Senate enquiry into Australian Rugby

[fatprop]

Conducting due diligence on deals before they sign them would be a nice start. The new structure had only been in effect 18months before the rumours started, they clearly failed to survey what the market wanted or budget forecast realistically.

Agreed, but that is better planning\systems for the future decisions. Once the decision was made we are then onto solving the next problem ie how to fix up the mistake because we can't reverse time

 

[TOCC]

Agreed, but that is better planning\systems for the future decisions. Once the decision was made we are then onto solving the next problem ie how to fix up the mistake because we can't reverse time

Holistically what you say i agree with, but here's the thing FP... Nothing has changed... We can't move onto the next problem if the real problem hasn't actually been fixed.. the same idiots at the ARU who failed so incredibly when they committed Australian Rugby to a financially unfeasible deal are still the same ones in charge today. They are the problem, and it boggles my mind that people seem to think the Western Force were the problem and that cutting a team and reducing playing opportunities resolves anything, it doesn't solve anything and there's plenty to suggest that all it does is create even greater problems.

When Bill Pulver signed the deal for SR18 only 23 months ago we were told it would the best for Australian rugby, that the cash flow would secure Australian rugby's future and allow funding of the grass roots, barely 14months into the new tournament and all of a sudden we are been told that cutting a team is the best thing for Australian Rugby's future and would allow funding for the grass roots. As i said.. nothing has changed and the actual problem remains.

 

[fatprop]

Holistically what you say i agree with, but here's the thing FP. Nothing has changed. We can't move onto the next problem if the real problem hasn't actually been fixed.. the same idiots at the ARU who failed so incredibly when they committed Australian Rugby to a financially unfeasible deal are still the same ones in charge today. They are the problem, and it boggles my mind that people seem to think the Western Force were the problem and that cutting a team and reducing playing opportunities resolves anything, it doesn't solve anything and there's plenty to suggest that all it does is create even greater problems.

When Bill Pulver signed the deal for SR18 only 23 months ago we were told it would the best for Australian rugby, that the cash flow would secure Australian rugby's future and allow funding of the grass roots, barely 14months into the new tournament and all of a sudden we are been told that cutting a team is the best thing for Australian Rugby's future and would allow funding for the grass roots. As i said.. nothing has changed and the actual problem remains.

Our hope for change is down to Pulver's replacement. Personally, I expect some improvement with just different errors. The whole structure is highly political.

They employ a real CEO and we will see complaints about them not understanding the culture, employ someone who has that understanding and they will have been to school with x,y or z and any decision will be deemed down to the old boys club. It isn't a job I would wish on my worst enemy.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

I don't see Pulver's replacement helping at all. Australian Rugby is toxic. The ARU did this under Clyne's leadership and he just must go, taking the rest with him.

 

[mst]

What else could be done?

Aside from the lack of sufficient business acumen and administrative abilities there is always opportunities to look at how you do things and see if there are identifiable contributing factor.

Player and team performance has apparently been linked with poor coaching and player development. Some times its systemic other time its isolated to poor appointment's due to institutionalised thinking, nepotism or bias regrading appointment's etc.

I believe that England changed coaches due to similar issue and SA are about to.

Can you imagine if Aussie rugby did some research to check if we had that issue? What if It was the reason (or large contributor) to why all the teams were performing poorly and it was linked to the player development issues etc? If that were the case it would give us a good indication that its not just a player problem.

But alas, it a player issue, not a coaching one. Thus why we cut players (team). We don't need a forum, coaching development, national coaching programs or summits.

If only we could work out what was wrong. We could be doing things like allowing the two poorest performing coaches to be signed at one franchise and would even consider it an issue.

 

[ForceFan]

What else could be done?

The EARU Board has consistently shown that it can be very quick to make the wrong decisions and very slow to make the right ones. This and other boards have simply ignored the recommendations from successive, expensive reviews as they didn't fit the localised agenda. The EARU Board is only a symptom of the structural and governance problems plaguing Rugby Union in Australia. The Professional Game should be managed professionally by an appropriate organisation - not a cabal full of nepotism and with a very limited geographic focus.
The IPRC is presenting a very different model and is gaining a lot of buy-in from the Indo-Pacific region - but especially the governing organisations. World Rugby obviously appreciates the possibility of a significant injection of Andrew Forrest $$s into our great game. Bit of a tragedy for the game in Australia that the EARU didn't........ I can understand why Forrest now has little interest in giving a brass razoo to the EARU which has shown that it is incapable of being good stewards of large sums of money and honoring its mandate to nurture the game in Australia.

 

[mst]

^^ I still question if the core issue is that the mentality of rugby is still set in amateurism and the institutionalised thinking, ideology and prospective are a flow on from it.

If you consider RA they seem to operate on a all care no responsibility mantra with the unions all subservient . RA have exclusive rights to the "cream" being the Wallabies and the revenue that flow in from them (as we have been repeatably told its significant revenue and it makes a profit).

Even though the Unions and what they do and provide are critical to RA (in providing the players and retaining them) the Wallabies and associated revenues are RA's exclusive domain.

But Super Rugby and other parts of the game are left to the Unions or even clubs to deal with even though RA is allegedly the "governing" body. This is highlighted by the current Super Rugby arrangements. The Unions do all the work yet all the revenue is flowed to RA to then distributed how they want. It was $ 6 mil to each franchise, $10 to grassroots (whatever that is?) and we assume the rest (approximately $17mil) on admin and costs?

If the Unions were volunteer committees you would think this type of set up is normal. But as the Unions are professionally run and responsible for their own business I cant work out why they accept these arrangement.

 

[half]

^^ I still question if the core issue is that the mentality of rugby is still set in amateurism and the institutionalised thinking, ideology and prospective are a flow on from it.

Brilliant

 

[mst]

Ask the basic question of what was in it for the Unions? They are all struggling financially so what did they get out of it? Steadying up the RA bank balance so they could beg for more handouts if they are lucky?

I also wonder between the apparent lack of transparency of RA (ARU) and with so much information "commercial in confidence" if the Unions really knew what they were voting for or did they just follow the Pied Pier blindly as usual?

 

[ForceFan]

This article makes a mockery of EARU submissions before the recent Senate Inquiry and supports the statements by Western Force officials. The next steps in the investigation into this matter are going to be worth watching.
Rugby Union in Australia will be better for these dirty deals being exposed.

Rugby Australia email leak calls Western Force decision into question
Nick Taylor, PerthNow
November 26, 2017

RUGBY Australia was brokering a deal to save the Melbourne Rebels two months before the decision to axe Western Force from Super Rugby was announced.

A confidential email from chief executive Bill Pulver shows he was discussing the deal to transfer the Rebels licence from businessman Andrew Cox to the Victorian Rugby Union in June this year.

Pulver denied any involvement in the subsequent transfer of the Rebels licence.

“I was not involved in any way with the transfer of licence back to VRU. I was taken by surprise when it happened. I am not sure what email you are referring to,” he said.

The email, leaked to Seven West Media, was sent from Pulver to Cox and other RA management. Among key terms was that (foundation Rebels directors) Lyndsey Cattermole and Bob Dalziel would repay creditors to ensure the club was “debt-free”.
That allowed the “put option”, used to transfer the licence from Cox’s Imperium Group to the VRU on August 4 when they bought 11,625,000 shares for $1.

RA claimed it was blindsided when news of the sale leaked and said it had to approve any transfer or sale of ownership.

Pulver stated in the June 28 email that another term of the deal was that: “Imperium exercises the put option to the VRU such that the VRU becomes the sole shareholder of the Rebels.”

He told the senate inquiry into the future of rugby in September: “In fact, at the 12th hour minor shareholders within the Melbourne Rebels came forward with incremental capital to prop up the enterprise, which removed it from the prospect of insolvency.

“Those two (Force and Rebels) were both live right up until the final decision.”

Western Force members and supporters were devastated by the decision.
RA chairman Cameron Clyne told the inquiry last month: “I have said there was a very real option that both teams were being considered right through until August.”

The email relates to a finding from the inquiry: “Confidential evidence shows the ARU were directly involved in the execution of the transfer of the Melbourne Rebels’ licence from Imperium to VRU.

“The committee understands these negotiations were well under way by June 2017.”

The committee also said it had: “... been made aware that the ARU suggested Imperium exercise a put option and were involved in negotiations which cleared Melbourne Rebels debt thereby allowing the put option to the Victorian Rugby Union to be exercised.

“These events took place in June 2017 and effectively made it impossible to end their licence.”
https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/r...rn-force-decision-into-question-ng-b88671547z

 

[mst]

IIRC the Senate was continuing to considering the varsity of the evidence provided by some members of the the ARU, VRU and others associated with the VRU. This might enliven the whole issue again.

Depending when in June this occurred it may go the the issues like the disclose requirement that were raised in relation to the annual report and I believe part of the what the Senate wanted ASIC to look at.

 

[ForceFan]

Some interesting new developments……..

Check out the submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the Future of Rugby in Australia .

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...munity_Affairs/Futureofrugbyunion/Submissions

The Confidential submission #13 has a new attachment which is the minutes of the ARU Board Meeting which was held on 16 August 2016.

Item 6.3 …….As such, while the move from 5 to 4 teams in Australia is now considered preferable from both a financial and high performance perspective.……..

Item 6.4 The Board raised the question of which Australian Super Rugby team would be disbanded in a move from 5 to 4 teams. Mr Clarke noted that a comprehensive review would be conducted before any decision is made in this regard.

The timing is very interesting in light of the Alliance Agreement with the Western Force being ratified on 26 August 2016……..10 days after the ARU Board Meeting above with no hint to the Western Force or RugbyWA about the culling of an Australian team.

Yet another example of the lies, deception and unconscionable conduct by members of the ARU Board in their testimonies before the Senate Inquiry.

Feduciary duties of each party in a JV or alliance is to always act in the interest of all parties in the JV or alliance.

I understand that there is more to come this weekend.

 

[TOCC]

ASIC have noted the inquiries recommendations and will make a decision on whether they will take further action soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ForceFan]

ASIC have noted the inquiries recommendations and will make a decision on whether they will take further action soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Pleasing to see Wayne Smith back from holidays: “”The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is hoping to reach a decision soon on whether to take further action against Rugby Australia in line with recommendations made by a Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry was set up primarily to investigate how Rugby Australia — then known as the Australian Rugby Union — reached its controversial decision to axe Western Force in an effort to save the cash-strapped code and so ensure the other four teams become competitive again in Super Rugby. In the course of its investigations, however, the inquiry concentrated heavily on the ARU’s financial dealings with the other club named as being on the endangered list, Melbourne Rebels. The committee recommended that “the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review the evidence received by the committee regarding transactions involving the Melbourne Rebels”. It also proposed that ASIC “review the financial circumstances reported in the Australian Rugby Union’s annual reports against the evidence presented to the committee”. An ASIC spokesman told The Weekend Australian yesterday that the matter was being investigated. “We did note the recommendations and we’re currently considering the matter,” he said. “We would hope to respond as soon as possible, not too long from now.” The unwritten assumption from the Senate committee is that it believed there were irregularities at the former ARU and it was ASIC’s job to determine whether there was a breach of corporation law. ASIC would then need to consider if a prosecution was in the public interest. Although rugby in the West will hold a public forum on December 10 to keep the faithful appraised of developments on Andrew Forrest’s Indo Pacific Rugby Championship, there is no question the code is suffering. Further evidence was provided yesterday when the Brisbane Global Tens organisers revealed there would be no WA team in the 12-team tournament at Suncorp Stadium on February 9-10. “We tried extremely hard to find a way to continue to include a team from WA in next year’s tournament,” Brisbane Global Rugby Tens chief executive Rachael Carroll said. “Sadly, during negotiations with several parties it became clear that we would not be able to guarantee that a WA team would be able to meet the player quality obligations of a Super Rugby side.” Yet given that players such as Ben McCalman, Curtis Rona, Pek Cowan, Matt Hodgson, Angus Cottrell, Heath Tessmann and even Nick Cummins have not committed themselves to any Super Rugby side yet, it is puzzling why a WA team can’t be raised, especially if the leading lights of the Perth Spirit NRC side are thrown in. A change of RA chief executive would surely help the healing process in the West but there is no clear indication a replacement will be found for Bill Pulver before the final board meeting this year on December 18.”” GO ASIC……… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...l/news-story/4973e89301c64a6daa52e8d76960221d

 

[Slim 293]

Yet given that players such as Ben McCalman, Curtis Rona, Pek Cowan, Matt Hodgson, Angus Cottrell, Heath Tessmann and even Nick Cummins have not committed themselves to any Super Rugby side yet, it is puzzling why a WA team can’t be raised, especially if the leading lights of the Perth Spirit NRC side are thrown in.

Is Wayne Smith really that dim?

 

[kiap]

Is Wayne Smith really that dim?

Enlighten us, oh Renaissance man Slim.

 

[Slim 293]

Enlighten us, oh Renaissance man Slim.

Renaissance man?

 

[kiap]

Ah. Must have mistaken you for someone with insight. Carry on then.

 

[Slim 293]

Sweet discourse.........

 

[lou75]

Pleasing to see Wayne Smith back from holidays: “”The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is hoping to reach a decision soon on whether to take further action against Rugby Australia in line with recommendations made by a Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry was set up primarily to investigate how Rugby Australia — then known as the Australian Rugby Union — reached its controversial decision to axe Western Force in an effort to save the cash-strapped code and so ensure the other four teams become competitive again in Super Rugby. In the course of its investigations, however, the inquiry concentrated heavily on the ARU’s financial dealings with the other club named as being on the endangered list, Melbourne Rebels. The committee recommended that “the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review the evidence received by the committee regarding transactions involving the Melbourne Rebels”. It also proposed that ASIC “review the financial circumstances reported in the Australian Rugby Union’s annual reports against the evidence presented to the committee”. An ASIC spokesman told The Weekend Australian yesterday that the matter was being investigated. “We did note the recommendations and we’re currently considering the matter,” he said. “We would hope to respond as soon as possible, not too long from now.” The unwritten assumption from the Senate committee is that it believed there were irregularities at the former ARU and it was ASIC’s job to determine whether there was a breach of corporation law. ASIC would then need to consider if a prosecution was in the public interest. Although rugby in the West will hold a public forum on December 10 to keep the faithful appraised of developments on Andrew Forrest’s Indo Pacific Rugby Championship, there is no question the code is suffering. Further evidence was provided yesterday when the Brisbane Global Tens organisers revealed there would be no WA team in the 12-team tournament at Suncorp Stadium on February 9-10. “We tried extremely hard to find a way to continue to include a team from WA in next year’s tournament,” Brisbane Global Rugby Tens chief executive Rachael Carroll said. “Sadly, during negotiations with several parties it became clear that we would not be able to guarantee that a WA team would be able to meet the player quality obligations of a Super Rugby side.” Yet given that players such as Ben McCalman, Curtis Rona, Pek Cowan, Matt Hodgson, Angus Cottrell, Heath Tessmann and even Nick Cummins have not committed themselves to any Super Rugby side yet, it is puzzling why a WA team can’t be raised, especially if the leading lights of the Perth Spirit NRC side are thrown in. A change of RA chief executive would surely help the healing process in the West but there is no clear indication a replacement will be found for Bill Pulver before the final board meeting this year on December 18.”” GO ASIC……… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...l/news-story/4973e89301c64a6daa52e8d76960221d

so the east coast is taking notice now? Interesting