Stirling Morlock's support of RUPA investigation may jeopardise captaincy

[travelling_gerry]

By Bret Harris
July 11, 2009 Wallabies captain Stirling Mortlock's support of the Rugby Union Players Association's investigation into the sacking of Lote Tuqiri may put him at loggerheads with ARU chief executive John O'Neill.

RUPA chief executive Tony Dempsey announced on Wednesday that the players association would consider taking legal action against the ARU if the investigation found any breaches of the collective bargaining agreement.

It was former Wallabies captain George Gregan's support of RUPA's legal action against the ARU over the World Cup participation agreement in 2003 that strained his relations with O'Neill.

Gregan was a strong advocate of players' rights, but O'Neill was aghast when he backed the legal move against the ARU.

In his book, It's Only a Game, O'Neill wrote of his disappointment in Gregan's role in the legal proceedings: "In the lead-up to the World Cup, during a dispute over bonus payments for the tournament, Gregan signed an affidavit that was used to help launch a court action against the ARU. For a Wallaby captain to put himself in that position, in such obvious conflict with his employers, left a bitter taste in many mouths among the ARU hierarchy."

Gregan's role in RUPA's legal action against the ARU was one of the reasons O'Neill considered sacking him as Wallabies captain after the World Cup in 2003.

O'Neill thought about appointing NSW Waratahs captain Phil Waugh as Wallabies skipper in 2004, but he never got the chance to canvass the idea because of his own departure from the ARU a few weeks after the World Cup.

Given his history with Gregan, it is hard to imagine O'Neill would have been thrilled with Dempsey's revelation that Mortlock supported RUPA's investigation into the conduct of the ARU in the sacking of Tuqiri.

Of course, at this point Mortlock has not signed any affidavits, but he has supported a move that could potentially lead to legal action against the ARU.
Mortlock also expressed sympathy for Tuqiri and his family at a media session in Sydney after training on Tuesday. Yet, what else would you expect Mortlock to do?

Some Wallabies are believed to be upset and unnerved by the ARU's termination of Tuqiri's multi-million-dollar contract.

If Mortlock distanced himself from the players' concerns and was seen to be siding with management, he would risk losing the support and confidence of the team he is meant to lead.

That would be a wonderful scenario heading into a Tri-Nations Test against the All Blacks at Eden Park, wouldn't it?

O'Neill places a lot of emphasis on the working relationship between the ARU chief, Wallabies coach and captain.

There is no doubt that the more harmonious and co-operative this relationship is, the better it is for the Wallabies and Australian rugby.

But the Wallabies do not follow John O'Neill or any other member of the ARU's senior management into battle on the field.

They follow Stirling Mortlock. The players must know he is one of them.

The Wallabies captain is not part of ARU management. As O'Neill once pointed out to Gregan, the captaincy is a privilege. It is not part of the player's contract. As such, the captaincy can be taken away from a player at any time.

One would hope that Mortlock's support of his troops would not jeopardise his leadership.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...016959,00.html

[mudskipper]

Stirling Mortlock shouldn't worry about ARU CEO John O'Neill’s disposition, however remain only the Wallabies Captains voice... After all he is meant to represent the players, he is their spokesman... Mortlock doesn’t need to say much to make an impact. RUPA has been set up to do the rest…

The man in the real squeeze is the Robbie Deans…

[Burgs]

You would hope that JO'N has no say in who the team Captain is anyway.

[shasta]

You would hope that JO'N has no say in who the team Captain is anyway.

If the part about JON considering replacing Gregan is accurate (which could be doubtful considering the the hack who wrote the article) you would have to think he maybe does. Sterlo is the Captain. Not the team supervisor. I seem to agree with Mudskipper here. I must be totally wrong.

[Burgs]

JO'N: "I brought you into the role, I can take you out...pathetic ant..."

[jargan83]

unfortunately I find myself agreeing with muddy as well. Just becasue RUPA are investigating does not neccesarily mean they will find any different to what the ARU found. By the end of the RUPA investigation they could come out and support the sacking or at least a line of "yeah you f**ked up Lote"

Just becasue Mortlock supports RUPA in what I assume is no more then a process that would be followed in the case of any player getting the arse.

I'd be more worried about Mortlock getting to old for the job

[tragic]

The content being trotted out by the media about this whole affair just gets sillier and sillier.

[travelling_gerry]

Greg Growden | July 13, 2009

THE Lote Tuqiri drama has taken another unexpected twist, with Wallabies captain Stirling Mortlock seeking a retraction from the Australian Rugby Union Players Association over comments that players felt intimidated and fearful.

The Herald has been told that late last week Mortlock was concerned that his name was used in a RUPA press release, where the players union announced it would investigate the conduct of the Australian Rugby Union and NSW Rugby Union over Tuqiri's sacking.

In the release RUPA chief executive Tony Dempsey said he had "spoken to the captain of the Wallabies and many from the Wallaby team and they have genuine concerns about the manner in which Lote's sacking has been handled by the ARU and NSWRU".

Dempsey said "an 'iron curtain' had descended on relations between the players and senior management of the ARU. Players feel fearful and intimidated of the ARU".

The following day Mortlock said at a press conference at Wallabies training in Sydney that the players were seeking "clarity" on the issue.

However it is understood Mortlock was unimpressed that in the RUPA media release he had been linked to comments suggesting players were intimidated by the ARU. Mortlock felt he had been misrepresented and he sought a retraction last Thursday. It is understood the issue has not yet been resolved.

Mortlock declined to comment on the issue when contacted yesterday. Instead he stressed "the team is really focused as a unit on what is coming up in Auckland".

"There is a great opportunity in a week's time," Mortlock said.

"I was extremely happy with how we trained last week and am really looking forward to ripping into training this week. The Wallabies group is very united and very focused on what is in front of us. I couldn't be happier with the mindset of the group."

When the Herald yesterday asked Dempsey whether Mortlock had sought to have part of the RUPA statement retracted, he replied: "I'm not making any comment."

Earlier Dempsey sent the Herald a text message, explaining that: "RUPA is not making any comment on the Lote [Tuqiri] matter today."

Tuqiri's dispute will next month head to the NSW Supreme Court, where proceedings against the ARU and NSWRU for breach of contract will begin.

http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/n...337026280.html

[GIGS20]

Very handy for Tony Dempsey to come out and make a bunch of inflammatory statements and then decide that RUPA isn't going to make any more comment upon "the Tuqiri affair" I'd say this bloke is trying to make a name for himself.

Not doing rugby, the Wallabies or even Lote any favours in his quest either.

[Burgs]

Totally agree Gigs and indicated as much in another thread earlier.
I believe he is acting in his own interests, not the interests of RUPA and is inflamitory to the situation.
His back down betwean his Weds media release and the "Rugby Club" interview was very telling and highlighted the image was not the reality.
A dangerous party in proceedings.

[mudskipper]

Good to see Mortlock standing him up in the media if Dempsey has taken advantage of the situation and used Mortlock’s name without permission... However once said it can't be retracted...

[travelling_gerry]

Bret Harris | July 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian
WALLABIES captain Stirling Mortlock must feel like a pawn in a game of chess.

No, pawn is probably not the right word because it implies an unimportant person, while Mortlock is very important. Very important to the ARU and the Rugby Union Players Association in their imbroglio over the Lote Tuqiri affair.

When RUPA chief executive Tony Dempsey announced last Wednesday that the players association was investigating the ARU's conduct in sacking Tuqiri, he claimed Mortlock supported the action.

Dempsey was clearly trying to get his retaliation in first. He could assert key Wallaby support before the players became silent on the issue.

To be able to say the Wallaby captain supported the action gave RUPA tremendous credibility, but it put Mortlock in an awkward position with the ARU. Chairman Peter McGrath blasted Dempsey for outing Mortlock, but did not deny the captain supported the action.

Mortlock was obviously in communication with RUPA about the matter, but Dempsey probably should have cleared it with him before enlisting his very public support.

But in his only public utterance on the issue, Mortlock told the media last Thursday that the players were seeking clarity on the issue. Rumours have since surfaced that Mortlock has sought a retraction from RUPA over Dempsey's comments that players felt intimidated and fearful.

There is little doubt that Dempsey got carried away at his media conference and used some colourful language in delivering his message on player concerns about the Tuqiri sacking.

On Inside Rugby on Fox Sports last Thursday, Dempsey backpedalled on the words "intimidation" and "fearful", replacing them with "anxiety". Mortlock has declined to comment on speculation he sought a retraction. Why? Is he feeling intimidated and fearful? Or just anxious?

Where does Mortlock's loyalty lie?

As Wallabies captain, Mortlock has obligations to many stakeholders in Australian rugby, not the least the ARU.

From time to time players are placed in a position of conflict with the ARU. At these times, players must take a stand. Maybe, Mortlock does not feel intimidated or fearful, but he would have to be aware that some players do.

The invoking of a high-profile individual's name to give credence to a collective effort and the use of some colourful language has overshadowed the real significance of what is at stake.

The two parties need to get together and start talking. And please, could you do it quietly. If you have not noticed, there is an important game on this Saturday.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html