the same time as we change the head?

 

[Quick Hands]

Spot on, too many hands on the wheel. As I said, none of the current participants are either willing or capable of steering through meaningful change.

For example, the ACTRU wants to increase the current board from 14 to 16, which co-incidentally gives the ACT more seats. NSWRU would drop from 5 to 2, but in the fine print, the Waratahs get a seat and the NSWRU would have an additional seat for having over 50,000 registered players, bringing them back to 4. It's essentially a non-proposal which would keep most of the current structure, give a couple of people new titles and result in more hands on the wheel.

A complete overhaul is needed for the whole structure, not just tinkering with who supplies the delegates. Rugby has a number of layers of bureaucracy which are simply unecessary.

The ARU should run the game in this country and fund and support rugby in various regions.

Is a NSWRU or a QRU really needed to simply shuffle papers, e-mails and money between clubs and the ARU?

Is the Country RU really needed to act as an additional layer, so that money or support for say rugby in Central West NSW goes from the ARU, to the NSWRU to the CRU and then to the people in the Central West who actually run the game there?

In Sydney for example the ARU should fund and support the clubs to develop rugby, have a paid administrator who runs rugby in Sydney (competitions etc), maybe a couple of deputies for juniors etc, minimal clerical staff and as many development officers as possible. Similar process in country NSW, similar process in Qld, ACT etc.

We can still have representative teams from states and regions, we just don't need the accompanying bureaucrats, middle managers and blazer wearers.

 

[RugbyReg]

How do you read that NSW / waratahs get 4 votes? NSWRU Get one for being a state member and one for having over 50,000 players. The Waratahs get one for being a super rugby team. So that's 3(ish).

 

[Quick Hands]

I was going off an article in the Herald this week, which was one of a number of different proposals that I understand are circulating. Perhaps I misread it, but my understanding of the proposal in question was that NSW get 2 votes, plus 1 for the Waratahs, plus 1 for 50,000 players.

Even if they get 3 seats, the proposal in question, in my view misses the whole point and the problem. When you have a system of delegates sitting around on a committee/board, they are there representing their particular vested interest. History suggests in all sports, including rugby, this leads to horse-trading and short term decision making based on how many vested interests can find common ground to preserve some advantage for themselves.

Changing the balance of how many seats/delegates particular unions have doesn't really solve anything. The problem isn't that too many of the decion-makers come from NSW & Qld, because that is where most of the players and clubs are and you would think that no matter what the system, a majority of the decision-makers would come from those states. The problem is those people are appointed to represent their particular union and for sure they look to the interests of the game, but they also act to preserve or obtain as many advantages for their own union as they can. That is the nature of the system.

 

[TOCC]

No.. The voting is there to effect change to the constitution and maintain accountability to the unions/members...

The directors will still be appointed as 'independent' and will govern the game...

 

[RugbyReg]

Yeah Quick Hands, your understanding is way off. Download the document and read it yourself. It's well worth it. I think Ahbib has done a very good job with his report. But for gods sake, dont comment on it if you haven't had the time to read it.

 

[Quick Hands]

Took your tip and found a copy of the report online and read it, although my last comment was directed not at the report but at comments in a newspaper article by the head of the ACTRU.

Arbib's report is spot on, he has identified all the problems, including that of delegates being captive to their constituencies. His recommendations are definite improvements, although I don't believe that they go far enough. However, I accept that they are more achieveable than more radical reform and they should be implemented.

Perhaps at a later time, more radical change could be looked at with a view to having the best possible structure in place. There needs to be far fewer layers in between the ARU and the grass roots. I'm not sure that having state unions, combined country unions etc is the optimum use of limited resources.