Rugby’s turf wars
“It's not a guaranteed seat, and it’s not just for ex-stale, pale old chairs like myself. It's anybody who has that experience.“
Wellington Rugby chair Russell Poole
New Zealand Rugby and its voting members appear to be agonisingly close to an agreement yet simultaneously miles apart on the vexed issue of governance reform, with neither NZ Rugby’s proposal nor the provincial unions’ plan guaranteed of getting 75% support at a special general meeting.
And, in a bid to break the impasse, the New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association has issued a new five-point plan that requires the current NZ Rugby Board to stand aside until a six-person group – including two provincial union nominees – implements the recommendations of last year’s Governance Review report.
“NZRPA has not supported any of the proposals NZ Rugby or the provincial unions have made regarding NZ Rugby’s governance reform for the reasons we have consistently highlighted,” NZRPA chief executive Rob Nichol said yesterday.
“In essence, we believe they do not deliver on the review panel’s recommendations, do not address the fundamental issues highlighted within the report and do not ensure NZ Rugby’s constitution and governance structures will be fit for purpose moving forward.”
The NZRPA are not voting members of NZ Rugby, but they wield significant influence in the game. Its plan, which has the approval of the Governance Review panel, states: “Existing NZR Board members may apply for appointment to the new NZR Board under the new appointments process.”
In an increasingly complex debate, there are now three proposals in circulation, with NZ Rugby chair Dame Patsy Reddy laying out her latest position last week.
Dame Patsy said the idea of having three board members with two years’ experience on provincial union boards was a “red line”, and that she would be prepared to resign if the provincial unions and New Zealand Māori Rugby Board board voted for that plan.
However, Wellington chair Russell Poole, who has been involved in the provincial union steering group on the governance
issue, insisted that their proposal would still deliver independence to a future NZ Rugby board and rejected the idea that it was simply a mechanism to “guarantee” roles for the provincial union network. “I can understand that if it's a system that she doesn't buy into or support ... that she [Dame Patsy] may wish to walk away,” Poole said.
“That’s an individual choice for her to make. But there’s no guaranteed roles for anybody.
“The difference between the two parties boils down to one sentence, and that sentence where the provincial unions want to ask, ‘How do you provide help for those who come after us?
“How do you define provincial union experience or community rugby experience? All we have said is we think that is best described by having at some stage in your life spent two years on a provincial union board.
“It’s not a guaranteed seat, and it’s not just for ex-stale, pale old chairs like myself. It’s anybody who has that experience.”
The provincial unions and NZ Rugby must now sell their respective ideas to the voting members, or decide whether the NZRPA plan is the way forward.
“We feel compelled to do what we believe NZ Rugby should have done many months ago – publicly support the review panel’s findings and fight for them in the court of public opinion,” Nichol said.
Opinion within NZ Rugby and among the provincial unions appears to be divided.
Poole said he understood that five of the nine-person NZ Rugby board supported Dame Patsy’s ‘red line’ on provincial union experience, but also couldn’t guarantee that the provincial union proposal would gain the necessary 75% support to pass.
“There’s no guarantee that there’s support for it,” Poole said. “A straw poll would suggest there’s majority support for it, but not all PUs support it.”