ARU Governance Report

[p.Tah]

NSWRU owns the Tahs but has sold the operating license to Tahs inc. I have no idea who would sit on the restructured board in regards to the set up.

They wouldn't sit on the ARU board because the ARU boards members need to be independent. Those from NSW, one person from Tahs Inc.and two people from NSWRU are members. Each person (3 from NSW) have a vote on constitutional matters.

 

[The Rant]

'Rugby in Australia is facing a challenging period. To survive it and thrive we must reform our Governance structure.

But what does this mean in reality? What will or should change. How will this impact rugby's financial success and market growth potential?

(I can't be bothered reading the whole thing...hats off to you!)

 

[waratahjesus]

They wouldn't sit on the ARU board because the ARU boards members need to be independent. Those from NSW, one person from Tahs Inc.and two people from NSWRU are members. Each person (3 from NSW) have a vote on constitutional matters.

Sorry used the wrong wording, was talking about voting not commission board.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You underestimate NFJ. He's a seriously impressive administrator. The quote you pulled would merely be a deference to his board. He is committed to change and hell make sure it happens at the NSW end.

What has NFJ administered that enables you to make that assessment?

Judging by this article there is already plenty of self interested posturing:
Hawker says the ARU doesn't necessarily agree with the report's findings: not such a great start and kind of overlooks the supposed benefit of having people actually investigate the issues as opposed to the board reacting to issues based on instinct and impression.

NFJ doesn't want minority interests controlling the show: while as a matter of logic no single minority interest could do that, clubbing together of such interests could. The fact he felt the need to say it would suggest initial, at least, resistance to a new structure and a line being drawn for the purpose of negotiating the trade off that sees NSW relinquish its power.

This thread has some good years left to run.


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/a...t-between-aru-super-sides-20121030-28hr6.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[p.Tah]

But what does this mean in reality? What will or should change. How will this impact rugby's financial success and market growth potential?

(I can't be bothered reading the whole thing.hats off to you!)

The changes themselves won't bring financial success and market growth potential, however the current structure is a handbrake on rugby progressing. According to the review the goals of the Super Teams and the ARU are at times in conflict.

The overwhelming impression I gained is that Australian Rugby lacks the sense of shared purpose that defines successful systems and organisations.
One of the major underlying reasons for this is the contradiction that lies at the heart of Australian Rugby between the fundamental business objectives of ARU and those of its Member Unions with a Super Rugby licence.
The federated structure of Australian Rugby only serves to exacerbate this contradiction.

In my interpretation of this, examples include:
- serious financial constraints on the ARU caused the closing of the Super rugby academies and the restriction of squads to 35 players. This is at odds with what the Super Rugby teams want
- we have a very high injury toll, both the Super Rugby squads and the ARU believe the players haven't been optimally managed (rested) during the season. The Super squads want their best players to play all season to help win the title. The ARU want the best players to help the Wallabies win. A better system on overall management is required.

The report says that in reality that most stakeholders do act in the interest of the Code, however the current Governnance structure allows for potential conflict of interest. This may not currently occur but potential conflict of interests must be moved (independent board) to remove any doubt that it does occur.

Removing conflicts of interest is at the heart of ‘best practice’ governance. The current practice of having Member Unions put forward their own candidates hardwires distrust and suspicion throughout the Rugby system and actually undermines the role of the Board. And it does this irrespective of whether or not the decisions that are being made are done so in good faith and in the best interests of ARU.

Finally better communication is required between the ARU and the Super Rugby Teams/member Unions. I'm guessing but I think the following is what Hawker is disagreeing with (not the whole report).

It is incumbent on both parties to remember that this [communication] is a two-way street and goodwill is vital. An organisation that ignores its shareholders or takes them for granted, except on the handful of occasions where it has no choice but to seek their endorsement, should not be surprised when it meets a cold reception. On the other hand, if shareholders use those few opportunities that exist to flex their constitutional muscle as a matter of pride, not principle, they shouldn’t be surprised when the Board and management are reluctant to consult in good faith.

What is encouraging overall is that the board have agreed to the recommendations (with minor adjustments). I hope the Member Unions join the party. The report paints a bleak future for the Code if we stay as we are.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

This is like getting the finalised plans for the extensions to the back of the house submitted to Council.

There is a tonne of work to be done yet, but like submitting the plans for consideration and approval to Council, this is a major milestone.

The revision to the 1949 constitution could take some time, and probably a lot of legal and consultants fees.

 

[Lindommer]

NSWRU owns the Tahs but has sold leased the operating licence to Waratahs Rugby Pty Ltd. I have no idea who would sit on the restructured board in regards to the set up.

fixed

When the Brumbies came into existence in 1996 the new team got its discrete body from the start, the team's operations have always been separate from the ACTRU. And, to be fair, its early successes seemed to point the way forward for professional rugby teams. The NSWRU has oscillated from incompetence to indecisiveness to featherbedding to bankruptcy the last few decades, but some bright spark came up with a Brumbies-style model for the Tahs a couple of years ago (2009?). IIRC, the new arrangement runs for five years when it has to be revisited. One of the advantages of the arms' length operations of the Tahs is the non-involvement of interfering alickadoos from the NSWRU board in the running of the Tahs. A disadvantage is the involvement of various alickadoos who were at the helm of the NSWRU when it went broke some 10 years ago; ANYONE associated with those bleak days should've been shown the door by now.

I've often wondered what the bloody hell NSWRU do. Waratahs Rugby runs the Tahs, Sydney Rugby Union now runs the Sydney grade comp, NSW Suburban Rugby Union runs the subbies comps, NSW Country Rugby Union runs everything outside Sydney, Sydney Juniors run the Sydney junior competitions, as does NSW Country JRU in the country, ACTRU run everything in southern NSW (say, below Goulburn), and GPS, CAS, ISA, CHS, AICES and Western Associated Schools run the various school competitions. Have I left anyone out? Ah yes, the women's comps. Dunno who runs them. But I'm quite perplexed as to WTF the NSWRU do. Other than swan about, eating and drinking at our expense while achieving SFA. One could mount a convincing case to reform rugby in this state from top to bottom.

A small example of how structurally tangled rugby is in this state: some years ago I was the secretary of a junior village club for my sins. A village club has to be part of a district Junior Rugby Union, which are directly aligned with the twelve Shute Shield clubs. Junior rugby in Sydney is divided into three zones: Metropolitan Northern Zone, Metropolitan Western Zone and Metropolitan Southern Zone, each with four members. These three zones make up Sydney JRU, which with NSWCJRU make up NSW Junior Rugby Union. NSWJRU has a board spot on NSWRU, along with subbies, schools and country. From the bottom up it looks like this:
village club->district club->zone->SJRU->NSWJRU->NSWRU. But wait, there's more: NSWJRU has a tangental line of authority to Australian Junior Rugby Union (which I think does fuck all). The lines of authority for schools rugby in this state are something similar, also with a tangental line to Australian Schools Rugby Union. I used to spend three-quarters of my spare time attending bloody meetings (monthly for village, district and zone with appearances at Sydney and NSW JRU AGMs), most of which argued the toss about what level had the power to do anything. After my secretarial stint I took on the district club presidency, and promptly cancelled all meetings! Executive fiat was my modus operandi, no one complained.

Reform rugby? Bring it on!

 

[p.Tah]

One could mount a convincing case to reform rugby in this state from top to bottom.

I agree. Arbib indicates that the reforms at the ARU need to also occur at the State/Territory levels

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^^
There are a variety of threads already established for that purpose.

The are a variety of personnages who are regularly posting to that effect on the variety of threads established for that purpose.

Threads include (click to follow links):
The Ideal NSW Schools Competition
Ideas for Australian Rugby Union
Green and Gold Grass Roots Think Tank
Australian Junior Rugby Union
NSW Junior Rugby - The Garling Report
Rugbys Cultural Problem
Is Our Game Growing
A Proposal for a New Third Tier Competition in Australia
ARU Strategic Plan
The dying - perhaps death - of Rugby in Australia
The growth - not death - of Rugby in Australia
Learning from the enemy - an affordable Third Tier Competition
The NSWRU Board
ARU - Taskforce designbed to reform Brisbane and Sydney Premier Rugby


Arbib has perhaps been reading Green and Gold.

He had this to say:
....individuals that I met with were uncertain of where their organisation sat within the Rugby system and what their role should be, let alone how they related to the other bodies.

This absence of clarity impacts negatively on many aspects of Rugby; from player development and pathways, talent identification, increasing community participation, communication with stakeholders, and developing revenue sources, including government funding and corporate sponsorship.

The configuration of community Rugby is complicated and fragmented, and this was a point raised throughout the consultation process. Ensuring that everyone, at all levels, has a clear understanding of where they sit, what their role is and how they relate to others is a simple and effective way of making sure the whole show runs more smoothly.

The multiple layers of administration have led in some areas to duplication and inefficiencies of programs and resources between Member Unions and the ARU. There was also a degree of confusion about who is responsible for many aspects of community Rugby, including developing and implementing strategies to grow participation.

In short, the current structure could be said to be delivering mixed results at best. And yet the importance of a healthy community Game cannot be overestimated.

The benefits of increased coordination are clear, including greater leadership and direction, removing layers of duplication and inefficiency, better targeting of resources and improved communication with participants and volunteers.

And despite these blinding statements of the obvious from Arbib, there are still too many in rugbydom who seem to want to defend the current status quo to the very end.

 

[Lindommer]

Yes, your last sentence is very apt, colossal clacker. I don't have any problems with officials working their bums off to strengthen their clubs; these are, after all, the very foundations of our code. And strong teams/clubs/schools make for strong competitions. But when officials spend time plotting their petty further advancement at the expense of the game it's time to call time on them.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

And despite these blinding statements of the obvious from Arbib, there are still too many in rugbydom who seem to want to defend the current status quo to the very end.

Not too many on here!!!

 

[Quick Hands]

Plenty of heat for the ARU and State unions on independent commission thread as well.

 

[Quick Hands]

There are a couple of things which are certain in all of this, whether or not one thinks that Mark Abib and Peter Cosgrove are the right people to be saying it.

1. The current system is a shambles and needs to be replaced.

2. The ARU board and their state counterparts are incapable of instituting any meaningful change.

What should replace it is more problematic, but the task needs to be given to 2 or 3 people to do, with consultation, but without reference to ARU or State rugby committees etc. You get a committee to design something and you probably just end up with a similar shambles and as many vested interests as possible protected.

Abib and Cosgrove seem as good a choices as any to me as they possess the ability to get things done, stepping on toes where required. One suspects that the machinations of the NSW Labour party are not that dissimilar from the network of blazer wearers who currently populate rugby administration, where power, influence, self-advancement and self-protection seem to take precedence over actually running the game.

To me the whole concept of state unions getting in between the ARU and the grass-roots is incongruous and a relic of the steam train and telegram era. The ARU should run the game, without the need for any parallel state bureaucracies. The ARU then fund and support regions, schools and clubs with development, finance, etc.

Other than historical reasons, I can think of no real reason for State Unions to exist. Perhaps in the smaller rugby states they could act as regional co-ordinating bodies, but do we really need 2 parallel administrations shuffling papers, e-mails and money backwards and forwards?

I favour an independent board, it certainly is not a cure-all, but it would have the ability to be decisive and act in a unified way for the good of the game.

Saw a report today that was supported by the ACTRU which essentially EXPANDS the current board from 14 to 16 and increases the voting rights of ACT.

Oh dear, more crew members on the ship of fools. It will take nothing short of the administrative equivalent of an atomic bomb to remove this lot.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Promising noises coming from the ARU on the task of constitutional review.

A fairly aggressive timeframe (EGM in December) is being contemplated.

source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...5-stars-workload/story-e6frg7o6-1226514722280

The ARU is in the process of rewriting the constitution to make Australian rugby more modern and independently run following former Labor Party powerbroker Mark Arbib's recent review of the governance of the game.
It will be put to a vote by Australia's member unions at an extraordinary general meeting next month.
"We are currently redrafting the constitution to reflect what we think comes out of the review," Hawker said.
"There is not a consistent view on what everyone wants. There will always be someone who says we haven't gone far enough or we've gone too far.
"Therefore just to create an outcome which we think is in the best interests of the game in its totality and we need members to vote on it.
"Again, we hope common sense will rule and people will do what is right for the game."

 

[p.Tah]

Anyone know when the extraordinary general meeting to vote on the governance review is? For some reason I thought it was today.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

p.Tah, I seem to recall reading somewhere that 10 December was the day of the EGM. Regardless the papers (draft constitution) should have been circulated by now if the ARU is intending to vote on it next week.

If they haven't had the EGM by the end of next week, it will probably be too late for any action this year. In which case, nothing will happen until after 2013 Aust day at least.

 

[p.Tah]

Thanks HJ

 

[TOCC]

So it's been suggested in the papers that the signatures of Quade and Israel may be linked to the fact that the ARU needs the QRU and NSWRU to vote on the governance reform..

Interesting allegation

 

[Brumby Jack]

Recommendations on the governance review have today been voted in.

The new structure will result in an increase in voting numbers from 14 to 16, with States, Territories, Super Rugby bodies and the Rugby Union Players Association (RUPA) to receive the following allocations:


· NSW 3 (1 for Member Union Status, 1 for Super Rugby Team and 1 for more than 50,000 participants)
· QUEENSLAND 3 (1 for Member Union Status, 1 for Super Rugby Team and 1 for more than 50,000 participants)
· WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team)
· VICTORIA 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team)
· ACT & SOUTHERN NSW 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team)
· SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1 (1 for Member Union Status)
· NOTHERN TERRITORY 1 (1 for Member Union Status)
· TASMANIA 1 (1 for Member Union Status)
· RUGBY UNION PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (RUPA) 1

 

[p.Tah]

Damn you NSW! Only thinking of yourself and not the game as a whole. The world doesn't revolve around NSW. For crying out loud we had an opportunity to give the game a new governance structure that will help take the game forward and what did you go and do?
Hang on a minute, they voted to decrease their power.. For the good of sport. Well I never.