I became a foundation member of the Melbourne Rebels as soon as membership became available, but shortly I will be renouncing it. Here’s why.
The Rebels have an owner. That owner has indicated it will sue the Australian Rugby Union should the Rebels be cut from Super Rugby. I consider the proposition to be outrageous.
No one should own rugby or any part of it. Rugby is something to be enjoyed and treasured. For all but those at the elite level, rugby is a pastime from which no money is earned. People in charge of the administration of rugby at a club, provincial, national and international level have an obligation to run the game for the benefit of all. That has been the case since rugby commenced.
Ownership of a rugby club creates a potential conflict of interest in the owner regardless of how well-intentioned that owner might be.
On the one hand is the obligation to run the game for the benefit of rugby, but on the other hand there is self-interest and profit-making. Such a potential conflict of interest should never be allowed to occur.
What is good for rugby should be the only consideration for an administrator. It follows that ownership of a rugby club should be prohibited.
(AAP Image/Joe Castro)
The ARU has decided in its wisdom that one Australian Super Rugby team should be removed. I am not here to argue that – suffice to say the head rugby body in the country has said so.
If that decision is wrong and the board of directors are incompetent, steps can be taken. There are ways and means under the ARU’s constitution to oust the current board and put in place somebody who knows what they are doing. In other words, if the ARU is making stupid decisions, the internal workings of that body allow for constituent members to change things.
That is the way for the Rebels to protect themselves from being removed. If, by a majority of people entitled to vote, a board is elected which does not remove the Rebels, then that is well and good. If that were not to happen, then unfortunately the Rebels must go.
That too would be well and good. I would wish it otherwise, but at the end of the day it is the greater good of Australian rugby that interests me and not any individual club.
Australian rugby has disintegrated to the point where good rugby men and women are contemplating suing other good rugby men and women. The game has reached an all-time low.
That is especially the case when at least one of the purposes of the contemplated court proceedings is, in the words of the Australian’s Wayne Smith, for the ownership group “to recoup the damages caused by the ARU’s bid to axe them.” That should never be something which has an influence on the game we all love.
It is for these reasons that the Rebels have just lost a member.
Ownership of rugby and court proceedings are alien to the best interests of rugby. I hope the ARU takes heed and never allows private ownership again.
Mac
Guest
Tend to agree with this line of thinking. Egos at it again.
sittingbison
Guest
The Force are not suing the ARU for money, they are ensuring a contract is maintained. Big difference
in brief
Guest
The idea that somehow the ARU will be held accountable is laudable but also laughable.
in brief
Guest
You're kidding
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
TWAS, I expect Pocock to retire from internationals at the end of 2019. And if he or McMahon gets injured then we need another understudy. I'd agree that prioritising props, 6s and 8s is a bigger issue though. We should never have let Greg Holmes go.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Bakkies, please, I'm the biggest George Smith fan in the world, but how many times has he gone for grubbers when it hasn't been on? A McMahon-Gill-Hooper trio would be lovely if they were a bit bigger and heavier, Browny...
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Browny - You're right, I have no inside knowledge. I also have no opinion on Cox it is just the narrative rings loud bells. A hard nosed businessman vs the inept ARU could be considered bullying!
Wally James
Roar Guru
With you there Jamie.
Wally James
Roar Guru
Bakkies, if I can't afford something I don't get it.
Unanimous
Guest
The investors invest to make money. The NZRU supplies the product to them (home team and opponents) on a wholesale basis if you like, and they on-sell that to the audience. They market the product locally. I believe the coaches too are employees of the NZRU, the rest of the staff are either from the local unions who are often shareholders in the consortiums, or just ordinary employees. For a long time the local unions were the only shareholders allowed, but commercial investors are now the majority owners for all franchises I believe. It's actually more like owning a normal franchise than many sports teams are. It's not a 'light privatised model' for small countries, or something only to support a national team. It's actually a well thought through model in which appropriate organisation types carry out what they are good at. If SANZAAR ran like that SR would be in fine shape.
Wally James
Roar Guru
Good question but pretty much the same James. I suppose the difference is that the Force is not owned by a company/individual. Rather it is a Rugby Club more in the sense that we used to know it. If I was a member of the Force I would resign from them too. That is not to say that I am an ARU sycophant either. Threats if legal action about administration amongst Rugby folk should just not happen, I think
Bakkies
Guest
And George Smith didn't do stupid kicks? There are rumours going around in France that Gill is off to Lyon
Bakkies
Guest
Cato sorry that is just stupid.
Bakkies
Guest
The ARU simply couldn't afford to support a start up side.
James Pettifer
Guest
Just interested in how do you feel about the WA RU threatening legal action on the basis of the ARU cutting the Force being in breach of the signed agreement?
Browny
Roar Rookie
a locked in contract of say $900k over three years is probably more appealing to a young player than a single year $300 where hopefully at the end of it you can negotiate for the same pay (or more), provided you don't get injured in the next 12 months. In that situation you're going to get a lot more promising younger guys head overseas for the security. Imagine that 3 year vs 1 year deal but make it $900k over 3 years compared to $150k over one and hopefully you can get $200k to $250k next year if you're fit and improving, maybe the third year if things go your way you're up to $300k - $400k.... makes the offshore move look pretty appealing...
piru
Roar Rookie
Of course he will, they've written his name down in permanent ink and can't erase it.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
How does that work when overseas clubs are offering 3 year guaranteed contracts? What reasonable person is going to risk a major injury and being paid nothing instead? You ignore external competition. Under what you say many players would be better off starting their post football careers in fact.
Browny
Roar Rookie
Gman, all that would mean is he gets paid around $2.1M in the first year, nothing in the second year and another $2.1M in the third as opposed to three payments of around $750k. It's the same amount of cash, he's not being paid to 'not play' this year. It's $2.2M over three years for 2 seasons... what's so hard to understand about that? Probably makes it easier for both parties accountants with an even exchange across the period rather than half the sum, year break, half the sum.
Gman
Guest
Maybe only pay players a year at a time . MAYBE make it performance based Maybe we need to look at how much we pay them period If a 22 year old with as much promise as heas cant be retained - its broken . All i am saying is, money follows results Currently there are no results We are a generation away from results (in my opinion) that generation is 22 or less. At 22 he can lead that generation