While doing some google "research" I stumbled on this article. It has probably already been discussed way back when in early 2011 when it was published, but the central theme of the article seems to resonate and be as relevant now as it was back then.
Source:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ilence-volunteer/story-e6frg7o6-1226032920454
Attack dogs try to silence volunteer
NSW Junior Rugby Union president Paul Taylor's Saturday did not begin well.
At 9am, the phone rang. On the other end was a middle-tier Australian Rugby Union official roundly and quite loudly berating him over comments attributed to him in an article in that day's Sydney Morning Herald about how the cashed-up AFL had doubled its junior player numbers in the city over the past five years.
In the article, Taylor was quoted criticising ARU chief executive John O'Neill for failing to invest in the sport. "It appears every spare cent is spent by the Australian Rugby Union on the professional game," the article read.
"We have a CEO who is out of touch with his constituents and does not care that this is the case. (NSW) Juniors, like most organisations in rugby, is weary of the adversarial management style shown by the current ARU executive."
The words were not given directly to the journalist but instead were taken from an internal email leaked to the newspaper. But while Taylor reportedly was annoyed about them suddenly getting into the public domain, he was not going to disavow them. And he certainly had no intention of retracting them nor of issuing a public apology for them, which is precisely what the middle-tier manager was demanding.
Undeterred, the official informed Taylor that he had until 3.30pm to issue a retraction and that an even more senior ARU administrator would telephone him to "assist" him in the drafting of the retraction.
When ultimately that more senior official made contact, Taylor told him what he had told the underling, that he didn't feel comfortable disowning what was his honestly held belief. The response from the ARU heavyweight was that, in that case, Taylor had compelled the union to act as it saw fit.
Precisely what that means may be left to the imagination. But speaking from personal experience, what usually follows is a very formal letter from one of the best law firms in the country.
It would be interesting, just as an aside, to know precisely how much money the cash-strapped ARU spends on defending the reputations of its senior officials but, try as I might, I can't find that number in the union's financial statements. What I have found, however, are O'Neill's salaries for 2008 ($841,300) and 2009 ($688,750). The 2010 annual report still is not posted on the ARU's website.
Now, encouraging as it is to see his salary trending downwards at a time when the ARU is savagely cutting back program after program, these things are still relative. When I Googled the Prime Minister's salary, for instance, the figure of $333,000 presented itself, so it would seem that O'Neill, who is in overall charge of Rugby Inc worth, all up, around $230 million, is being paid roughly double what Julia Gillard is to run a country with a nominal GDP of around $1.2 trillion. What's more, when last I looked, Gillard cops an extraordinary amount of criticism and abuse from constituents and just takes it on the chin. It comes with the job.
Then again, she is elected. And part of the process of being elected is that she is required, from time to time, to articulate her vision for the country. Australians listen, politely or otherwise, and pass judgment on her. That is the democratic process.
If O'Neill has articulated a vision for Australian rugby, I'm certainly not familiar with it. Anyway, the best way of evaluating the ARU is to observe it in action and on just about every front it is scaling back, shrinking the game, centralising control at every level.
That's not to say that Australian rugby doesn't need to tighten its belt at present. Several major sponsors have turned their backs on the ARU and, astonishingly, the union still does not have a naming rights sponsor for Super Rugby.
No one is complaining that the belt-tightening is being extended to the players because, frankly, even they admit they've done very well out of a deal struck right at the dawn of professionalism when they had the ARU over a barrel. But everywhere else, the cutbacks are hurting badly. Rugby's excess fat has long since been trimmed away. When the ARU's interfering Razor Gang cuts now, it's cutting perilously close to the bone.
If it was apparent to all that the ARU is taking one step backwards in order to take two or three steps forward, then all the constituent bodies presently seething with resentment and anger might fix their eyes on the big picture and work with the national body. But they have long since lost faith in the leadership of Australian rugby.
Taylor had no idea that what he had intended as an internal memo would form the basis of paragraphs two, three and four of a Sydney Morning Herald story but he bravely is standing by what he and thousands of others in Australian rugby regard as the truth.
It is unpaid volunteers like Taylor who are keeping the game alive at the grassroots level. What does it say about the state of Australian rugby that generously paid administrators are now whistling up their attack dogs in an attempt to silence him?
