Storm in a teacup, or more serious?
- Thread starter I like to watch
- Start date
- Status
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Potential selection for the All-time Crim 1st XV
T
Tip
Guest
Storm in a teacup?
Nah, just another day at the office for the NSWRU.
Nah, just another day at the office for the NSWRU.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Just mind-blowing that someone in Nick Farr-Jones' position (both at the NSWRU and in corporate life) would think that is an acceptable thing to be doing.
T
TOCC
Guest
Misappropriation of funds isn't something to be sneezed at, I'm sure there was no malice intent but there are ramifications for issues like this especially when it's comes to government grants. It reads as though the NSW Govt has given $600k to the NSWRU over 4 years for the indigenous program, if they find the NSWRU governance was somehow at fault then it could see that funding stopped.. which would be a real shame for the indigenous kids it was designed to help
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Jack Belly Sparrow
Frank Row (1)
this is not good. At the very least he appears to have misled the Board. Don't think we've heard the end of this.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Absolutely, but the Worboys explanation is even worse. Doesn't seem to think that they've done anything wrong, but blamed Williams for not paying it back. This is a guy entrusted with the governance of the game. Wow.
Worboys said he and Farr-Jones were let down by Williams.
"Our actions were for the welfare of an employee with no intention of deceit or deception," he said. "We were badly let down and have been again now."
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
And I was just asking on another thread why rugby doesn't seem to get much government funding.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: They've broken the rules.
Sir Humphrey: What, you mean the insider trading regulations?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: No.
Sir Humphrey: Oh. Well, that's one relief.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City.
Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
The money was paid back.
I think they're saying they were let down by Williams pleading for the loan to begin with.
Not bringing the issue to the attention of the board seems to be the major issue here. I doubt anyone within the NSWRU is authorised to make loans to employees.
There is definitely the governance issue to look at but I'd guess that the conversations regarding where the funds were coming from was more to do with a budget than from a specific bank account containing the grant money.
It doesn't improve the situation all that much but I think it is an important distinction (and may help them in the future) when seeking more government funding.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I think the implication there is that NFJ+others and not Williams repaid the loan to the NSWRU.
In any case, you're definitely not allowed to loan out Fed grant money, if that's where it came from - it's written into all agreements I've ever seen.
edit just saw your post above...
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
If the article is correct it seems to say that Williams didn't pay the money back - which is why they were let down. Farr-Jones paid the money back.
And I'd add, that even the board can't authorise the use of government money for a private purpose. In fact, as you say, I'd be surprised if they could legally loan any NSWRU funds to anyone.
For Farr-Jones to say:
"Bruce was confident he could ... organise the loan to be refinanced and the debt to be repaid. Plus, Jim gave him assurances. Effectively I was comfortable with that and I was comfortable on the basis that I would guarantee the loan. There is no written guarantee but it was always my word. I was chairman for four years, I've put thousands of hours into it for no compensation.
"Technically, you probably should have sought consent of the board but I made that decision [not to] given the circumstances."
is just mind-boggling. No documentation, no nothing, just a wink and a nod. He thinks it's all ok - just a technicality in not asking. Much like one of Marto's "technical infringements".
I've been on plenty of committees over the years and put in plenty of hours without monetary compensation, but I never thought that this entitled me to loan club money to people from club funds. I'm surprised that anyone thinks that this is ok.
Sorry, I misread that part the first time.
I'm definitely surprised Farr-Jones and Worboys went ahead with it. They would have clearly known it was inappropriate regardless of how quickly the money could be paid back.
I'd be surprised if much more comes out of this given that all parties are no longer involved with the NSWRU in any official capacity.
Terrible judgement to compromise themselves like that.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
It doesn't really matter whether the money is paid back or not,
Certainly in respect of unauthorised use of someone else's funds. Generally called misappropriation. The act is the crime. It just doesn't matter what the intention was (to pay it back in 6 months etc, that Williams was destitute, Williams is an aborigine)
That the money was repaid only goes somewhat towards mitigation of the penalty.
Should be a jailable offence
Certainly in respect of unauthorised use of someone else's funds. Generally called misappropriation. The act is the crime. It just doesn't matter what the intention was (to pay it back in 6 months etc, that Williams was destitute, Williams is an aborigine)
That the money was repaid only goes somewhat towards mitigation of the penalty.
Should be a jailable offence
- Status