Senate enquiry into Australian Rugby

[Tex]

Reg, I love your work but this riddle wrapped in an enigma angle is absurd.

In a two horse race to the knacker y, the horse who comes out alive has clearly gained the most from the decision.

 

[ForceFan]

This is an interesting thread.
If you go back and read from the start many positions are entrenched and unchanged despite the report from the Senate Inquiry being tabled yesterday. Essentially they continually stress – “nothing to see here – move on!”
The Senate Inquiry was never about the Force v Rebels. They were just bit players in the unfolding melodrama.
Comments such as “I think we need to stop looking for wrongdoing when there was only at worst incompetence and bad decision making,” totally miss the mark.
The Senate Inquiry was all about the management of the great game of Rugby Union in Australia.
Particularly it was about the actions of the ARU/RU in its role as custodians of the game.
What has been uncovered is not good corporate governance but a spiderweb of:
+ collusion
+ ignoring fiduciary duties (especially under an Alliance Agreement)
+ conflicts of interest
+ vested interests
+ lack of duty of care to employees (WF staff and players became employees under the Alliance Agreement). They were treated deplorably.
+ possible deceptive and unconscionable conduct
+ lack of transparency and accountability to stakeholders
+ potentially misappropriation of funds
+ possible breaches of Australian Corporate Law/possible criminal actions
++++++++++++++++
If these issues are not of concern to fans and supporters of Rugby Union in Australia then the game has no future.
Senator Reynolds and the rest of the Committee are to be commended for their efforts compiling this report. As she eluded to in her address to the Senate the work has not been completed.
I suggest that the Senate Inquiry has uncovered only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Braveheart81]

Recommendation 4

4.29 The committee recommends that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review the evidence received by the committee regarding transactions involving the Melbourne Rebels.

Recommendation 5

4.30 The committee recommends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review the financial circumstances reported in the Australian Rugby Union's annual reports against the evidence presented to the committee.


My prediction is I don't think anything will come out of these two recommendations. If ASIC has anything more than a cursory glance at the transactions and financials I will be surprised.

 

[Tex]

This is an interesting thread.
If you go back and read from the start many positions are entrenched and unchanged despite the report from the Senate Inquiry being tabled yesterday. Essentially they continually stress – “nothing to see here – move on!”
The Senate Inquiry was never about the Force v Rebels. They were just bit players in the unfolding melodrama.
Comments such as “I think we need to stop looking for wrongdoing when there was only at worst incompetence and bad decision making,” totally miss the mark.
The Senate Inquiry was all about the management of the great game of Rugby Union in Australia.
Particularly it was about the actions of the ARU/RU in its role as custodians of the game.
What has been uncovered is not good corporate governance but a spiderweb of:
+ collusion
+ ignoring fiduciary duties (especially under an Alliance Agreement)
+ conflicts of interest
+ vested interests
+ lack of duty of care to employees (WF staff and players became employees under the Alliance Agreement). They were treated deplorably.
+ possible deceptive and unconscionable conduct
+ lack of transparency and accountability to stakeholders
+ possible breaches of Australian Corporate Law/possible criminal actions
++++++++++++++++
If these issues are not of concern to fans and supporters of Rugby Union in Australia then the game has no future.
Senator Reynolds and the rest of the Committee are to be commended for their efforts compiling this report. As she eluded to in her address to the Senate the work has not been completed.
I suggest that the Senate Inquiry has uncovered only the tip of the iceburg.

That's fair, and I'll be the first to admit that the emotion/stress of this clusterfuck of an exercise has often gotten to me. That said, too regularly this has dissolved into useless trolling and finger-pointing from people who have literally no bone with each other, which is regrettable. I flicked through the report on my phone waiting for the soccer to start, but read via FB that the report alleges mis-use of funds by Imperium. It was implied that grants given to Imperium for grassroots rugby were never passed on. Is that accurate, and can someone provide the citation?

 

[kiap]

My prediction is I don't think anything will come out of these two recommendations. If ASIC has anything more than a cursory glance at the transactions and financials I will be surprised.

Yesterday you predicted the Senate Committee's report into rugby would not get tabled anytime soon.

Were you surprised when it was tabled yesterday afternoon?

 

[ForceFan]

My prediction is I don't think anything will come out of these two recommendations. If ASIC has anything more than a cursory glance at the transactions and financials I will be surprised.

We should all get some comfort from that as I assume that you're an expert in Australian Corporate Law and governance. I suggest that we should wait and see what unfolds............. For the sake of the future of Rugby I hope the Corporate Watchdogs 'goes for their guts'.

 

[Tex]

I don't know if any GAGR members provided submissions but I kind of wish I did with the sole point being the negative impact on discourse on the forum.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yesterday you predicted the Senate Committee's report into rugby would not get tabled anytime soon.

Were you surprised when it was tabled yesterday afternoon?

I also followed up shortly afterwards with: "They got through the introduction of the Marriage Equality Bill quickly so maybe it will be snuck in tonight."

 

[Braveheart81]

We should all get some comfort from that as I assume that you're an expert in Australian Corporate Law and governance. I suggest that we should wait and see what unfolds..... For the sake of the future of Rugby I hope the Corporate Watchdogs 'goes for their guts'.

Our business is an AFSL holder which is administered by ASIC and an ASIC registered agent so I would say I have a significant amount of insight into what ASIC does. I don't think this is an issue of Australian Corporate Law and governance. I think it entirely relates to the amount of resources ASIC are likely to throw at it. My prediction is that won't be a lot. I have little doubt that if ASIC did put significant resources into investigating the ARU they would find significant problems.

 

[cyclopath]

At worst incompetence?
Incompetence is a sacking offence in every other job in the country.

There's a bit of me wishing that the ARU actions were more of a result of them being underhanded and sneaky for as you say,some not yet known benefit.

Cos the alternative is they are fucking clueless fluffybunnys who shouldn't be anywhere near the positions of power that they hold in this code.

And there is no mechanism to have a coup and clean the joint out.

You are joking, surely. My dealings with many organisations would suggest the opposite.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I wonder if sitting on an internet forum all day is a sackable offense in too many organisations

 

[Tex]

I wonder if sitting on an internet forum all day is a sackable offense in too many organisations

Or frequent trips to the loo?

 

[kiap]

I have little doubt that if ASIC did put significant resources into investigating the ARU they would find significant problems.

The ARU are well dug in. Sadly for game, the toxic culture is entrenched.

A combination of secret inside deals as normal business, incestuous appointments for old mates, and incompetent oversight (at a minimum) exists not only at the national level but down through the member unions in the states.

There have been reptiles feeding their self-interest from the game for decades. Unfortunately, rugby people who did make contributions in the past have been sucked in by this orbit and are now just another part of the problem.

There is no will for reform from the controlling stakeholders. The rotten status quo suits their cosy positions.

That's why I support all means and methods of applying pressure to dig out these parasites on Australian rugby.

 

[Tex]

The ARU are well dug in. Sadly for game, the toxic culture is entrenched.

A combination of secret inside deals as normal business, incestuous appointments for old mates, and incompetent oversight (at a minimum) exists not only at the national level but down through the member unions in the states.

There have been reptiles feeding their self-interest from the game for decades. Unfortunately, rugby people who did make contributions in the past have been sucked in by this orbit and are now just another part of the problem.

There is no will for reform from the controlling stakeholders. The rotten status quo suits their cosy positions.

That's why I support all means and methods of applying pressure to dig out these parasites on Australian rugby.

As I said I only read the report briefly and on my phone, but one section that caught my eye was the report on its governance structure. The board appoints the committee that appoints directors to the board (if I recall correctly), which seemed to be the approach of the late CPA board...

 

[Braveheart81]

As I said I only read the report briefly and on my phone, but one section that caught my eye was the report on its governance structure. The board appoints the committee that appoints directors to the board (if I recall correctly), which seemed to be the approach of the late CPA board.

The nominations committee has 4 people. The Chair of the board, one person appointed by the board (currently Peter Heerey) and two people appointed by the members (Josephine Sukkar and John Massey). The board comprises up to 9 people. The managing director (currently Pulver), six directors nominated by the nominations committee and voted in by at least two-thirds of the members and up to two directors appointed by the board after nomination by the nominations committee. At least six of the directors must be independent directors. I also believe RUPA has an agreement whereby two of the directors must be Wallabies who have played in the professional era (currently Robinson and Eales).

 

[fatprop]

Our business is an AFSL holder which is administered by ASIC and an ASIC registered agent so I would say I have a significant amount of insight into what ASIC does. I don't think this is an issue of Australian Corporate Law and governance. I think it entirely relates to the amount of resources ASIC are likely to throw at it. My prediction is that won't be a lot. I have little doubt that if ASIC did put significant resources into investigating the ARU they would find significant problems.

I have little doubt that if ASIC put significant resources into investigating any company they would find significant problems. But at the moment I think ASIC has far more important targets than the ARU, like the whole finance sector, the banks and power companies

 

[Braveheart81]

I have little doubt that if ASIC put significant resources into investigating any company they would find significant problems. But at the moment I think ASIC has far more important targets than the ARU, like the whole finance sector, the banks and power companies

Yes, I agree completely.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Well, perhaps a banking royal commission might free up some of their otherwise overworked and underpaid investigative staff?

 

[Braveheart81]

Well, perhaps a banking royal commission might free up some of their otherwise overworked and underpaid investigative staff?

And look at the political obstruction to that. The government does not want a torch shone too brightly (or shone at all) on important major organisations that are pillars of our economy because they know what would come out would not be pretty.

 

[half]

Do we have something to learn from FIFA. The report has illustrated numerous governance issues but we seem incapable of influencing or forcing a change.

FFA similar to the ARU are in the gun with their various stakeholders.

However FIFA have governance standards they demand off their members { OK OK OK its effectively FIFA saying do what I say not what I do].

Anywho it allows stakeholders to seek FIFA assistance. My limited understanding its used reasonably regularly.

So various soccer stakeholders in soccer have complained to FIFA and it looks like FIFA will sack the FFA board very soon unless they change.

The International Rugby Board cough cough cough should IMO be given similar power.

Very difficult to get off the ground however it does allow when incompetence fuelled by egos and self interest is destroying the game for a circuit breaker.

Well it makes sense to me.