Storm in a teacup, or more serious?

[Gnostic]

give them my details

Did you miss your cut? I'll need a 15% uplift in any terms you achieve due to the "complexities of the cases" for my referral.

 

[NTT]

Bring up Firepower all you want, it was not defrauding the government. It was Pete O'Mearas mate from over East. (Ironically Pete was once a NSW administrator before his great Firepower con).Being conned is different to doing the conning.
Bring up Burkey and Bondy all you want, they were never involved in rugby administration so thats a very long bow to draw.

And thanks Dave Beat for the picture of the Goose. Seeing as i almost got banned for a personal attack, i hope the same standard applies to everyone.

 

[Gnostic]

Bring up Firepower all you want, it was not defrauding the government. It was Pete O'Mearas mate from over East. (Ironically Pete was once a NSW administrator before his great Firepower con).Being conned is different to doing the conning.

Bring up Burkey and Bondy all you want, they were never involved in rugby administration so thats a very long bow to draw.



And thanks Dave Beat for the picture of the Goose. Seeing as i almost got banned for a personal attack, i hope the same standard applies to everyone.

Mate you really need to moderate you WA victimhood. I am extremely well known for my anti-establishment rhetoric here, and I'm sure many if not most go FFS I wish the nut job would bugger off. But that said its is all in how the arguments are presented and I have never been threatened with a banning no matter how strident my criticisms of ARU, NSWRU and QRU have been. Sure put your arguments, I can even agree with some of them but your tone and some of your statements are just that bit to far.

I'd recommend what I do. Type it, have a drink, check an email then re-read what you've typed and moderate it yourself. You can still have a go, I certainly do its just how.

 

[mst]

Issues?
Farr Jones' responsibilities to the board and whether ACSIC smack him re not meeting a director's responsibilities

An audit of funding, realistically if there was more money in the account than the funding allocation, it isn't a fed gov issue as their money wasn't used.

It is under Commonwealth requirements - to show that it was not used as NFJ has claimed.

 

[mst]

Yeah, great, won't happen, the NSWRU aren't going to take it further and the money was returned

NSWRU aren't going to take it further and the money was returned - that is a problem in itself. Its generally referred to as an admission to a party gaining financial benefit by deception.

If it Commonwealth money is a really big issue even if the money was returned.

Taking no action screams governance problems.

If memory serves me correctly I believe there is fairly recent history of other money issues that were linked to salary cap issues and the loss of a sponsor.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

A couple of recent posts may need to be reviewed and edited by the authors to ensure that they comply with the rules of the forum.

Be a good idea of this happened before the Mods read the posts.

Have a good rant and counter rant by all means, but play the ball.

Self moderation a la @Gnostic's suggestion above works.

 

[Dave Beat]

And thanks Dave Beat for the picture of the Goose. Seeing as i almost got banned for a personal attack, i hope the same standard applies to everyone.

Looked to lighten up the ease up approach.

I have always wanted rugby strong in all states, and even more pationate in growing the number of kids playing.

NTT - sweet, lets look at the good stuff and being constructive going forward.

Cheers

 

[Lindommer]

Bring up Firepower all you want, it was not defrauding the government. It was Pete O'Meara's mate from over East up north.

corrected Johnston came from Brisbane, he's a St Laurence's Old Boy, don't include us other "easterners" with the likes of him. And I might add Johnston first honed his shyster skills in New Zealand, blame them.

 

[NTT]

Brisbane and NZ are east of WA so that statement is correct.

My opinion is my opinion. I wont walk on eggshells to please anyone.

NSW has a long and well documented history of acting in ways that are detrimental to rugby in Australia. Nothing was done to expand rugby before 1996. Even then the great expansion was to southern NSW. When expansion happened again in 2005 a lot of effort by NSW has gone into damaging that expansion through its influence over the ARU.
While this has been happening, we have been overtaken by other sports even though we are one of world rugbys strongest nations. When is enough going to be enough?

Most people won't bother coming on here to express this opinion but believe me it is a widely held opinion. There's a reason rugby is being left in the dust by the viewers, participants and sponsors, it is because there is a lot of mistrust of the NSW influence over the ARU and NSWs desire to keep rugby an exclusive boys club. NSW Rugby is stuck in its long gone glory days of the 80s, trouble is it is 2016 and this underlying self destruction is holding everyone back from progressing.

 

[Dalai Ninja]

If the money is government money set aside for a specific purpose - probably yes.

If it's general funds in a company it less clear - but that fact that there was no paperwork whatsoever, just a secret verbal agreement raises the possibility that it may well be.

That's not the case. The loan was documented. The guarantee was verbal.

 

[Dalai Ninja]

Nothing was done to expand rugby before 1996.

There were many programs to expand rugby before 1996, however not in the form of new provincial representative teams, but at the grassroots level. Some people still think that's a better way to grow the game.

 

[fatprop]

NSWRU aren't going to take it further and the money was returned - that is a problem in itself. Its generally referred to as an admission to a party gaining financial benefit by deception.

If it Commonwealth money is a really big issue even if the money was returned.

Taking no action screams governance problems.

If memory serves me correctly I believe there is fairly recent history of other money issues that were linked to salary cap issues and the loss of a sponsor.

Excuse me for being a cynic, but any problem with Commonwealth Funds comes down to an accounting audit, accounting entries and whether the funds lent were those funds (a) or monies allocated from NSWRU (b). The accountants on here will testify to the ease of adjusting that, if the funds were in a seperate bank account and not just an accounting entry in the general account, more difficult.

If the entries now show "a" then there is a issue for the two who did the transaction as I would bet good money that there are clear procedures that weren't followed and the normal accounting system picked up the anomaly and it was rectified; and the two protagonists have left the organisation. The usual response is improved training over procedures and everyone moves on.

If it is "b", it is an internal matter and none of the Fed Gov's business

 

[Quick Hands]

Brisbane and NZ are east of WA so that statement is correct.

My opinion is my opinion. I wont walk on eggshells to please anyone.

NSW has a long and well documented history of acting in ways that are detrimental to rugby in Australia. Nothing was done to expand rugby before 1996. Even then the great expansion was to southern NSW. When expansion happened again in 2005 a lot of effort by NSW has gone into damaging that expansion through its influence over the ARU.
While this has been happening, we have been overtaken by other sports even though we are one of world rugbys strongest nations. When is enough going to be enough?

Most people won't bother coming on here to express this opinion but believe me it is a widely held opinion. There's a reason rugby is being left in the dust by the viewers, participants and sponsors, it is because there is a lot of mistrust of the NSW influence over the ARU and NSWs desire to keep rugby an exclusive boys club. NSW Rugby is stuck in its long gone glory days of the 80s, trouble is it is 2016 and this underlying self destruction is holding everyone back from progressing.

OK, let's debunk some of this stuff straight away with some simple facts.

The current ARU board structure came into effect in 2012 after the Abib review. Prior to that for historical reasons, the NSWRU held a controlling number of votes at the ARU.

The Brumbies were admitted to Super Rugby by the SANZAR through the ARU in 1996. At the time the NSWRU could have blocked it if they so desired. It went ahead and NSW lost plenty of players who took the opportunity to go to the Brumbies.

The Force were admitted to Super Rugby by SANZAR in 2004 after a bidding process approved by the ARU - still at the time largely controlled by NSWRU. No attempt to block this by anyone.

The Rebels were admitted to Super Rugby in 2009 by SANZR after being nominated by the ARU as the sole bid. Again, at the time the NSWRU made no attempt to block this process, in fact the ARU (still largely controlled by the NSWRU) heartily endorsed it. And I'd add to this that in 2007, the NSWRU were allocated four ARC franchises by the ARU. They established 3 in Sydney and the fourth was given to the VRU (for a fee). Hardly the action of a group of people intent on blocking the expansion of rugby.

If you want to criticise the NSWRU for a lack of competence, lack of imagination or being an old boys club more interested in being on the board that actually doing anything- go for it, you'll have plenty of agreement around here. But trying to run this line that they are working against rugby throughout Australia is just wrong. And I'm not even sure that they would know how to do it or have the wit to do it.

To be honest, with the Firepower affair, the John Mitchell fiasco, the Michael Foley coaching appointment, the decline of crowds and continued loss making, I'd say that the rugby authorities in WA are pretty much on a par with the NSWRU.

 

[TOCC]

OK, let's debunk some of this stuff straight away with some simple facts.

The current ARU board structure came into effect in 2012 after the Abib review. Prior to that for historical reasons, the NSWRU held a controlling number of votes at the ARU.

The Brumbies were admitted to Super Rugby by the SANZAR through the ARU in 1996. At the time the NSWRU could have blocked it if they so desired. It went ahead and NSW lost plenty of players who took the opportunity to go to the Brumbies.

The Force were admitted to Super Rugby by SANZAR in 2004 after a bidding process approved by the ARU - still at the time largely controlled by NSWRU. No attempt to block this by anyone.

The Rebels were admitted to Super Rugby in 2009 by SANZR after being nominated by the ARU as the sole bid. Again, at the time the NSWRU made no attempt to block this process, in fact the ARU (still largely controlled by the NSWRU) heartily endorsed it. And I'd add to this that in 2007, the NSWRU were allocated four ARC franchises by the ARU. They established 3 in Sydney and the fourth was given to the VRU (for a fee). Hardly the action of a group of people intent on blocking the expansion of rugby.

If you want to criticise the NSWRU for a lack of competence, lack of imagination or being an old boys club more interested in being on the board that actually doing anything- go for it, you'll have plenty of agreement around here. But trying to run this line that they are working against rugby throughout Australia is just wrong. And I'm not even sure that they would know how to do it or have the wit to do it.

To be honest, with the Firepower affair, the John Mitchell fiasco, the Michael Foley coaching appointment, the decline of crowds and continued loss making, I'd say that the rugby authorities in WA are pretty much on a par with the NSWRU.

QH I agree wth most of this, except on the topic of ARC, NSW personalities and stakeholders were absolutely paramount in bringing down the ARC.. It needs to be remembered there was a changing of guard at the ARU Board of Director level during the establishment and shutting down of the ARC.. Gary Flowers was responsible for the approval of the Western Force and establishment of the ARC.. but It was during the later years that he lost support of the Board, in large due to the ARC and opposition from Shute Shield stakeholders.

John O'Neill who was initially lost support from NSW Rugby stakeholders because he proposed a 3rd tier national competition, was brought back into office and supported by SS clubs because he was a cynic of the ARC and how it was run.

Now I'm not blaming NSWRU for all that, you can't point a finger at any one organsation in NSW given Waratahs, NSWRU and Shute Shield are all seperate organisations(although closely intertwined), I'm sure there were plenty who opposed some of those counter productive changes.. but certainly there were rugby union power brokers in NSW who directly or indirectly influenced those outcomes.

 

[I like to watch]

JON didn't need SS clubs influence to shut down the ARC.
He could see the money could be spent much more productively.
The cost of running the ARC was almost as much as his annual bonus ......

 

[Inside Shoulder]

NSW has a long and well documented history of acting in ways that are detrimental to rugby in Australia. Nothing was done to expand rugby before 1996

I'm no fan of any of he administrations you mention, but I think you need a rugby history lesson.
Have you forgotten the game was amateur before 1996?
Have you forgotten that the brumbies rise as a force was facilitated by ARU largesse, primarily the result of QRU and NSWRU hard work over the century preceding their rise- including by taking unwanted players from both and a former NSW coach?

JON didn't need SS clubs influence to shut down the ARC.
He could see the money could be spent much more productively.
The cost of running the ARC was almost as much as his annual bonus ..

As TOCC points out JON was an original proponent of a 3rd tier. His inability to stop the lowys looking over his shoulder at dive ball Oz wasn't to his autocratic liking and so he opportunistically whiteanted flowers with his contacts, waltzed back in, scrapped the ARC and did a Steve Miller Band

 

[mst]

Excuse me for being a cynic, but any problem with Commonwealth Funds comes down to an accounting audit, accounting entries and whether the funds lent were those funds (a) or monies allocated from NSWRU (b). The accountants on here will testify to the ease of adjusting that, if the funds were in a seperate bank account and not just an accounting entry in the general account, more difficult.

If the entries now show "a" then there is a issue for the two who did the transaction as I would bet good money that there are clear procedures that weren't followed and the normal accounting system picked up the anomaly and it was rectified; and the two protagonists have left the organisation. The usual response is improved training over procedures and everyone moves on.

If it is "b", it is an internal matter and none of the Fed Gov's business

Nope - You may find some of the Commonwealth folk are experienced in looking at accounting and governance practices, and where and how money is moved both physically and on paper.

There is nothing to diminish NFJ claim that indicates it was Commonwealth funds which makes it well in scope of the Commonwealth to both look at the transactions to establish if Commonwealth funds were involved, and accounting and governance practises. They are also required by legislation to ensure that NSWRU are compliant with the Finance departments and Commonwealths policies and legislation to receive any funding, both current and future.

So, your "b" is incorrect.

Commonwealth monies come with certain obligations including substantial reporting. NSWRU is certainly entitled to keep it internal and forfeit the right to access further Commonwealth funds should they be non-compliant.

https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/grants/

 

[Braveheart81]

What a Commonwealth department can do in theory and what they do in practice varies wildly.

Clearly none of us know exactly what is going to happen but in my experience any expectation that there will be a massive investigation into a loan from a company to an employee of $50-$60k which was then paid back is going to elicit little to no external action.

The relevant government bodies obviously have their own compliance teams that manage these sort of issues as does ASIC dealing with corporations generally. None of them are resources to anywhere near the extent where this level of infraction can be investigated to any substantial degree.

 

[I like to watch]

^^^^^^ I agree,what's the driver for any external party to spend resources to investigate a matter where no funds are missing?

 

[fatprop]

Commonwealth monies come with certain obligations including substantial reporting. NSWRU is certainly entitled to keep it internal and forfeit the right to access further Commonwealth funds should they be non-compliant.

https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/grants/

Yep and it sets out what will happen

13.4 Accountable authorities must ensure that entity fraud procedures and practices comply with the fraud risk management and controls for Commonwealth entities rule66, including as it relates to grants administration. The rule places obligations on accountable authorities in relation to: fraud risk assessments; control plans; awareness and training; and case handling and reporting.

13.5 Accountable authorities should:  establish appropriate internal control mechanisms for grants. For example, the separation of duties can be a key internal control. Generally, no single officer should appraise an application for a grant, give financial approval for the expenditure and make the offer to the applicant; and  guard against fraudulent use of grant payments. For example, reported information should be assessed not only against objectives but appropriate benchmarks to indicate appropriate use of funds. Officials should be aware of the procedures to follow when fraud or misappropriation is suspected.

As I said the usual response is "improved training over procedures and everyone moves on."

It is why in a previous life I had to pass an internal test on the TPA and relative legislation before I could consult with clients, not because the company really cared, but because organisation could prove to a judge that I was off the reservation if I was caught being naughty.