Australian Rugby / RA

[kiap]

Is there anything to be gained from the next person doing this?

Depends what's there. There are a lot of unanswered questions about that whole sorry tenure.

RA needs to move on. Trying to unearth more issues from the past just prolongs the fallout from Clyne's tenure.

The problem is moving on with more of the same - continuing the same bad governance, hand-picked from the same failed governors.

 

[Braveheart81]

Besides trying to fix all the problems?

Sure, but that's a different task than what kiap implied.

You absolutely want the next chair and new board members to be trying to improve RA. They have nothing to gain by airing the dirty laundry in doing so.

Draw a line in the sand and move on.

 

[kiap]

Yeaaahh, duck and cover. Nothing to see, nothing to be concerned about.

Old mate should have no qualms about relinquishing the chair of the nominations committee, right?

 

[Brumby Runner]

BH, that's probably exactly why these types of poor appointments are allowed to continue, because neither are they held accountable while in the job, but are protected from exposure by their successors. Assuming Clyne is as bad as portrayed here, he will simply move on to some other similar position(s) without his mis-deeds ever being exposed to scrutiny. I would rather take a longer term view and hope that every poor decision, act without integrity, error of judgement or whatever was very publicly exposed hoping to avoid similar future situations.

But, of course, it won'r happen. It all has the appearance of being one big club where the members look after each other.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, that's probably exactly why these types of poor appointments are allowed to continue, because neither are they held accountable while in the job, but are protected from exposure by their successors. Assuming Clyne is as bad as portrayed here, he will simply move on to some other similar position(s) without his mis-deeds ever being exposed to scrutiny. I would rather take a longer term view and hope that every poor decision, act without integrity, error of judgement or whatever was very publicly exposed hoping to avoid similar future situations.

But, of course, it won'r happen. It all has the appearance of being one big club where the members look after each other.

Whatever Clyne does next is irrelevant to RA though.

It's not about protecting Clyne after he leaves, it's about having to run the same entity and knowing that the public perception of the organisation has a significant effect on it's ability to generate revenue and operate the game in Australia.

I'm not really sure what people actually want here. It's all well and good to be baying for blood in terms of Clyne but spending the next couple of years dwelling on that is surely only going to just drag out the negative legacy he has created.

I don't think there is anyway to publicly expose the wrongs of the past without also further eroding the public perception of the organisation moving forward.

 

[dru]

I'm not really sure what people actually want here. It's all well and good to be baying for blood in terms of Clyne but spending the next couple of years dwelling on that is surely only going to just drag out the negative legacy he has created.

I don't think I'd be complaining hugely much seeing Clyne spit roasted. Slowly. Sometimes there is a need for a cathartic purgative. If this isn't it then when? If you're thinking "never" I'm not sure I agree.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think I'd be complaining hugely much seeing Clyne spit roasted. Slowly. Sometimes there is a need for a cathartic purgative. If this isn't it then when? If you're thinking "never" I'm not sure I agree.

You're not just roasting Clyne though. It's not like he acted as some rogue element within RA that was a surprise and unknown by everyone else. He was chair of the board for a number of years which supported the decisions he made (outside of Geoff Stooke in relation to the Force).

I just don't see a way of separating the two.

For example would having half the media stories regarding rugby over the next two years still being about Clyne and Cheika be good for the sport moving forward? Is that going to attract sponsors and bring fans through the gate?

People will be complaining on internet forums about Clyne and Cheika forever. People are still complaining about John O'Neill and he left more than 7 years ago. This is a small corner of the fanbase though. Would it be better for rugby in Australia if that attention extended to the modest amount of mainstream media coverage the sport gets? It's not bonus content. It replaces more positive stories because people love scandal and drama.

 

[dru]

You're not just roasting Clyne though. It's not like he acted as some rogue element within RA that was a surprise and unknown by everyone else. He was chair of the board for a number of years which supported the decisions he made (outside of Geoff Stooke in relation to the Force).

Of course - throw a few more logs on the fire. Clyne is the only one that really matters here, but we can find room for the rest.

For example would having half the media stories regarding rugby over the next two years still being about Clyne and Cheika be good for the sport moving forward? Is that going to attract sponsors and bring fans through the gate?

What we actually need is the purgative i was talking about. We need it out, public, railed at. And done. Leave it buried and it WILL continue over the years.

People will be complaining on internet forums about Clyne and Cheika forever. People are still complaining about John O'Neill and he left more than 7 years ago. This is a small corner of the fanbase though. Would it be better for rugby in Australia if that attention extended to the modest amount of mainstream media coverage the sport gets? It's not bonus content. It replaces more positive stories because people love scandal and drama.

Did we really have a catharsis post JON? I was overseas for most of that and missed it, but i suspect that a good purgative would have meant he appears on these discussion forums a lot less.

At any rate it is all moot. Right now the issue is to get an axe at the fingers with which Clyne wishes to meddle in the very near future. Remove all possible impact from him in the nominations and the negotiations. Give me that and i will cope with being denied my spit roast.

The more I think about it the more I realise just how much is riding on Castles head. That's a shit sandwich for sure and she is NOT the person I would have put there. But to be honest, in spite many wanting her on my bonfire - she's doing OK. Good even.

There it is BH, as far as I can go with positivism. My forgiveness falls short of Clyne.

 

[Adam84]

Sure, but that's a different task than what kiap implied.

You absolutely want the next chair and new board members to be trying to improve RA. They have nothing to gain by airing the dirty laundry in doing so.

Draw a line in the sand and move on.

It achieves transparency in the organisation and will go a long way to restoring the faith and trust of the public in the organisation.

 

[Aurelius]

Whatever Clyne does next is irrelevant to RA though.

It's not about protecting Clyne after he leaves, it's about having to run the same entity and knowing that the public perception of the organisation has a significant effect on it's ability to generate revenue and operate the game in Australia.

I'm not really sure what people actually want here. It's all well and good to be baying for blood in terms of Clyne but spending the next couple of years dwelling on that is surely only going to just drag out the negative legacy he has created.

I don't think there is anyway to publicly expose the wrongs of the past without also further eroding the public perception of the organisation moving forward.

Saying that misdeeds should be covered up in order to protect the image of an organisation is exactly the same sort of logic that has protected crooked bankers, dirty cops and pedophile priests.

Now I'm not saying that anything that Clyne or the others on the board has done puts them in those categories (well, the latter two anyway) but if there is a cultural problem in RA, and I don't think it's a leap to suppose that there is, covering it up so as not to "erode the public perception of the organisation" not only lands them in an ethical quagmire, but it'll backfire when their issues eventually get made public. Just ask Westpac or the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, exposing people like Clyne and whoever enabled him might well have some short-term reputation costs but in the long run, if it results in a better run and more ethical organisation then it'll be worth it.

 

[cyclopath]

It's convenient, and fits the current narrative and accepted truths, to lay all the sins at one person's feet, but it's hard to imagine everything that happened was the product of one person's machinations alone. It'd be interesting to know the roles of others, but I guess we never will. The public faces of a board will wear it, that's the nature of the beast, and goes with the job, and fair enough. I'm not convinced the rest of the board would all deserve a free pass.

 

[dru]

It's convenient, and fits the current narrative and accepted truths, to lay all the sins at one person's feet, but it's hard to imagine everything that happened was the product of one person's machinations alone. It'd be interesting to know the roles of others, but I guess we never will. The public faces of a board will wear it, that's the nature of the beast, and goes with the job, and fair enough. I'm not convinced the rest of the board would all deserve a free pass.

Can only agree that the board should not be offered a free pass. In the mean time - Clyne.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The latest news on Izzy upping his claims on RA because he believed he could be captain of the wallabies is interesting...best to not comment too much on this but yes is interesting isn't it

 

[cyclopath]

The latest news on Izzy upping his claims on RA because he believed he could be captain of the wallabies is interesting.best to not comment too much on this but yes is interesting isn't it

Not really.

 

[brokendown]

are his lawyers the lose,no fee, win and we take 90% of the payout,type of operators?

 

[kiap]

It's convenient, and fits the current narrative and accepted truths, to lay all the sins at one person's feet, but it's hard to imagine everything that happened was the product of one person's machinations alone.

It's also convenient to breezily brush off events with a wave of the hand … 'Oh, but everyone at the top of ARU was involved … the Chair himself was merely one of many'.

Something which tweaked my interest was the assertion that Clyne was "instructed by his board" to put forward a proposal whereby the ARU might retain the Force, essentially $48m+ for aus rugby and $20m to Sanzaar … this was in a statement submitted in evidence to the Senate inquiry. The proposal was reportedly almost entirely accepted in the opening minutes of a meeting with Forrest, before being instantly withdrawn by Clyne.

• Was it all a bluff from the Chairman which he didn't expect would be called?

• Or … maybe the submitted evidence was simply lies to make Clyne look bad?

Either way, none of this went back for the consideration of the board.

The ARU wrote off $13 million+ (and paid creditors at least another $1.8m) to keep the Rebels in the hunt, but the board didn't even get a look at an offer worth north of $50 million.

None of this is going to be changed now. I know it, we all know it. But this guy's fingers were all over the dealings of the last four years.

 

[cyclopath]

It's also convenient to breezily brush off events with a wave of the hand … 'Oh, but everyone at the top of ARU was involved … the Chair himself was merely one of many'.

Something which tweaked my interest was the assertion that Clyne was "instructed by his board" to put forward a proposal whereby the ARU might retain the Force, essentially $48m+ for aus rugby and $20m to Sanzaar … this was in a statement submitted in evidence to the Senate inquiry. The proposal was reportedly almost entirely accepted in the opening minutes of a meeting with Forrest, before being instantly withdrawn by Clyne.

None of this went back for the consideration of the board.

• Was it all a bluff from the Chairman which he didn't expect would be called?

• Or … maybe the submitted evidence was simply lies to make Clyne look bad?

The ARU wrote off $13 million+ (and paid creditors at least another $1.8m) to keep the Rebels in the hunt, but the board didn't even get a look at an offer worth north of $50 million.


None of this is going be changed now. I know it, we all know it. But this guy's fingers were all over the dealings of the last four years.

That was not what I said. I'd appreciate it if you do not misrepresent what I wrote to suit your own narrative.
My point is that the rest of the board will likely get minimal blow-back, once the Chair goes. Which I doubt they deserve.

 

[kiap]

That was not what I said. I'd appreciate it if you do not misrepresent what I wrote to suit your own narrative.

If I quote your post directly, then I don't misrepresent.

There is a boundary between my typed text - or narrative, if you like - and yours.

For instance, Cylco … writing your moniker this time, which I didn't before … When you said it was convenient to lay these sins at one person's feet, were you making it explicit who was finding it convenient?

I say you weren't.

Neither was I.

My point is that the rest of the board will likely get minimal blow-back, once the Chair goes. Which I doubt they deserve.

You might be right. I'd still suggest Robinson has lost some bark, and even Eales. Not everyone who gets appointed to a board is suited. Some get through alright. Some are mere time-servers. Others are an active menace and disaster.

There are individual actions (even sins) separate from the collective meetings of the board. This is my point.

As another instance, does the rest of the board (those who are left on it) get to nominate the next directors and even recommend a potential chair - possibly in contravention of Sport Australia's governance principles?

Maybe it's only the one …

 

[cyclopath]

If I quote your post directly, then I don't misrepresent.


Maybe it's only the one …

The public faces of a board will wear it, that's the nature of the beast, and goes with the job, and fair enough.

Not so sure about that. I don't have a problem with the chair taking the rap, as I said. Hardly breezily dismissing anything. It has been an ugly episode and consequences ensue.
Do you know what really happened in meetings? Who said what? Who didn't?
Does anyone on here know?
I would contend that very few on these boards commenting have the detailed information, so we go with press releases from one side or another (with agendas), repeated "facts", and, as I said, accepted truths that flow from that.
Maybe it is only one. I for one very much doubt it is anywhere near that simple.

 

[dru]

That was not what I said. I'd appreciate it if you do not misrepresent what I wrote to suit your own narrative.
My point is that the rest of the board will likely get minimal blow-back, once the Chair goes. Which I doubt they deserve.

Cyclo, my comprehension skills must be slow. I read at least a firm implication that was watering down the Clyne issue on the back of involvement by others.

If you're simply saying there are more deserving than simply Clyne, it seems like agreement with the general thrust here.