Perception for conflict of interest is John Mitchell's latest problem

[waratahjesus]

most of wa is underground isnt it, and that that isnt will be dug?

[Darren]

In what ways would being part of a board that runs an underground mining equipment company conflict with coaching a rugby team?

[waratahjesus]

in the way that et mining are injecting money into the rugby team your coaching and were the main partner in a bid to sign your star player on a long term contract.

eg. if giteau signs with the force and et mining are the third party sponsor of his contract then a conflict would take place in that et mining might put pressure on mitchell to play giteau through injury or keep him in the team whilst having a run of bad form.

after the crap thats gone down with third party sponsors in recent years in both union and league it just looks bad!

[shasta]

eg. if giteau signs with the force and et mining are the third party sponsor of his contract then a conflict would take place in that et mining might put pressure on mitchell to play giteau through injury or keep him in the team whilst having a run of bad form.

Christ! I thought you were only taking the piss B4. That scenario is played out all the time in the corporate world. Individual directors and boards are expected to prevent such conflicts. Sure it might happen. But do you really expect that is a valid reason for someone being ruled out of such an opportunity?

[The EnForcer]

Conflict of interest is a lot like beauty – it's often in the eye of the beholder....you must hang out with some real ugly people WJ.

[Darren]

in the way that et mining are injecting money into the rugby team your coaching and were the main partner in a bid to sign your star player on a long term contract.

3rd party deals are not inclusive of the Club, and it has already been stated clearly that JM excludes himself where a conflict may arise.

eg. if giteau signs with the force and et mining are the third party sponsor of his contract then a conflict would take place in that et mining might put pressure on mitchell to play giteau through injury or keep him in the team whilst having a run of bad form.

That's just silly talk. Aside from the fact that I believe all parties involved to have a high level of integrity in their professional areas, there are so many other things in the way of such a situation that I'd say it would not even be possible. Team doctors, selection panels, other coaches, the 'committee'...

after the crap thats gone down with third party sponsors in recent years in both union and league it just looks bad!

It's all transparent and in the open, that must be good!

I'm sure there are board/sponsor corss overs at every level of Rugby in all states - tic summed it up pretty well..

[waratahjesus]

i agree, its just after what happened with the company that shall not be named, i understand why the article got written, i dont know john mitchell but would assume he doesnt need the board job, pr wise it can be spun quite badly!

[GIGS20]

From the text of the article, it seems that he is taking a pay cut to be with the force and the ability to take up employment outside his coaching role is a concession as a result.....where's the problem?

The problem is that Bret Harris had a deadline come up and needed to write a story, so he thought he'd dredge up some more superficial shit to paint on the Force!

[Scotty]

The problem is that Bret Harris had a deadline come up and needed to write a story, so he thought he'd dredge up some more superficial shit to paint on the Force!

He also must have owed Wayne Smith a favour, because I'm pretty sure you don't need two senior rugby journalists to write a story about nothing!

[Flamethrower]

in the way that et mining are injecting money into the rugby team your coaching and were the main partner in a bid to sign your star player on a long term contract.

eg. if giteau signs with the force and et mining are the third party sponsor of his contract then a conflict would take place in that et mining might put pressure on mitchell to play giteau through injury or keep him in the team whilst having a run of bad form.

after the crap thats gone down with third party sponsors in recent years in both union and league it just looks bad!

I've got this really really big knife that's really really sharp.
If someone was to drop it or grab it the wrong way they could cut themselves quite badly.
Should I get rid of it????

[mudskipper]

In what ways would being part of a board that runs an underground mining equipment company conflict with coaching a rugby team?

How? well as you asked... My reservations are: Mitch's private recommendations to ET mining about who should be offered a third partly deal and for what value. He can't be out of this process as head coach.

The thought that he leaves the board room during conflicts of interest topics is likely during the decision making process but not the discussion process….

Additionally players will know he can influence a possible personal pay rise and may become secretive stooges leaking private conversations to the coaching staff...

It will make a cloak and dagger atmosphere for the Force squad and be very divisive. Players will stop trusting each other, if they haven’t all ready due to past troubles... its not a healthy milieu to build a rugby team around…

Finally the only person to get something out of Mitch having a private deal with the Key sponsor is Mitch, everyone else is just wondering why? The force pay him plenty and when is he going to do his quantity surveying for ET mining anyway?

I don't buy it, the Force rugby community shouldn't either...

[mudskipper]

I've got this really really big knife that's really really sharp.
If someone was to drop it or grab it the wrong way they could cut themselves quite badly.
Should I get rid of it????

Ask your mum...

[Flamethrower]

Mitchell said he had been invited by Graham, a close friend and fellow New Zealander, to join the board of ET Mining last June as a non-executive director, which means he contributes to strategy, planning and performance evaluation, but is not a part of the executive management team.

He doesn't need to be on the board to have the ear of the ET boss.
Is it better to be upfront about his involvement or should it be kept to the nudge nudge wink wink level around a BBQ.
Maybe all coach's should be banned from having friendships with anyone while they are under contract.

Mitchell said that because the Force initially could not afford to pay him what he might have commanded had he gone elsewhere to coach, the club's founding CEO, Peter O'Meara, had agreed for him to do outside work.

Harris said the Force was comfortable with Mitchell's involvement with ET Mining.
"We have a long-term commercial relationship with ET Mining through sponsorship," Harris said.

This is why he is doing it. I'm sure any coach would like to be paid enough so they could sit back and never have to worry about anything other than coaching.

[mudskipper]

From the text of the article, it seems that he is taking a pay cut to be with the force and the ability to take up employment outside his coaching role is a concession as a result.....where's the problem?

I don't think he is taking a pay cut, your only worth what someone is prepared to pay... The Force could say we're not comfortable with his ET mining arrangement Mitch... if he wants more he can go elsewhere...

Harris has backed it so they have to manage the possible fallout...

[GIGS20]

The thought that he leaves the board room during conflicts of interest topics is likely during the decision making process but not the discussion process….

Actually no, in any properly run board meeting the first item of business is the declaration of conflicts of interest. At that point, assuming the third party contract is on the agenda, the chair should not the conflict of interest and not the absence of the party in the minutes. This should be done as the first item of business when the agenda point surfaces.

The only possible way he could have any input at a board meeting is if the item comes up as a matter of other business in which case the discussion may continue for a short time before the conflict of interest is evident. At this point, it is the responsibility of the board member to interrupt the discussion, declare the conflict and absent himself.....all of this must be noted in the minutes of the board meeting.

As a publicly listed company ET mining's board meetings are subject to scrutiny and therefore John and the other board members would be insane to play fast and loose with conflicts of interest.....jail time is not out of the question!