Australian Rugby / RA

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't think Roy Masters has really done it intentionally but if you add together the points he has raised that

a. Sukkar is on the nominations committee
b. is unhappy with the choices made by the ARU and
c. that could trigger a push for changes to the board,

it insinuates that she could use her position to put people on the board who will do what she wants.

Why isn't that a fair interpretation of the behaviour of a person on the ARU board and a sponsor who says we want the ARU to run this comp and then pulls the $ when the ARU does not accede to her request?
How can she continue on the ARU board in such circumstances?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Better off without her !
Rugby has enough problems without a squillionaire pushing HER OWN agendas to the potential detriment of the main game.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Better off without her !
Rugby has enough problems without a squillionaire pushing HER OWN agendas to the potential detriment of the main game.

Theres room in this phone box for another

 

[I like to watch]

Maybe, but what does it say that someone who has 'the ear' of both the board and senior management, accuses the organisation of reneging on undertakings they have provided?
Just another example of why they need a clean out of both the board & senior management.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why isn't that a fair interpretation of the behaviour of a person on the ARU board and a sponsor who says we want the ARU to run this comp and then pulls the $ when the ARU does not accede to her request?
How can she continue on the ARU board in such circumstances?

My point was that Masters seems to be saying the ARU board is in trouble because they lost a big sponsor whereas if you add the points together, the logical conclusion to me is that it makes Sukkar's position a difficult one to maintain. She is pretty conflicted.

Masters didn't seem to make the connection at all that Sukkar's place is now pretty heavily compromised between her role on the nominations committee and her position against the current board over women's rugby.

 

[dru]

My point was that Masters seems to be saying the ARU board is in trouble because they lost a big sponsor whereas if you add the points together, the logical conclusion to me is that it makes Sukkar's position a difficult one to maintain. She is pretty conflicted.

Masters didn't seem to make the connection at all that Sukkar's place is now pretty heavily compromised between her role on the nominations committee and her position against the current board over women's rugby.

Conflicted? Clearly your knowledge outstrips mine related to the Selections Committee, but we can always do a little digging.

There are four people of the Selections Committee.
1. The ARU Chair;
2. A member nominated by the ARU Board - at the moment Judge/QC (Quade Cooper) the Hon Peter Heerey QC (Quade Cooper);
Then two voted by the ARU members and require 2/3 vote:
3. John Massey;
4. Josephine Sukkar

Outline CVs are given p48 of this ARU Annual report: http://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/high_res_copy_of_annual_report_-_op?e=24291087/48091789

Sukkar's background seems well known prior to her (re)engagement and didn't impact the vote, nor apparently raise concerns from Heerey. A bloke you would expect to understand the ethics and legalities.

Any conflict of interest was not only in the public eye, but being boasted about and voted 2/3 by the ARU members.

I'd add that the Selection Committee has specific responsibilities in their appointment of Board Members:
a) Board Performance
b) Cultural and diversity obligations.

I'd put a lot of these ARU Board issues back on the original Arbib report and the "governance" requirements that gave us a "cookie cutter" board.

There appears to be dissent in the ranks, made more than obvious with the sponsorship withdrawal. Where there is smoke? At the same time Sukkar's rugby credentials seems to outstrip the rest of the Selection Committee put together.

Anne Sherry is suggested as the next to step over Clynne. Background in HR (using a more fancy name), Cultural Change, Community Engagement, Customer Focus, Womens Issues, Banking, United Nations and Public Service.

At this stage I don't have a problem with the history of Sukkar in a role nominated knowingly by the rugby world. At least she is engaged.

But for a new CEO I'm wondering where Sherry takes us.

 

[KOB1987]

Great, we end up with a bunch of feminists running the ARU where the future of the code in this country is seen as the development of a national women's XVs comp.

Obviously it won't go that far, but clearly she wants it to be a priority and is prepared to use her position to push that agenda.

 

[KOB1987]

Dru, for a conflict of interest to eventuate doesn't necessarily mean that it had to have been identified initially. I agree, her CV is more impressive from a rugby perspective that the other members of the nominations committee, and even the members of the board. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a conflict of interest though, intentional or otherwise.

 

[kiap]

Alan Joyce is head of a major sponsor so why don't we put him on the board so he can wield his influence well beyond his voting power?
This is just replacing one form of cronyism with another.

Relax.

How can she continue on the ARU board in such circumstances?

Sukkar is not on the board.

You left the ball teed up. Hard to resist.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Great, we end up with a bunch of feminists running the ARU where the future of the code in this country is seen as the development of a national women's XVs comp.

Obviously it won't go that far, but clearly she wants it to be a priority and is prepared to use her position to push that agenda.

Working toward greater engagement among young girls and women isn't a bad thing. Nor do I think it would adversely impact upon the development of the game in any negative way at all. In fact, quite the opposite I suspect. It doesn't take a feminist to realise that. Ultimately I couldn't care less whether they are or are not feminists (or women in this matter) only whether or not they are capable of righting the ship and progressing the game.

 

[KOB1987]

^^^^ My first paragraph was a hypothetical look into the future, it wasn't directed at these ladies. The second paragraph is though.

 

[I like to watch]

Yeah no arguments there.

It's really interesting that we have never had the type of debate that is happening in cricket at the moment. Where the Player's Association loudly acknowledges the importance of grassroots development, and actively campaigns for that part of the game to get a big slice of the pie.

Think the RUPA deal comes up this year as well. Given the ARU's contract negotiation skills we could see Bernard Foley be given the keys to Bill Pulver's house.
.

These CBA's are interesting, it seems our codes here have all pretty much agreed on around 29% of revenue should be the players share.
This has been the model adopted by US pro sports.
However, in the US their franchises spend sweet fa on juniors, and they are huge businesses earning big money for the owners.
Are Oz sportsmen entitled to the same % of turnover in a market where each code spend large amounts on game development, and in most cases are not for profit organisations?

No chance of Foley getting Bills keys, it puzzles me how so many hapless/incompetent executives are not so hapless in organising their own affairs

 

[Braveheart81]

Conflicted? Clearly your knowledge outstrips mine related to the Selections Committee, but we can always do a little digging.

.

The potential conflict is around what she wants as a sponsor and head of women's rugby in Australia versus her role as nominating board members for the ARU.

There is the potential that what is best in terms of the ARU and what is best in terms of her position as wanting to improve women's rugby doesn't necessarily result in the appointment of the same board member.

 

[dru]

The potential conflict is around what she wants as a sponsor and head of women's rugby in Australia versus her role as nominating board members for the ARU.

There is the potential that what is best in terms of the ARU and what is best in terms of her position as wanting to improve women's rugby doesn't necessarily result in the appointment of the same board member.

Braveheart - first I should have thanked you earlier for picking up on Sukkar's role at the ARU - a very important observation.

I do though, think we hit sometimes where statements could probably hold caveats. And I think this is one.

Let's take this from the Annual Report:
"The objectives of the Nominations Committee as stated in it's Charter are to assist the ARU Board in fulfilling it's corporate governance responsibilities with respect to:

• Board Appointments, re-election and performance; and
• Cultural and diversity obligations"

I didn't write this gumph and personally would have preferred additional governance such as "a kick-arse Wallabies team" and
"vibrant professional rugby competition". Even better "supporting and engaged fans" and "thriving community rugby".

BUT Arbib gave us what we've got.

What exactly is it, exactly, that Sukkar has done that fails the expressed obligations of the Nominations Committee? Moreso, what in her background/history/CV is inappropriate (let alone conflicted) in this role? Financial supporting of a developing rugby competition? No. Chairing the Australian Women's Rugby? No.

I could understand a challenge as to whether or not the obligations of the Nominations Committee are the best in terms of what the ARU need. But I fail to see how Sukkar has not addressed those items or is not other than ideally suited for the role.

To be clear - I'm not liking this governance detail and process and suspect that it is not without fault as to why we are where we are.

 

[RedsHappy]

Relax.

Sukkar is not on the board.

You left the ball teed up. Hard to resist.

If Sukkar turns out to be the key change-maker re the ARU board:

(a) I will almost certainly be delirious with joy as virtually nothing can be worse than what we have had for the last decade and more recently and

(b) kind of doubly so because, and I have argued often here, the alternative is little but handbags, wet lettuces and endlessly rinsed and repeated wimperism.

Where are the other robust, credible protesters and gutsy we-will-lead-the-revolt change agents to be found? Spineless absentees are the descriptors of merit. They are nowhere!

Lots of talk, lots of tittle-tattle, lots of whinging re the ARU BUT NO FUCKER EVER DOES ANYTHING MEANINGFUL TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THE AUS RUGBY POWER SYSTEM AND ITS HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE, INBRED CULTURES THAT ARE KILLING THE CODE IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

[Lee Enfield]

Better off without her !
Rugby has enough problems without a squillionaire pushing HER OWN agendas to the potential detriment of the main game.

If she so passionate about women's rugby and starting a 15's competition, then instead of playing the victim and throwing a tantrum, why doesn't she follow Kerry Packers lead, and start a competition herself.
Sure it would take hard work, sure it would take a lot of money, sure it might fail. Maybe that is the problem, it is too hard, too expensive and too risky to put her money where her mouth is, so it is easier to ride the coat tails of men's rugby and demand the men's game wear all the risks and costs.

 

[Braveheart81]

BUT Arbib gave us what we've got.

What exactly is it, exactly, that Sukkar has done that fails the expressed obligations of the Nominations Committee? Moreso, what in her background/history/CV is inappropriate (let alone conflicted) in this role? Financial supporting of a developing rugby competition? No. Chairing the Australian Women's Rugby? No.

I could understand a challenge as to whether or not the obligations of the Nominations Committee are the best in terms of what the ARU need. But I fail to see how Sukkar has not addressed those items or is not other than ideally suited for the role.

To be clear - I'm not liking this governance detail and process and suspect that it is not without fault as to why we are where we are.

I think the existence of the nominations committee is good. It is a sensible reform.

I have not said that Sukkar has done anything inappropriate or that anything she has done so far is conflicted.

What I am saying is that now that there seems to be a rift between her and the ARU over this issue means there is the potential that she is conflicted going forward when it comes time to nominate new board members.

I am not in any way suggesting she has done anything wrong or will do anything improper.

I am suggesting that there is the potential that what she wants the ARU to do and what the ARU should do aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[Lee Enfield]

In reality do we even need women's rugby, nrl, afl, soccer, basketball and cricket national competitions. After all men and women are equal, so just remove gender from the current national competitions and open them up to women players.

 

[Braveheart81]

Oh for fucks sake.

 

[RugbyReg]

In reality do we even need women's rugby, nrl, afl, soccer, basketball and cricket national competitions. After all men and women are equal, so just remove gender from the current national competitions and open them up to women players.

yeah screw juniors too.

No more of this silly age group stuff.

Let's just have a open levels of rugby across the country.

We could have competitions and teams made up of 14 year olds boys, 19 year old women, 50 year old men - who cares. Just break down the barriers.