NZRU talks on Otago’s woes
There was plenty of talk about Otago’s dire financial position yesterday but no lifeline has been offered by the New Zealand Rugby Union board.
While the Otago Rugby Football Union is in the mire financially – it is expected to post a loss of several thousand dollars – no immediate answers could be provided by NZRU chief executive Steve Tew after yesterday’s board meeting.
Although he admitted the board spent a ‘‘considerable’’ amount of time discussing the ORFU’S problems, he said he was unable to say whether they would prop up the embattled union with a loan or if the board should resign.
‘‘It is very serious . . . we are working incredibly hard on getting the facts and options before us,’’ Tew said. ‘‘There is a high degree of urgency,’’ he added and noted that it was a complicated situation.
Tew travelled to Dunedin this week to discuss options with Otago officials. Change manager Jeremy Curragh was appointed to review Otago’s accounts last month.
Tew has reiterated in the past that the union cannot just keep bailing out financially embattled unions.
Tew also said there has been some interest shown by parties wanting to manage and operate licences for Super teams in New Zealand. No formal expressions of interest have been received yet, with the deadline being March 9.
Although the majority of interest is domestically based he said some applicants could involve an off-shore consortium.
Meanwhile, three small South Island rugby unions have voted for their big brothers to be awarded more power around the voting table following a constitutional review.
Tasman, represented by Nick Patterson, MidCanterbury (Stuart Leadley) and South Canterbury (Brent Isbister) were content to see voting entitlements adjusted to provide greater proportionality between playing numbers and votes.
Fears that bigger unions could exploit their bigger voting power were dismissed because only eight votes were added to the larger unions, taking total votes cast to 97.
Previously the votes were capped at five for unions with 120 teams or more. Tasman, which has between 60 and 89 teams, has retained three votes while Mid and South Canterbury (2 votes) also remain the same because they have fewer than 60.
Although a proposal to abolish the requirement that directors be elected by zones failed, Tasman, MidCanterbury and South Canterbury supported the change.