It was a Queensland-led coup which resulted in Hamish McLennan being sacked as Rugby Australia chairman on the day of the long knives on November 19.
The Sydney businessman was made to pay the price for the Wallabies’ World Cup implosion and the Eddie Jones coaching circus. He was replaced as RA chairman by a Queenslander, Dan Herbert.
And the all-powerful Queensland voting bloc will have a key role in determining the outcome of RA’s annual general meeting on April 29, when Australia’s Super Rugby franchises, State unions and the Rugby Union Players’ Association get to vote on who will guide rugby in Australian through the fog of an uncertain future.
Paradoxical as it may sound, Queensland’s influence at Moore Park has actually been strengthened since last year’s AGM due to the financial problems besetting Australia’s Super Rugby franchises.
Rugby Australia Board Director Daniel Herbert speaks to media during a Rugby Australia media opportunity in support of the Rugby World Cup 2027 & 2029 bid, at King George Square on May 13, 2022 in Brisbane, Australia. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images for Rugby Australia)
And here are the raw numbers which explain why.
All up, 14 votes will decide just who gets to sit around the RA board table after the April 29 AGM. Those 14 votes will dictate the outcome of five critical resolutions.
The first two of those resolutions will determine which newbies get to fill the RA board vacancies created by McLennan’s departure and Phil Waugh’s elevation to the role of chief executive. As previously reported here, the Herbert-chaired RA nominations committee will decide which new board nominees make it onto the ballot papers, and which have their resumes returned with thank you notes attached.
The other three resolutions relate to whether the incumbent RA directors up for re-election – Matthew Hanning, Karen Penrose and Jane Wilson – get to stay on, or are shown the door like McLennan.
Critically, all resolutions require a two-thirds majority. That means to get up, each nominee must secure at least 10 of the total 14 votes. Which of course also means it only takes five of the 14 votes to torpedo any of the resolutions.
Queensland, through the Reds and the Queensland Rugby Union, controls three of those 14 votes, collectively the most of any state. Which means that in true Joh Bjelke-Petersen style, it will be tough for any board hopeful to rally the necessary votes if they don’t already drink XXXX or Bundaberg Rum – or at least indicate some flexibility in their drinking habits.
Queensland is the only state with three votes because the NSW Waratahs surrendered a vote after throwing back the keys back to RA. Similarly, the Rebels were stripped of their vote after going into voluntary administration.
All of which, according to my back-of-the-beer coaster numbers, leaves a voting card as follows:
Queensland/Queensland RU – 3
NSW RU – 2
Brumbies/ACT RU – 2
Western Force – 1
WA RU – 1
Victorian RU – 1
South Australian RU – 1
Tasmanian RU – 1
Northern Territory RU – 1
RU Players’ Association – 1
To note: Under the RA voting structure, the Queensland and NSW state unions both received a bonus vote in 2023, over and above the other states, for having more than 50,000 participants respectively. The 14 vote total above is based on the expectation that will remain the case in 2024.
Observant readers might notice the Western Force and the WA Rugby Union are referred to separately in the table above, rather than collectively like Queensland and the ACT.
That’s because the Western Force and RugbyWA didn’t show solidarity in weighing up whether McLennan should have been axed. On one hand, the Western Force’s billionaire owners Andrew and Nicola Forrest went public in their support of friend McLennan, stating: “Hamish is steering rugby through a very difficult period from the complete mess that he inherited.
Former Rugby Australia Chairman Hamish McLennan. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
“Now is not the time for more disruption in the sport, but a time for rugby to band together and back the proposed centralisation reforms. We support the efforts Hamish and the existing board are making to centralise high performance and improve governance to ensure Australian rugby administration is focused on what’s best for the game, its players and fans.”
Few, as it turned out, agreed with them. Most surprisingly, that included chairman John Edwards and the board of RugbyWA, who sided with the Queensland-led board coup to oust McLennan.
That appeared to be a classic case of biting the hand that feeds you given that apart from personally covering the Force’s operating losses, the Forrest family-controlled miner Fortescue ploughs millions of dollars into RugbyWA to make sure the heart of community rugby continues to beat strongly out west.
It failed to register with Edwards and co that as a friend of the Forrests, McLennan was by extension a friend of the Force.
As Alice in Wonderland once mused, curiouser and curiouser. Alice, meanwhile, might well have made the same observation about comments made last week by Australian newspaper rugby columnist Jessica Halloran, which provide an insight into the inter-state political machinations which will shape the outcome of the April 29 AGM.
Writing on how Queensland’s RA chairman Herbert had essentially been missing in action in countering the Sydney Roosters’ $1.8 million bid for Waratahs young gun Max Jorgensen, Halloran noted: “There is concern that archaic rugby factions will come into play with Queensland powerbrokers uninterested in retaining the young New South Welshman who strengthens the Waratahs.”
One of the big decisions facing whoever is sitting around the RA board room after the April 29 AGM is how many Super Rugby teams Australian will field in 2025 and thereafter.
As Eddie Jones told Halloran in a recent interview, that won’t be a decision based on emotion, but dollars – and RA’s lack thereof.
“I think at some stage the financial reality of supporting five teams is going to be difficult for Australia to sustain,” Jones said. “There’s an inevitability about that and it’s how you go about that.
“They had one go with the Force and they didn’t get it right at all. The next time they’ve got to get it right, running the business of rugby, and that’s a skill in itself.”
With all the inter-state politics at play, it’s hopefully not just naïve thinking to hope the most suitable custodians of our great game will be elected to the RA board on April 29, rather than factional hacks pushing state agendas.
Otherwise we could be left with another scene from Alice in Wonderland: A mad hatter’s tea party.
piru
Roar Rookie
I know what it means, I don't think you do. Casting a vote for a mate is not nepotism
Guess
Roar Rookie
Why don't you google it? You have no problem recognising it in NSW yet when Forrest does it you suddenly don't get it
Don
Roar Rookie
Good comment. Certainly if you go through the current RA board there's broad experience and diverse backgrounds, but you'd like to have a better mix of people from some industries more relevant to Rugby. It is bereft of sport admin / exec experience and little strong rugby admin. No one from a media business? And no one with experience in state or fed politics? That is somewhat OK if you have a CEO with a strong and long background in sports admin. Like Andrew Demetriou or Gil McLachlan as CEOs with Richard Goyder the Chair at the AFL. Pip Marlow won't hold her place on the board at the next election.
piru
Roar Rookie
I stopped reading when members exercising their constitutional right was described as a “coup” Achieving an outcome by voting is literally* the opposite of a coup. *(not literally like the kids use it - ie figuratively, but literally literally)
piru
Roar Rookie
That'd get my vote
Muglair
Roar Rookie
You can always speculate what came first, what JON wanted, or what Arbib thought. What qualified Arbib in the first place? One curiousity was the emphasis placed by Arbib on the rugby community being the game’s greatest asset. Still the ARU had been already ignoring it for over ten years, so I suppose they just continued. The other fallacy of Arbib’s report was the construct around the global trend of “independent directors” in the commercial space. An independent director who is somebody not employed in the company, whereas JON chose to interpret it as someone who has no connection to a stakeholder. A board full of people who do not understand rugby, its values, its ethos, and most importantly, its supporters. The rugby community is almost rugby’s only customer. Can you explain the practical differences between the NRL and AFL Commissions and the RA Board as it is structured and managed? One difference is in members. RA is forced to go through the charade of a director nomination process significantly controlled by the existing directors. Note McLennan’s version of a commission would involve splitting between elite professional rugby (managed by the Commission) and grassroots rugby (managed by RA board as per existing constitution). He thought he would go on the Commission. Not that it would be surprising with all of the revenues going into one part, with the other bearing the cost and complexity of running the game and developing players.
Dualcode
Roar Rookie
At least Queensland is in control here, figured RA was going nowhere with the NSW old boys in charge despite Waughsy being there.
Don
Roar Rookie
I think the changes came about in line with the Arbib report recommendations. There was a lot of talk back then about creating an independent commission maybe because the AFL had one and the NRL had moved to one as well, and it was seen as a way to remove the perceived state / club bias.
Don
Roar Rookie
I think the original reason (decades ago) NSW had more votes was the size of the NSWCRU club network.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Historical structure partly driven by Queensland's absence for a decade a century ago. It did need changing to reflect the national growth of the sport, however I can't help but think JON intended to disperse power so that he got the result we have to live with, the RA board and management accountable to nobody. It took a crisis for all the states to come together, and no guarantee it will happen again.
Frankly
Roar Rookie
Perhaps they should go back to that. I wonder who actually made those votes. Representation in regional areas such as Regional NSW or Western Sydney would be a good idea.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
It is not that big. Step outside the corporate veils and you have a consolidated view of Australian professional rugby. RA HO which also incorporates a high performance team and attached commercial rights, and five subsidiary high performance teams with attached commercial rights. Six very similar business units turning over $15-30m each. Trying to break it down too far is not a true view as a lot of RA income is actually income for the game distributed arbitrarily to the states. For example RA profit is a direct function of how much, or how little, RA chooses to distribute to the states. Or withhold? I don't think the alleged RA profit of $8m was real cash, and you can add in losses in the five SR teams. Plus the expenses of running rugby in all states not covered by their own income. I would not like to hazard a guess at the consolidated losses of the last world cup cycle. or the one before it. The fundamental and highest priority issue is commercial incompetence and management ineptitude. Herbert's day job is not a bad preparation for his role of chairman, apparently managing a business with over 100 employees across five sites for a foreign investor. A lot of the duplicated administration jobs across six identical structures need to be eliminated and the functions centralised. Do we really need six CEOs, 6 CFOs etc? Note that this is different to the McLennan "centralisation" model which was about separating the professional rugby and all income sources at RA, and leaving all the administration and costs with the states. V'landys does not have any proven management capability, more a talent for operating small organisations in a high profile, high value industry. Useful, but not what RA needs right now. Get the basics right and it will solve a lot of the commercial issues, and make it far easier to identify what exactly is required in the big moments, and who can deliver. Note that none of the highly paid consultants hired in the last ten years have delivered any value at all. McLennan brings only an over inflated value of self, and a complete ignorance of all of the things he does not know.
Don
Roar Rookie
NSW used to have 5 votes and Tasmania 1. As recently as 2012.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
So basically he has done nothing so far? He has an MBA and work experience as a former national high profile sporting star working as a business development executive in the finance industry. Not an unusual CV but I am dubious as to how well it has prepared him for this role. Being a director at RA for several years, does not seem to have helped him identify problems and think of solutions.
AndyS
Roar Rookie
Sure, I mean how else are they going to guarantee that only they can ever have the most fans and registered players...?
Frankly
Roar Rookie
What you are suggesting will have the minority ruling the majority. That is less fair. There are 5 federal electorates in Tasmainia, and 47 in NSW. That is a ratio of 5 to 1. Perhaps it would be more fair for NSW to have 5 votes and Tasmainia 1.
piru
Roar Rookie
You make it so easy
piru
Roar Rookie
Bye
piru
Roar Rookie
NSW accounts for half the volume of fans and players but get treated like a dumpster. Perhaps if you hadn't hamstrung and then white anted the last attempt to grow the game to a decent level you wouldn't be in that position. take a plank from thine own eye
piru
Roar Rookie
I'm not following you here. You think if we had less teams, NSW players would stay in NSW and wait for their turn to play for the Waratahs? They won't, they'll go to Europe or Japan. You're effectively arguing that you'd rather your best players go OS than have a place in Australia. And you lot dare to accuse other states of "factionalism"