Cameron Clyne to step down as Rugby AU chairman next year

By The Roar / Editor

Rugby Australia chairman Cameron Clyne has announced he will resign from his position next year, bringing to an end a tenure which started in 2016.

Clyne will not seek re-election at next March’s annual general meeting, but meanwhile will have a number of high-profile tasks to contribute to, including the governing body’s ongoing legal stoush with sacked star Israel Folau and the search for a new Wallabies coach.

In a statement released on Monday morning, Clyne said he was proud of the sport’s achievements during his stint as chairman – albeit admitting the difficulty involved in cutting the Western Force two years ago – but took a swipe at rugby media and hoped attention would be redirected away from his successor to “where it rightfully should be”.

“I have decided that I will not seek re-election when my term concludes at the Rugby Australia AGM in March next year,” Clyne said.

“Notwithstanding the very painful decision to remove the Western Force from the Super Rugby competition and the mixed results of the Wallabies in recent years, there have been a number of achievements and positive advancements right across the game over the past four years.

“Female participation in rugby has tripled, we’ve seen enormous growth in sevens participation on the back of the gold medal success of our women’s team, and against global trends in participation we have achieved growth in traditional XVs rugby in several states and territories.

“Unfortunately, recently, much of the focus of the media has been directed at myself, which has overshadowed a lot of great work that has been done and continues to be done at the community level through to the national level by our volunteers, administrators, players, coaches, and match officials across the country.

“It is hoped that with my resignation, the attention can return to where it rightfully should be, which is on the field and that this positive work will be highlighted.”

The Crowd Says:

2019-11-22T14:29:54+00:00

andrewM

Roar Rookie


The massive spreadsheet?

2019-11-21T02:19:15+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Sorry, misread, the damages indeed happened after the intent to cut was announced, but crucially before the process to select the team was supposedly complete. It indirectly helped predetermined that decision.

2019-11-21T02:16:33+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Nope, first link..."The deed of settlement says Cox and Sidwell: “ ... respectively direct that the respective payments to them be paid to MRRUPL for the purposes of MRRUPL satisfying the Debt Free Requirement and MRRUPL agrees that these payments will be used solely for this purpose”." So the money was agreed and paid in order to get the team debt free, so that it could be sold. So well before the 11th, as the sale happened on the 5th. And the sale date is entirely relevant, as it is what rendered the Rebels constitutionally incapable of being cut. Until that sale, the Rebels remained in the frame. After, the result was predetermined.

2019-11-21T02:05:17+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


How was it managed? By deciding which team they could cut and executing that? Why would they get more from Twiggy? How much has he spent on the Force to date? At the time his largess towards rugby had actually been very little.

2019-11-21T02:04:02+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


The agreement for damages happened after the intent to cut a team was announced. The sale date isn't relevant (in relation to the Force being announced) because the threat of legal action was due to the announcement of a team being cut earlier in the year.

2019-11-21T01:59:52+00:00

AndyS

Guest


No, saying he categorically wasn't is making things up. EFF didn't say Cox was willing to merge with the Force, he said it would (IHO) been a better outcome and should have been explored. It is you that is asserting that it was absolutely not possible.

2019-11-21T01:53:06+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Third link..."RA claimed it was blindsided when news of the sale leaked and said it had to approve any transfer or sale of ownership." RA would have been under no obligation to map out exactly how to go through the process. They would have been perfectly entitled to say nothing, or advise they get their own legal advice...should have if they wanted to maintain any claim of impartiality. Mapping it out means they were both aware of the intent, and actively engaged in making it a reality, well before the decision had been made. And it wasn't after the event. The Force was cut on the 11th of August. The Rebels sale was announced on the 5th, so the agreements about "damages" and clearing debt all happened in advance of that.

2019-11-21T01:36:10+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


he’s said he was open to a specific merger. Not any merger. So to say he was open to any other merger is making things up.

2019-11-21T01:35:06+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


What’s more likely is RA are obligated to execute a transfer if the terms of the agreement are met.

2019-11-21T01:33:45+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


None of that says RA had to sign off. They told private investors what would need to be done to transfer it - pay up some cash. I’ve sent plenty of emails in my time telling parties what they are obligated to do, without expecting them to be done, just outlining their obligations. Had Pulver told them incorrect information in the hope the sale couldn’t be done, he’d likely be in hot water.

2019-11-21T01:27:48+00:00

AndyS

Guest


He never said he would consider selling for a million billion dollars either, so you are saying he categorically wouldn't? He specifically said he would consider a solution involving a merger, so he was clearly open to the concept. From there, they would have had to make a case. Your argument seems to be devolving to they never ever could of or would of because they didn't. Textbook argument from ignorance.

2019-11-21T01:26:31+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


That was never part of the process though. It was an outcome after. The agreed to again, limit liability rather than go to court and burn money with no limit on what they could owe. Does the threat of legal action from a party who everybody claims wasn’t a threat of being cut not indicate they at least were considered one?

2019-11-21T01:18:52+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Sorry TWAS, but it did reek of farce (at best). RA effectively paid Cox out by agreeing to bung him enough money to clear the Rebels debts as "compensation" for even suggesting the Rebels were part of the process (https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/western-force/rugby-australia-aid-saved-the-melbourne-rebels-sealed-western-forces-fate-ng-b88806001z). They were even told to send the money to the Rebels rather than him, so the team could be sold to the Vic government. An action that also required RA sign-off, and made them constitutionally incapable of considering the Rebels any further (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby/melbourne-rebels-insist-they-are-entitled-to-super-rugby-safety-until-2020/news-story/4d9304faabc52cd032b091437925fc95). It was even one of the few bits of interest that came out of the enquiry (https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/rugby-union/rugby-australia-email-leak-calls-western-force-decision-into-question-ng-b88671547z), so if anything farce is probably a kind euphemism for the actual process.

2019-11-21T01:03:07+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


So saying Cox was willing to merge with the Force is making it up - because he never indicated that?

2019-11-21T00:43:20+00:00

AndyS

Guest


But then it is you that is "...making up what Cox was willing to do". You seem to be asserting that because Cox was never asked directly about merging the Force and Rebels, then he categorically never would have considered it. He specifically publically stated he would consider solutions involving a merger, albeit thinking of the Brumbies at the time. But it means he was open to the idea of a merger, so might well have considered alternative partners. It never came up, probably for the best, but it likely was an option that went unexplored.

2019-11-20T23:21:38+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


How is it a farce? They have a process. Concludes they only have one real legal option. They probably considered the legal risk of alternatives, or options such as buying Cox out (which negates the purpose of saving money).

2019-11-20T23:20:22+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


No. When the Rebels were sold to Cox RA were required to provide 5 teams. Which is why they agreed to some additional funding to offload the liability to Cox.

2019-11-20T23:19:26+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


This was on the basis of EFF's claim I was responding to. A merger of the Force and Rebels. A Brumbiers merger becomes irrelevant when the Brumbies rule it out.

2019-11-20T23:15:34+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Indeed, but you were saying Cox would never even consider a merger. He clearly would, said he would, the rest was just negotiation.

2019-11-20T20:03:14+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


But the Brumbies weren’t open and EFF is saying merging the Force and Rebels was a solution.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar