Terms of Reference for a Senate Inquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia

[JSJ]

So are we hopeful any media will have anything on this tmr? Or will it only be when report comes out..

I had a google around looking for newspaper headlines, Looked at Roar, GAGR, Rugby.com.au, Planetrugby.
I could not find one peep about the senate inquiry or ARU etc.
It is mid-week, when there no games, no teams selections etc. All that juicy material released by the Inquiry. Not one word in the rugby media.
Maybe the journos are too scared of the implications of these stories?

They will not be able to ignore the senate report in a couple of weeks.

[Jimmydubs]

First comment on GAGRs news now suggests this might be newsworthy for tomorrow

[jackster]

Next submission will no doubt be from Mr Andrew Cox declaring the details of his agreement and that it was not confidential either

[GIGS20]

Next submission will no doubt be from Mr Andrew Cox declaring the details of his agreement and that it was not confidential either

Cox wouldn't actually go on record to say he'd sucked every cent possible out of the rebels to dig his other businesses out of the shit. Would he?

[Bakkies]

Cox wouldn't actually go on record to say he'd sucked every cent possible out of the rebels to dig his other businesses out of the shit. Would he?

His may be one of the confidential submissions

[Bakkies]

Any organisation which has certain tax exemptions that goes out and deliberately accepts less money should be scrutinised heavily by the long arm of the law. The ARU tried to hide behind confidentiality when it came to the so called agreement with the Victorian Government which included selling off unscheduled test matches without a fair bidding process. Sydney may be out of action soon that shouldn't stop the ARU from blocking Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide from bidding for these test matches which would drive up the price. Any organisation that claims to be bordering on insolvency should be doing that.

De Clyne tried to claim confidentiality when discussing the so called deal which isn't signed, the terms of the contract may be confidential but the money involved which comes from public funded isn't. Tax payers have a right to know how much money is spent.

[Alison]

I had a google around looking for newspaper headlines, Looked at Roar, GAGR, Rugby.com.au, Planetrugby.
I could not find one peep about the senate inquiry or ARU etc.
It is mid-week, when there no games, no teams selections etc. All that juicy material released by the Inquiry. Not one word in the rugby media.
Maybe the journos are too scared of the implications of these stories?

They will not be able to ignore the senate report in a couple of weeks.

Maybe the journos are worried about having their press passes & access to players etc revoked. That is a genuine concern and the ARU is nasty enough to follow through on it. No access = no story = no job. Maybe?

[Jules]

Maybe the journos are worried about having their press passes & access to players etc revoked. That is a genuine concern and the ARU is nasty enough to follow through on it. No access = no story = no job. Maybe?

Sounds awfully like a dictatorship with Clyne as nutty dictator 😡

[jackster]

I seem to recall Spiro writing an article for the roar about Rob Clarkes list of ARU enemies - this was 26 June this year, but I cant find it, just the apology the next day

[valzc]

I seem to recall Spiro writing an article for the roar about Rob Clarkes list of ARU enemies - this was 26 June this year, but I cant find it, just the apology the next day

That story kicked up a big hullabaloo, and I believe Clarke (surprise, surprise) denied he’d ever written such a letter. Spiro’s story then got pulled and he was made to publish an ‘apology’ - someone at the Roar must be his BF! Not one word of the inquiry has been mentioned on that site for weeks.

[shasta]

A little Googling reveals the story was killed alright. Just a couple of references to it from other sites remain.............unfortunately. Don't remember it (or should I say "I don't recall"). Pity; might have made for an enlightening read in light of what we now know.

A sure sign that an organisation, the ARU in this case, has become dysfunctional is that it spends a great deal of its time and resources drawing up lists of enemies. The so-called enemies are actually people who have different ideas and plans on where the organisation should be heading, and how to get there. […] Article link: The ARU has a list of enemies. We should be all worried.

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/t...worried/588916

The ARU has a list of enemies. We should be all worried

26 JUNE 2017 BY ALAN

Super Rugby in the news:

The ARU has a list of enemies. We should be all worried: Take this example. It is over 70 days since the ARU announced that it is going to cull one of the Super Rugby teams from the tournament, with a decision to be made and announced within 72 hours. More than two months later, we still don’t know what team …

https://www.rugbysearch.co.za/2017/t...e-all-worried/

[Bakkies]

A little Googling reveals the story was killed alright. Just a couple of references to it from other sites remain.............unfortunately. Don't remember it (or should I say "I don't recall"). Pity; might have made for an enlightening read in light of what we now know.


https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/t...worried/588916



https://www.rugbysearch.co.za/2017/t...e-all-worried/

Pretty sure it was traced as even though the article was removed it doesn't mean it is gone. Once it is up on the web it gets archived

[shasta]

Pretty sure it was traced as even though the article was removed it doesn't mean it is gone. Once it is up on the web it gets archived

Probably. But my "tech savvy" doesn't go past Google.

[SinBin]

Way back machine may be our friend for anyone with a bit of time today

[Bakkies]

Ask and shall receive

https://web.archive.org/web/20170625...st-of-enemies/

A sure sign that an organisation, the ARU in this case, has become dysfunctional is that it spends a great deal of its time and resources drawing up lists of enemies.

The so-called enemies are actually people who have different ideas and plans on where the organisation should be heading, and how to get there.

The thinking behind this enemies list sort of behaviour is that the organisation knows best on everything it does and that if other people have different ideas then they must be trashed, made non-persons – and if they are in the organisation, they must be booted out.

This notion that that the rulers are right and everyone else is wrong and therefore an enemy goes against the notion of a loyal opposition.

The notion of a loyal opposition is one of the greatest ideas ever developed by the British.

Think about this, before the loyal opposition notion was created, the winners destroyed the losers until their administrations became so obnoxious and power-drunk with their belief in a “divine right” to rule that the opposition built up such a formidable resistance that the overthrow of the rulers became a practical necessity.

In other words, divine right rule has within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

Administrations that do not tolerate a loyal opposition and believe that any opposition is “disloyal” are indulging in self-destruction behaviour.

One of my favourite historians is A.J.P. Taylor, a maverick thinker of great brilliance and clarity. In his study of British political dissidents in the 19th century, Taylor put forward the idea that if you want to know the conventional wisdom on foreign policy in 30 years time you need only look to what the dissidents are saying now.

This is a very powerful insight and it has relevance to the current problems facing the ARU board. Opponents are often (though not always, admittedly) better informed and understand the full implications of what needs to be done than the officials actually in charge.

This is why strong organisation embrace opposing points of view and value fearless discussion.

But since the earliest days of the Hawker/Clyne regimes, the ARU board and its chief executive Bill Pulver have maintained an unhealthy secrecy about how decisions have been made and often what these decisions actually are.

They have been intolerant, to the point of hostility, to any outside voices expressing a view that changes and new ideas need to be embraced.

Take this example. It is over 70 days since the ARU announced that it is going to cull one of the Super Rugby teams from the tournament, with a decision to be made and announced within 72 hours.

More than two months later, we still don’t know what team is going to be culled, whether it is the Western Force (which the ARU owns) or the Melbourne Force (which is privately owned).

We don’t know what the criteria is for the culling.

We don’t know when the matter is going to be resolved or even how it is going to be resolved.

And RUPA, the players’ union, demanded this week to know where the $6m of projected savings from the cull was going to go. So far, the ARU has been silent of this matter, as with most other matters.

This practice by the ARU of keeping the rugby community in Australia fully in the dark about all the issues facing the game in this country has been driven by a nasty them-and-us complex.

One way the ARU has done this and is still doing this is by drawing up a list of enemies it seems to be campaigning against whatever it is trying to do.

All this is part of a prologue to understand the significance of an email that Bill Pulver sent out to a well-known rugby person, with deep roots in club rugby, on 19 June 2017.

I am aware of a campaign several months ago against myself and others. I will concede you were thought of as being one of the driving forces. I now know this is simply not true. I find you to be a man of honour and like me a straight shooter always prepared to put loyalty before the crap that so many undertake.

I well recall when we first met you saying you can’t keep everybody happy and especially in rugby circles. I have discovered you were correct. Rob C (Clarke) now exited also suspected you might be manipulated by some you call friends but Rob also while letting us down with his timing (about leaving the ARU), at least in Chek’s (Michael Cheika) eyes, before leaving Rob listed for us supporters and opponents, enemies. You were on neither.

I guess I am trying to say thanks. Stay well, Bill.

So there we have it, Rob Clarke ‘listed for us’ enemies of the ARU and Bill Pulver actually endorsed the list.

I have covered rugby in Australia for more than 30 years. This notion of an enemies list drawn up for use in some way or another by the ARU board and its chief executive is very worrying.

Worrying and instructive.

Worrying because it means that the ARU can somehow justify ignoring its critics at every level of the game and shut them out of the ARU’s power structures on the grounds that they are enemies who talk “crap”.

This attitude makes true-blue rugby people into outsiders and dissenters to be shut out of the running of the rugby game in Australia. How very convenient for the those currently in power.

These non-people include: Brett Papworth, the principals of the great rugby schools who have been treated with disdain by the ARU, all the club officials, RUPA the players’ union, former distinguished figures in Australian rugby like Bob Dwyer, Alan Jones, John Connelly, former officials from an era when Australian rugby had every trophy worth winning in its possession at head office, supporters and journalists.

It is worth pointing out that the chairman and the chief executive were foisted on the Australian rugby community by a cabal of insiders without much (any?) discussion with the rugby community.

Where was the push in the Australian rugby community for Cameron Clyne to be the chairman of the ARU board when Michael Hawker stood down?

How many candidates were interviewed for the chief executive’s job before Bill Pulver, a mate of the new chairman Michael Hawker, was appointed?

When the AOC decided on appointing a high-powered chief executive earlier this year, it interviewed 231 candidates.

The winning candidate was Matt Carroll, recently the successful chief executive of Yachting Australia.

Rugby people will know, though, that Carroll was the efficient on-the-ground ARU official behind the successful, in every respect, running of the 2003 Rugby World Cup tournament throughout Australia.

Carroll was being groomed by John O’Neill, while he was chief executive of the ARU, to take over from him when he moved out.

But Carroll and the high performance manager, former Wallaby and successful Brumbies coach David Nucifora, were not wanted by the regime that took over after O’Neill moved out.

Like Carroll, Nucifora has gone on to greater things with his very successful tenure as high performance manager for the Ireland Rugby Union.

As an aside, every indication from the Wallabies this season, including their dispiriting performance on Saturday against Italy where the scrum was demolished, is that the squad could do with some of the tactical and selectorial insights Ireland rugby has gained through Nucifora’s work in Dublin.

The main driving force of the Hawker/Clyne boards right from the beginning was a total antagonism to the former administration run by John O’Neill as chief executive.

This obsession to see O’Neill and anyone who supported his concerns as an enemy has led the Hawker/Clyne boards into making the mistake of rejecting the policy successes since rugby became a professional game in 1995/1996.

Here is part of an email doing the rounds among the ‘enemy’ insurgents arguing that the ARU board has made a mistake in neglecting grassroots rugby.

“It’s OK to have aspirational strategies re 7s, Women’s rugby etc but the core business has to be the priority … A deliberate decision was made in the 1995 era to keep the professional game here (and New Zealand) connected to the community game so you need to understand the dynamics of both those elements to contribute to game “governance” on boards … Compare that in UK and Europe initially … The NRL recently had issues where the community game felt disenfranchised from the money-making NRL and wanted direct representation reinstated …”

This idea of “direct representation” for grassroots rugby was behind the Papworth initiatives that got short shrift from Bill Pulver.

Wayne Smith in Saturday’s Australian, in his piece entitled ‘Eyes on where bequest is spent‘, has an interesting idea on how a bequest of $350,000 for five years from the late rugby-mad philanthropist Paul Ramsey for “grassroots development in schools” is going to be spent.

The trustees of the Ramsay Rugby Foundation are Paul McLean (who is on the ARU board), Ken Wright and Dick Marks.

Smith makes this interesting point: “Significantly, mainstream rugby organisations and professional rugby bureaucrats are being kept as far removed from the money as possible.”

Good.

Why would the ARU with its list of enemies be given any chance to get its hands on money that is going to be spent in an area, schools rugby, the current ARU board has spurned for the past few years?

There is no doubt in my mind that the dysfunctional behaviour of the ARU board and its chief executive is affecting outcomes at all levels of Australian rugby, from the Wallabies to the grassroots.

When you watch the Wallabies play in the manner they did against Italy, for instance, you get a sense that the ARU’s ‘them against us’ mentality is affecting for the worse of the performances of the national side.

It must be incredibly difficult to players to play with passion and intensity when they know that their masters, the board, have agendas that actually threaten their livelihoods.

And what must really rankle is that the ARU board refuses to acknowledge that it has the ultimate responsibility for the mess Australian rugby is in, on and off the field.

I note a remarkable paragraph in John Eales’ column entitled ‘Purpose and passion can put Cheika’s men back on the right track‘ that is attracting a great deal of commentary in email circles.

“Of course, it’s valid to ask whether results are less predictable because the Springboks and the Wallabies have dropped their standards rather than other nations raising theirs. Again, it’s probably a bit of both and all in Australian rugby are accountable, including me from where I sit as a director.”

First, is it appropriate that a director of the ARU should be publicly commenting on whether the Wallabies have dropped their standards?

Second, is it appropriate to blame those outside the ARU for the dropping standards with the Wallabies when the ARU controls the team and its coaching staff?

An email doing the rounds of alarmed Wallabies supporters expressed their reaction to what John Eales had to say this way:.

“No John! ‘All’ aren’t charged with the job of governing the game in Australia. ‘All’ don’t have a say or any influence. You John are on the board of the ARU. Your accountability is absolute and non-negotiable. You have failed the Wallabies.”

While I was writing this, my mind went back to my only meeting with Bill Pulver where we had a robust discussion in his office on what was wrong with Australian rugby and what was needed to put it right.

At one point, after the discussion degenerated into a shouting match on both sides, I told Pulver that we needed to remember that both of us were driven by the desire to do what was best for the success of rugby in Australia.

This was said as a sort of gesture of goodwill intended to smooth over the wounding discussion we had engaged in.

At the time and now, I wondered why Pulver did not seem to agree with me on this point. He simply did not acknowledge our mutual commitment for the rugby game to grow at every level in Australia.

I’m wondering now if this silence meant that I was on an ARU list of enemies.