• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

T

TOCC

Guest
I think that's a good idea, it will at least send a further signal to the ARU, I'd be interested to see how many people would sign it as well
 

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
Any one for a change org petition calling on the board to resign? Or are all the people who care about rugby already on here calling for that anyway?

I guess the Member unions could convene another egm and this time oust the board - replace them with the President of each Member union as an interim Board - that would take 21 days just need RugbyWA and RUPA to call for the egm, say, and get SA, TAS, NT to align their votes would give them the majority - and if the eastern states either aligned their vote or failed to show up to vote, then the deed would be done.
 

Tackennut

Bob McCowan (2)
The structure is a big part of the problem because nothing can really be fixed as long at NSWRU & QRU prop up the ARU who in turn finance and support the NSWRU & QRU.

I think the structure is a real problem for the sport and what we are seeing is a severe symptom of the state the game in Australia. A real shame, its been a problem for a long time and looking from the outside. and I admit not an expert or even claim to understand the intricacies of how it all works at the national level, it is obvious that the source of the problem is very fundamental in nature and we will never improve until we deal with these issues. I'd like to think that the Force saga may be the catalyst for change but I fear even this is not big enough to kick start that process. I suspect the the opposite will happen and the wagons will be corralled and any level of transparency that needs to come out to progress will never happen. We will never really know the full story and until we sink to a pathetic level on the field and become the whipping boys for the rest of the world nothing will happen. My prediction.....we haven't hit the bottom yet
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
The structure is a big part of the problem because nothing can really be fixed as long at NSWRU & QRU prop up the ARU who in turn finance and support the NSWRU & QRU.

It's also true without being complete.

The franchises did not vote to cut a team. They voted to receive extra funds on the basis that someone else was cut. Qld, NSW and ACT were guaranteed it wasnt them, hence the ARU neatly solving the matter politically. Both Vic and WA had reasonable grounds to believe they were safe.

So yes "the member unions voted" for it, but no "It" wasnt excatly this outcome.
Especially considering the damage done to the sport as a direct consequence.

Of course none of that changes the repugnance of NSW/Qld - ARU self preservation society.
 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
Any one for a change org petition calling on the board to resign? Or are all the people who care about rugby already on here calling for that anyway?
Yep, please get that one started.

Then as a protest everyone going to the Bled should wear Force Blue. SANZAAR need to see the depth of feeling here.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I reckon anyone blaming NSW and Qld is giving a pretty free pass to all of the other member unions who could have stood up and opposed this.

They didn't

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

That's true and the ACTRU shouldn't escape mention as being a major player in events. In terms of places like NT, Tas, SA they are essentially branch offices of the ARU. They have virtually no means of independent funding so are bound to go along with the ARU as a means of survival.

But it's the NSWRU and the QRU above all who like to masquerade as some sort of guardians of the traditions of the game and the heartland. They have the power to pretty much force through any change if they really want to, but as major beneficiaries of the current system they choose not to.

EDIT: The last paragraph is not meant to differentiate between the level of blame attached to NSWRU and QRU in case some people read it that way.:)
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Why would any of the member unions act against their own self-interest?

The whole point of the ARU is to act in the national interest. Clearly there have been massive shortcomings in this area.

The current structure is better than the old structure which effectively made the ARU board representatives of the states (with Qld and NSW having the greatest representation). The major problem with that structure is that the powerful states had fairly direct control on the actions taken by the national body.

The problem from here is how to move on from this debacle. Clearly renewal is already coming at the executive level of the ARU and it is also needed at the board level.

I don't know that a different group would have made a different decision though. The mistake was backing the expansion to 18 teams with the unwieldy structure. From there everything has gone disastrously.

Clearly the Force were cut because the ARU was able to cut them. It was the path of least resistance.

It's a sad day for Australian Rugby and hopefully we can recover from it. It is maybe a long shot, but whatever the next incarnation of professional rugby that happens post 2020 (or sooner if Super Rugby capitulates) happens soon enough that WA can be brought back into the professional game at the point where they aren't starting from scratch again.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
It's also true without being complete.

The franchises did not vote to cut a team. They voted to receive extra funds on the basis that someone else was cut. Qld, NSW and ACT were guaranteed it wasnt them, hence the ARU neatly solving the matter politically. Both Vic and WA had reasonable grounds to believe they were safe.

So yes "the member unions voted" for it, but no "It" wasnt excatly this outcome.
Especially considering the damage done to the sport as a direct consequence.

Of course none of that changes the repugnance of NSW/Qld - ARU self preservation society.


That is a bit naive. When the unions voted they knew exactly what it meant.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
It's also true without being complete.

The franchises did not vote to cut a team. They voted to receive extra funds on the basis that someone else was cut. Qld, NSW and ACT were guaranteed it wasnt them, hence the ARU neatly solving the matter politically. Both Vic and WA had reasonable grounds to believe they were safe.

So yes "the member unions voted" for it, but no "It" wasnt excatly this outcome.
Especially considering the damage done to the sport as a direct consequence.

Of course none of that changes the repugnance of NSW/Qld - ARU self preservation society.


I can't agree with this... Technically they may not have voted to cut a team, but during the EGM they didn't support the resolution to retain 5 teams. which is the same outcome.

These were the three resolutions put forward at the EGM, 1 and 2 failed to pass but 3 did.


1. The EGM considers that it is in the best interests of Rugby in Australia that Australia maintain its five current teams in the Super Rugby competition until at least the end of the 2020 Super Rugby season.
2. That the Company re-consider its decision to reduce the number of Australian teams playing in the Super Rugby competition.
3. That the Company facilitate a forum of all Voting Members, to be held as soon as practicable and at the costs and expense of the Company, for the purposes of considering the establishment of an Australian Super Rugby Commission which will act as an advisory body to the Company on the future participation of Australian teams in the Super Rugby Competition.

 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
That is a bit naive. When the unions voted they knew exactly what it meant.

The vote at the most recent EGM was 8:6 to reduce to 4 teams.

We do know that the VRU voted for 5 teams and MRRU voted for 4 teams.
RUPA and WARU voted for 5 teams.
Anything else is conjecture.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The current structure is better than the old structure which effectively made the ARU board representatives of the states (with Qld and NSW having the greatest representation). The major problem with that structure is that the powerful states had fairly direct control on the actions taken by the national body.

In theory it's a different strucutre, but in practice there's not too much different. State RUs are heavily involved in who is elected to the ARU board.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
In theory it's a different strucutre, but in practice there's not too much different. State RUs are heavily involved in who is elected to the ARU board.


There is no structure where interested parties don't lobby to try and get the people they want on a board.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
There is no structure where interested parties don't lobby to try and get the people they want on a board.

Exactly, but at least under the old system it was transparent and accountable. Under the current model it's opaque and not in the least accountable to most rugby participants.
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
I can't agree with this. Technically they may not have voted to cut a team, but during the EGM they didn't support the resolution to retain 5 teams. which is the same outcome.

These were the three resolutions put forward at the EGM, 1 and 2 failed to pass but 3 did.




TOCC. It's always disappointing to not be in alignment with your views. Always respect your thinking. But here you are simply restating disagreement. It isn't actually adding info imo. The EGM motions were a repeat of "yes I want more $" and the rest of Aus rugby be damned with the consequences.

With NSW and Qld on board, by being offered the silver and not being brought to account, the vote was precast. ACT also culpable. And god knows the confusion from Vic and WA who has reasonable grounds to think themselves safe.

Yes. I'm repeating this is because the counter discussion is repeating

For the naval gazers at Qld, NSW and ACT (and if so Vic and WA) in a myopic short term manner it was in their self interest.

It is my greatest regret that we now get to watch the proof of that played out. I have a firm opinion on where it is going, but that is unimportant as we
now get to see how right the navel gazers are in the short, medium and long term.
 
Top