Australian Rugby / RA

[Killer]

The ARU stating that the decision they made to cancel the Western Force licence was entirely based on the fact that they thought they would be insolvent within a couple of years otherwise seems fairly watertight to me.

Clearly the line of questioning should follow that the actions they took around the Alliance Agreement were not conducted in good faith and that seems entirely true but I am not sure what it will achieve beyond making the ARU look slightly more cartoon villain-ish than they already do.

Cox's views could be enlightening too, especially if they can find someone who has some inside info.

 

[TOCC]

The ARU stating that the decision they made to cancel the Western Force licence was entirely based on the fact that they thought they would be insolvent within a couple of years otherwise seems fairly watertight to me.

Clearly the line of questioning should follow that the actions they took around the Alliance Agreement were not conducted in good faith and that seems entirely true but I am not sure what it will achieve beyond making the ARU look slightly more cartoon villain-ish than they already do.

Was it really watertight, did it factor in the own the Force campaign and twiggys commitment, and still no explanation as to why the Forces offer was considered inferior to the Rebels.

 

[barbarian]

This may prove cathartic for those in the West, but I can't see how it will result in any change to Super Rugby. Sure, the Senate can compel testimony, documents etc but they can't force change within the ARU or SANZAAR. The best they can do is a damning public report, which is really only worth the paper it's printed on.

The really interesting part of this will actually be the investigation into governance arrangements at the ARU and within State bodies. That is a part of the game that doesn't get nearly enough attention, and we might actually be able to see some change.

I'd be really interested to see if the current arrangements are indeed best practice for a sporting code. The ARU gets a lot of attention in this regard but I reckon the NSWRU and the QRU setup may be particularly fascinating.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

Was it really watertight, did it factor in the own the Force campaign and twiggys commitment, and still no explanation as to why the Forces offer was considered inferior to the Rebels.

I don't think it's relevant from the perspective of the ARU being able to claim that they believed they had no choice but to cut a team to remain solvent. This is both from the perspective of the expenditure five teams incurs for them and the belief that having four teams would result in greater concentration of players and stronger teams. Obviously there are lots of assumptions and subjective issues here which makes disputing those claims nigh on impossible.

The Force v Rebels debate also involves lots of subjective points as well such as future value of that market not just for Super Rugby but also for marquee test matches and state government tourism bids etc. Then the last point is that they controlled the Force licence but not the Rebels.

Being Senate Estimates, if they are faced with any particularly fraught questions they can just take them on notice and provide an answer later (and most likely less in the public eye).

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd be really interested to see if the current arrangements are indeed best practice for a sporting code. The ARU gets a lot of attention in this regard but I reckon the NSWRU and the QRU setup may be particularly fascinating.
.

NSWRU's board structure is very much like the way the ARU was structured before the Arbib reforms isn't it?

It's a board where certain members to get to appoint a board member based on my understanding.

Current board is:

Roger DAVIS (Chairman) Waratahs?
Kerry CHIKAROVSKI Independent
Barry RUDDY Country
John MORRISON Subbies
Chuck ARDRON Schools
David BEGG Shute Shield
Arthur LAUNDY Independent or Juniors?



Mick MATHERS (President)
Marty ROEBUCK (Vice President)

The last two are elected positions.

 

[Moono75]

How about we just see the ARU directors ridiculed for.making a poor decision, marched out of rhe game and hopefully depending on the findings disqualified from holding any directorships in the near future. That will be a good start.

I've lost all respect for John Eales. His nickname "nobody" is more appropriate than he can imagine.

 

[Killer]

How about we just see the ARU directors ridiculed for.making a poor decision, marched out of rhe game and hopefully depending on the findings disqualified from holding any directorships in the near future. That will be a good start.

I've lost all respect for John Eales. His nickname "nobody" is more appropriate than he can imagine.

just remove the last 3 letters

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This may prove cathartic for those in the West, but I can't see how it will result in any change to Super Rugby. Sure, the Senate can compel testimony, documents etc but they can't force change within the ARU or SANZAAR.
.

Im not sure that is completely correct.
The ARU receives funding from the Australian Sports Commission: here is a link to a table showing how much: http://www.ausport.gov.au/annual_report/chapter_6/appendix_1

There are also some "Mandatory Governance Principles" here: https://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/a...datory_Sports_Governance_Principles_FINAL.pdf

My recollection is that Arbib was engaged to, supposedly, tell the ARU how to comply with the ASC requirements. I understand that is what he did. I understand that his recommendations as to Board structure were "not taken up" as Sir Humphrey Appleby might have said.
It appears that the stipulation in 2.7 "All directors to be independent, regardless of whether elected or appointed." is not and has never been met.
Funding could legitimately be tied to structural reform.

 

[Braveheart81]

My recollection is that Arbib was engaged to, supposedly, tell the ARU how to comply with the ASC requirements. I understand that is what he did. I understand that his recommendations as to Board structure were "not taken up" as Sir Humphrey Appleby might have said.
It appears that the stipulation in 2.7 "All directors to be independent, regardless of whether elected or appointed." is not and has never been met.
Funding could legitimately be tied to structural reform.

They were taken up weren't they?

We went from a board of direct appointments by the members to an independent board.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They were taken up weren't they?

We went from a board of direct appointments by the members to an independent board.

That was my understanding - talking to someone who advises them, last week: when I said sack the lot of them he said the QRU and NSWRU will just reappoint in the same mould.
In any event: having commercial dealings with the ARU as more than one of the board members does suggests a certain lack of independence.

NSW 3 (1 for Member Union Status, 1 for Super Rugby Team and 1 for more than 50,000 participants)
QUEENSLAND 3 (1 for Member Union Status, 1 for Super Rugby Team and 1 for more than 50,000 participants)
WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team)
VICTORIA 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team)
ACT & SOUTHERN NSW 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team)
SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1 (1 for Member Union Status)
NOTHERN TERRITORY 1 (1 for Member Union Status)
TASMANIA 1 (1 for Member Union Status)
RUGBY UNION PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (RUPA) 1

Previously the voting structure made no allowance for Super Rugby bodies or RUPA with the 14 votes split along the following lines:

NSW Rugby Union 5
Queensland Rugby Union 3
Other State and Territory Member Unions 1 each

The concept of independence in the Mandatory Principles is:

All directors to be independent, regardless of whether elected or appointed. Independent directors are those who: • are not elected by the members to represent any constituent body • are not employed by the organisation • do not hold any other material office within the organisational structure • have no material conflict of interest as a result of being a director. The holding of state-level director or administration positions would be seen as a material conflict of interest if held at the same time as a national-level position. Where an international federation has particular requirements relating to board representation of Australians who hold a position with the international federation, these will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 

[wamberal]

NSWRU's board structure is very much like the way the ARU was structured before the Arbib reforms isn't it?

It's a board where certain members to get to appoint a board member based on my understanding.


Mick MATHERS (President)
Marty ROEBUCK (Vice President)

The last two are elected positions.

So there's the problem, staring us right in the face. Two ex-Eastwood players!!!


How on earth did that happen?

 

[Strewthcobber]

So who among the current directors isn't independent?

Ironically the most questionable was probably Geoff stooke.

The board accepted most of the recommendations of the Arbib review

http://www.aru.com.au/ARUAdmin/GovernanceReview.aspx

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

So who among the current directors isn't independent?

Ironically the most questionable was probably Geoff stooke.

The board accepted most of the recommendations of the Arbib review

http://www.aru.com.au/ARUAdmin/GovernanceReview.aspx

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. On this basis Arbib was not just a fail but a radical danger to Australia rugby which is what we are now seeing played out.

He gave us a "Cooky Cutter" board that could easily have been tasked with a bank or retail outlet as much as rugby or sport of any kind. The players involved have no obvious strength in administering rugby. The Arbib structure established the self preservation trio of Qld-NSW-ARU along with "mini-me" ACT. Clyne has been smart enough to use this scenario to ensure he is effectively without check and balance through the stakeholders. It means that the board are not so much "independent" and more like a self serving monopoly who did not have the ability to promote the game to success, but understood when the cash cow was threatened and implemented the "shrinking to greatness" policy of 2017.

The fans have been sold short.

Remove the independence of the ARU board, revamp the unions to ensure accountability back to the grass roots. If we must have self serving as the mode of operation, let's make that "self serving" means self serving for all of rugby.

 

[dru]

Let me add - that "governance" structure, and recommended changes to it, could be something useful to come out of the Senate Enquiry.

 

[Braveheart81]

Can you please explain the alternative structure you envisage?

Realistically NSWRU and QRU have substantially less power than they had under the previous model.

 

[wamberal]

Can you please explain the alternative structure you envisage?

Realistically NSWRU and QRU have substantially less power than they had under the previous model.

Presumably all the "grass roots" should have a vote. Pretty silly, eh?


Almost as silly as people banging on and on about the "grass roots". If there is a more useless phrase being bandied around I for one am yet to hear it.


It can mean everything, anything, and nothing. I reckon every single member here would have a different opinion as to what the "grass roots" is. Or are. The only certainly would be that their own team is a key part of it. Their own team at whatever level, in whatever competition, and wherever located.


And as for the stuff about funding the grass roots, that is just out there with the cuckoos. No grass roots, no game. But that is the whole point. The grass roots has to be there. If it is not there, it cannot be created, mystically, from above.


Worth a fred, I reckon.

 

[Quick Hands]

Can you please explain the alternative structure you envisage?

Realistically NSWRU and QRU have substantially less power than they had under the previous model.

How?

In practice the mendicant RUs in SA, Tas & NT are completely reliant on the ARU for funding and development. With the 6 votes from NSW & Qld, the ARU, NSWRU and QRU can do what they like and appoint who they like.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Crawford report findings

The Committee believes it is fundamental for the administration of soccer in Australia, through Soccer Australia, to have a truly independent board that has the responsibility to develop policies and strategies for the future of the sport and to contribute to international issues through FIFA. This will require the current constitution to be redrawn and a new Board to be appointed.

The Board of Soccer Australia should appoint an appropriately qualified chief executive officer to implement a management structure capable of achieving budget, business plans and strategic objectives, and to review and restructure the financial management of Soccer Australia. The management structure should address the key result areas of community soccer (game development and game operations), high performance soccer and corporate operations (commercial, financial and administration).

The Board of Soccer Australia should at all times be acting in the best interests of soccer in Australia. Board members should be independent of special interest groups and through strict adherence to appropriate governance principles free of any conflict of interest of a financial, personal or representational nature. This call for independence of Board members means they are to have no official position on another soccer body nor receive any direct or indirect material financial benefit from Soccer Australia, in accordance with appropriate governance principles.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^Noting that at least 2 current ARU directors have commercial arrangements with the ARU (disclosed in the accounts)

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So who among the current directors isn't independent?

Ironically the most questionable was probably Geoff stooke.

The board accepted most of the recommendations of the Arbib review

http://www.aru.com.au/ARUAdmin/GovernanceReview.aspx

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Strewth,
I spent a good part of the afternoon looking for the primary docs but Quick Hands has identified the issue I had in mind.