An Independent Commission for Australian Rugby?

[fatprop]

I suspect that it will be more difficult then herding cats.

What the Feds are attempting to achieve here is bring some of the corporate governance (read company director roles and responsibilities) requirements into the world of sport. This, in theory, should mean that selection and voting for directors (for want of a better word), voting by directors, appointments to key positions and general operational decisions will be made in accordance with the principles of corp/business laws and regulations. This will be in replacement of the ARU and can only be a good thing. The stick is that if changes are not made to bring sports into line with good corporate governance then funding will be removed or reduced. Something no sport can do without.

We already have the share holders voting on selection of directors with those directors choosing the management, the minority share holders representing the lessor states don't like it . The "complaint" is that the way voting is done is wanting, with no surprise the minority share holder wanting to go to a different system that gives them more say.

Government corporate governance is a joke, they create layer upon layer of regulation and bureaucracy to confirm their funding is delivered effectively and equitably. The "Sir Humprey's" will will suck the life out of it as they do with everything else they touch.

Any agility and entrepreneurial spirit will be replaced by procedure and reporting

 

[suckerforred]

We already have the share holders voting on selection of directors with those directors choosing the management, the minority share holders representing the lessor states don't like it . The "complaint" is that the way voting is done is wanting, with no surprise the minority share holder wanting to go to a different system that gives them more say.

Government corporate governance is a joke, they create layer upon layer of regulation and bureaucracy to confirm their funding is delivered effectively and equitably. The "Sir Humprey's" will will suck the life out of it as they do with everything else they touch.

Any agility and entrepreneurial spirit will be replaced by procedure and reporting

I do not mean Government. You would have to have rocks in your head to think that using government base structures would be an improvement on anything other than the selection of the U8's based on who's parents are coach and manager.

There are legal requirements for directors of entities that are governed by the corporate regulations and laws of this country. If these requirements can be implemented, maintained and enforced in a sporting administration environment such as the ARU there can only be mprovements to be had. And as for agility and entrepreneurial sprit.... there are a great many people and entities that operate under said laws and regulations that would disagree with you.

Procedure and reporting does have its benefits. I am not saying go to the insane extent that some of our governments operate, but we have all bitched about decisions made by the ARU enough to realise that something, anything, has to change.

Just to clarify a few things -

Governance does not equal Government. Governance is the act of managing (governing). Strange definition, but that is what the business community has come to accept. So Corporate Governance is the process of managing corporations, however it is not restricted to corporations in the legal sense of the word. That is why I talk of 'entities'.

Entiries are any 'body' that operates to acheive certain outcomes. These can take many different forms - companies, corporations, individuals, not-for-profit orgnaisations, incorporated bodies, partnerships, committees etc etc etc. All should operate under good corporate governance structures to ensure that goals are meet, decisions are made in a timely and appropiate fashion, stakeholder interests are meet and that activities undertaken are not illegal or amoral.

I have said before in other threads on this forum- decisions not only need to be good, fair and reasonable, they need to appear to be good fair and reasonable. Otherwise support will be lost and f&%^*^g difficult to be retrieved.

 

[Lior]

While I might disagree with Arbib's politics he is wonderfully suited to undertake a review which could very well be the catalyst to a future career in sporting governance in Australia.

Arbib is a serious fundraiser (just ask NSW Labor) and has many established business connections. As well as a good relationship with current federal government and Opposition (may not sound right, but he has good relations with both sides of politics).

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a more prominent role for Arbib in the future in Rugby in Australia. There has been much talk of him heading into sporting governance especially with government relations being so key in these areas.

 

[kronic]

Similar to Pat Howard at Cricket Aus? An outsider with no old connections?

That being said, I'm sure him & JON worked at some point, when JON was part of Major Events NSW.

 

[Aussie D]

I would love to see the ARU board reduced to 7 directors, 5 independent and 2 executive directors (CEO and Director of Rugby). The independent directors should be voted for by all rugby clubs in Australia (one vote per club - not sure how to deal with schools though). The clubs committees would hopefully discuss where their vote will go each year. Voting can be done either in person or postal, similar to how organisations such as the NRMA hold their elections. I would allow each provincial union to nominate two potential directors each (some will argue that clubs within that province will vote for the nominated director(s) but I can't imagine country clubs agreeing with NSWRU's choice (or lower level subbies for that matter). There should be a requirement that all nominees have a certain level of business experience (served on a big business board or developed a multi-million dollar start-up company, etc). The new board should follow current corporate governance principles in regards to transparency and reporting to stakeholders.

 

[RedsHappy]

Just a snippet as to what Cricket Australia is about to embark upon, given its antiquated structure that the recent comprehensive Argus (ex-Chairman BHP, NAB, etc) review recommended move to an Independent Commission-like structure to better run the national game in the interests of all stakeholders. Looks like CA is on the verge of incepting just that type of structure, in stages and by 2015:

CA expects independent directors by October
Brydon Coverdale - Cricinfo.com
April 24, 2012

Cricket Australia is expected to move to a smaller board featuring some independent directors in October, despite objections from the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA). A fully independent board is likely to be introduced in 2015, meaning that within three years the state associations will almost certainly have no representation at CA board level.

The plan is part of CA's response to the Crawford-Carter review into the organisation's governance. A new financial model that would see CA take control of all internationals played in Australia has also been proposed. Board reform was one of the key recommendations from the governance review, which suggested the end to the archaic system in which some states held greater power than others.

The two-stage plan, discussed at a CA board meeting in Melbourne on Tuesday, is based around introducing three independent directors to work alongside six state-appointed directors - one from each state - at the annual general meeting in October. In 2015, barring any unforeseen hurdles, the six state-appointed directors would be phased out and all nine board members would be independent of official state affiliation, although there would need to be at least one residing in each state.

The existing board structure features 14 directors, all appointed by state boards, with three each from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, two each from Western Australia and Queensland, and one from Tasmania. CA chairman Wally Edwards said South Australia remained reluctant to give up its voice on the board, but approval from five of the six states was enough for the moves to go ahead.

 

[RugbyFuture]

I would love to see the ARU board reduced to 7 directors, 5 independent and 2 executive directors (CEO and Director of Rugby). The independent directors should be voted for by all rugby clubs in Australia (one vote per club - not sure how to deal with schools though). The clubs committees would hopefully discuss where their vote will go each year. Voting can be done either in person or postal, similar to how organisations such as the NRMA hold their elections. I would allow each provincial union to nominate two potential directors each (some will argue that clubs within that province will vote for the nominated director(s) but I can't imagine country clubs agreeing with NSWRU's choice (or lower level subbies for that matter). There should be a requirement that all nominees have a certain level of business experience (served on a big business board or developed a multi-million dollar start-up company, etc). The new board should follow current corporate governance principles in regards to transparency and reporting to stakeholders.

you'd need a players rep and probably one representing all state unions as well, so either 9 or 7 directors with 3 independant. Remember that technically the ARU is a federation of the state unions still and youd never get away with not having a RUPA rep on the board.

 

[wamberal]

I worked as a management consultant for a few years. My boss, a very well-known consultant in his time (still well known today, although he now works full-time in Europe, not here) told me once that in every strategic assignment that he had led, he knew the answer within the first 24 hours.

I would bet big money that the solution is known, it is Arbib and Cosgrove's job to "discover" it in a way that takes the stakeholders with them.

 

[Richo]

Ah, so that's what management consultants do...

 

[wamberal]

Ah, so that's what management consultants do...

I did say strategic reviews. Bear in mind that at the strategy level, the chosen consultants will probably already have done some initial work to win the contract, during the course of that work they will pick up a lot of information - including, cynically put, the wishes of the most important stakeholders.

 

[Aussie D]

you'd need a players rep and probably one representing all state unions as well, so either 9 or 7 directors with 3 independant. Remember that technically the ARU is a federation of the state unions still and youd never get away with not having a RUPA rep on the board.

I did say "I". I don't like union representation on the board of any company.

 

[fatprop]

I do not mean Government. You would have to have rocks in your head to think that using government base structures would be an improvement on anything other than the selection of the U8's based on who's parents are coach and manager.

There are legal requirements for directors of entities that are governed by the corporate regulations and laws of this country. If these requirements can be implemented, maintained and enforced in a sporting administration environment such as the ARU there can only be mprovements to be had. And as for agility and entrepreneurial sprit.... there are a great many people and entities that operate under said laws and regulations that would disagree with you.

Procedure and reporting does have its benefits. I am not saying go to the insane extent that some of our governments operate, but we have all bitched about decisions made by the ARU enough to realise that something, anything, has to change.

Just to clarify a few things -

Governance does not equal Government. Governance is the act of managing (governing). Strange definition, but that is what the business community has come to accept. So Corporate Governance is the process of managing corporations, however it is not restricted to corporations in the legal sense of the word. That is why I talk of 'entities'.

Entiries are any 'body' that operates to acheive certain outcomes. These can take many different forms - companies, corporations, individuals, not-for-profit orgnaisations, incorporated bodies, partnerships, committees etc etc etc. All should operate under good corporate governance structures to ensure that goals are meet, decisions are made in a timely and appropiate fashion, stakeholder interests are meet and that activities undertaken are not illegal or amoral.

I have said before in other threads on this forum- decisions not only need to be good, fair and reasonable, they need to appear to be good fair and reasonable. Otherwise support will be lost and f&%^*^g difficult to be retrieved.

All this is about is compliance so they can continue to receive government funding

 

[p.Tah]

All this is about is compliance so they can continue to receive government funding

The ARU have wanted to change the governance set up for many years. IMO compliance is an excuse to finally get it going.

 

[kronic]

Where can I contact Arbib and Cosgrove to give them my 2 cents or show them this thread?

 

[wamberal]

Where can I contact Arbib and Cosgrove to give them my 2 cents or show them this thread?

Write to them care of the ARU. Make it a proper, typed letter, addressed to them care of the ARU, and they would definitely receive it. In fact, you should get a written letter of acknowledgement.

 

[kronic]

Write to them care of the ARU. Make it a proper, typed letter, addressed to them care of the ARU, and they would definitely receive it. In fact, you should get a written letter of acknowledgement.

Or like most other stuff I send to the ARU (via a proper channel), it disappears into the ether.

 

[wamberal]

Or like most other stuff I send to the ARU (via a proper channel), it disappears into the ether.

I reiterate: send a written communication, properly addressed, and you should get a written acknowledgement at the very least. Most organisations take comments from customers and the like seriously, believe it or not.

 

[p.Tah]

The Arbib report is due to be presented to the ARU Board tomorrow.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...australian-rugby/story-e6frg7vo-1226500240964

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Hope that they have been reading G&GR Treads.

 

[FiveStarStu]

Hope that they have been reading G&GR Treads.

I thought that's what the report was going to be. This and the 3rd tier threads printed out.