"Transparency" at the ARU

[kiap]

As a starter, apparently, the Australian Rugby Union has a Constitution.

I'm sure it's a fairly boring read, but sometimes it's useful to be able to look up how the joint is supposedly being run.

The New Zealand Rugby Union publishes their Constitution on their website where you can see the rules for calling Special General Meetings, and so on, and who gets to vote.

Where is the ARU's ?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Not sure Kiap. But I guess a more critical question is whether the recommendations of the Mark Arbib review into governance commissioned a few years ago were actually implemented. Some of them required revisiting the constitution.

 

[ChargerWA]

Is anyone strolling past St Leonard's tomorrow? This is something I'm sure we'd all be interested to see.

 

[RugbyReg]

Not sure Kiap. But I guess a more critical question is whether the recommendations of the Mark Arbib review into governance commissioned a few years ago were actually implemented. Some of them required revisiting the constitution.

The actual Arbib review is here:

http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/images/docs/Gov/Details.pdf

How it was implemented is here:

http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/images/docs/Gov/Summary.pdf

Can't find the constitution though.

 

[kiap]

Thanks, Reg. Finding the Arbib review is not a problem (and never was).

How it was implemented is here:

http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/images/docs/Gov/Summary.pdf

Can't find the constitution though.

This is of interest, though. Not good enough, but still worth a look.

For most points, the implementation "required" was either no substantive change or a resolution requiring at least 75% votes.

Even where the board lists their suggested amendments, the statement still notes that there is "No change to the required implementation". – i.e. the requirement for a special resolution to be passed with a 75% majority.

So, without the document available to us (the constitution itself), there's no transparency on what has—or has not—been amended.

 

[RugbyReg]

Perhaps we need our own "Crawford Report" which re-shaped soccer in Australia.

Points to note (form wikipedia, it must be noted)

The Independent Soccer Review Committee published a report in 2003 on the governance of association football in Australia popularly called the Crawford Report. The committee was announced by the then Minister for Sport Rod Kemp and the Australian Parliament after extensive media publicity surrounding alleged mismanagement and corruption in the previous governing body, Soccer Australia

I think we could claim extensive media publicity surrounding alleged in the governing body. Not sure about corruption..but who knows? Corruption can have such a broad definition these days.

A series of incidents highlighted the critical state of Soccer in Australia:

• a) The failure of the Socceroos to qualify for the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Confederations Cup due to there being inadequate funds to send European based players to friendlies and the OFC Nations Cup.

Qualifying for the Soccer World Cup was a lot tougher back then. How about failure to win any major trophy for a while (Bledisloe etc) due to their being inadequate funds to keep Australian talent in Oz.

• b) The investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners programme into conflicts of interest and mismanagement at the Board level at Soccer Australia.

This would come in handy right about now.

• c) The constant in-fighting between political factions and concentration of voting and legislative powers in a relative minority of people perpetuating bad governance.

Bingo.

• d) The overt resistance to accept the government enquiry, and even an initial refusal to accept its recommendations despite the balance of government and public opinion seeking rapid implementation.

Perhaps Arbib's report didn't go far enough?
The stated objectives of the review were published as follows:

1. a critical assessment of the existing governance, management and structure of soccer in Australia;
2. solution-based recommendations to deliver a comprehensive governance framework and management structure for the sport that addresses the needs of affiliate organisations and stakeholders. These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance systems and/or integration of activities and operations;
3. identification of potential impediments to reform and strategies to overcome those impediments; and
4. a plan to implement the recommendations.

Again, all would be nice now, as would this:
The Federal Government pledged $15 million to help the new association get underway, on condition the bad business practices of the past are not repeated.
I'm actually surprised the Feds haven't got more involved.

 

[Leo86]

Just the first 2 objectives from the constitution

2. Objects
2.1 Objects of the Company
The objects of the Company are:
(a) to act as "keeper of the code" of the Game of Rugby in Australia from the
grassroots to the elite level;
(b) to foster, promote and arrange Rugby throughout Australia;

(a) FAIL
(b) Foster - FAIL, Promote - Fail, Arrange Rugby throughout AUSTRALIA - FAIL

 

[Braveheart81]

Here's the Constitution

 

[kiap]

Here's the Constitution

Thanks, BH. Got a feeling I know where you got it from.

So the Western Force licensee doesn't vote at all, for a start.

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks, BH. Got a feeling I know where you got it from.

So the Western Force licensee doesn't vote at all, for a start.

As discussed in the Rebels 2017 thread, someone on the TWF forums said they emailed Pulver requesting it and he sent it to them.

I downloaded it from the TWF forums.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

someone on the TWF forums said they emailed Pulver requesting it and he sent it to them

Correct.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Thanks, BH. Got a feeling I know where you got it from.

So the Western Force licensee doesn't vote at all, for a start.

Thanks, BH. Got a feeling I know where you got it from.

So the Western Force licensee doesn't vote at all, for a start.

Doesnt Clause 3.2 say they do

 

[kiap]

Doesnt Clause 3.2 say they do

Yeah, but from 3.3 (d):

If at any time the Company owns or controls a Super Rugby Licensee, that Super Rugby Licensee will not be entitled to vote at general meetings of the Company.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Could the ARU be taken to Court on the grounds that they're not acting to "foster & promote" the game per their Constitution?

Way back in 1985 a coupla lawyers who happened to be members of an Auckland rugby club took NZRU to Court & successfully argued that sending a team to South Africa wasn't in the best interests of the game, that being a requirement of NZRU's Constitution at that time.

Could this be a way of getting the matter before the Courts without party A suing party B for millions that neither can afford? Plenty of lawyers on here, it seems, I'd love to know what they think.

 

[lou75]

Could the ARU be taken to Court on the grounds that they're not acting to "foster & promote" the game per their Constitution?

Way back in 1985 a coupla lawyers who happened to be members of an Auckland rugby club took NZRU to Court & successfully argued that sending a team to South Africa wasn't in the best interests of the game, that being a requirement of NZRU's Constitution at that time.

Could this be a way of getting the matter before the Courts without party A suing party B for millions that neither can afford? Plenty of lawyers on here, it seems, I'd love to know what they think.

That is a very interesting proposition

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yeah, but from 3.3 (d):

If at any time the Company owns or controls a Super Rugby Licensee, that Super Rugby Licensee will not be entitled to vote at general meetings of the Company.

I thought they only bought the ip

 

[Jon]

Not sure on who uses the force's licensee vote. but RWA still has one vote (for what it's worth against all the others)

 

[Strewthcobber]

I thought they only bought the ip

From the own the Force prospectus


During the 2015 season the Australian Rugby Union acquired the intellectual property rights in the Western Force and then in 2016 the Australian Rugby Union entered into a sale agreement with RugbyWA whereby it acquired all of the assets and business associated with the Western Force.

 

[RedsHappy]

Spiro Zavos is often attacked in these fora but IMO he makes some very valid points and observations here, many of which relate directly to this thread's topic:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/05/22/spiro-aru-madness-pocock-earns-three-times-mcmahon-not-playing/

 

[Braveheart81]

"Pocock’s greatest days were years ago, in the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament probably. Occasionally, as at Sydney when the Wallabies defeated the All Blacks before the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament, he was capable of a great performance. But he was out-played by Richie McCaw in the final of that tournament."

Sure, he got outplayed in the final of the RWC but he was also a big part of getting us there. 2015 featured some of the best rugby of Pocock's career. It is rubbish to say that his greatest days were years ago.

Pocock is the single most important player the Wallabies have and that is reflected by the fact that our winning percentage is higher when he plays.

Sure the ARU are paying him for a season where he isn't here, but clearly there is a plan of getting him to the RWC. If the contract had been for the same dollars with zero dollars for this year, would people be complaining as much?

It is surely better for the ARU's cashflow that the money is spread across a longer period of time.

It would be great if McMahon could be offered a massive guaranteed contract but even this year without Pocock here he isn't a guaranteed starter for the Wallabies.