O'Neill plays out warmonger role

Wayne Smith, Rugby union editor | July 09, 2009


Article from: The Australian

ON how many fronts can John O'Neill and the Australian Rugby Union continue to wage wars?

The Wallabies, through their trade union body the Rugby Union Players Association, jumped out of the trenches yesterday and came storming over the hill, threatening legal action against their employers if their investigation into Lote Tuqiri's dismissal uncovers evidence the collective bargaining agreement with the ARU was breached.

Significantly, RUPA boss Tony Dempsey brushed aside suggestions the action could undermine his organisation's relationship with the ARU. Apparently it's already so damaged another dent won't matter.

It was significant, too, that the players took collective action. They are reported to be mad as hell about the way a valued teammate and old friend was treated, even if Tuqiri did foolishly hand his ARU firing squad its ammunition. Individually, the players are too terrified to speak out against O'Neill, but they are evidently hoping there's safety in numbers.

No such luck for Wallabies coach Robbie Deans, whose relationship with his players has been placed in grave jeopardy over his solo public pronouncement of support for O'Neill's handling of the Tuqiri affair.

Even if Deans honestly believes this, his credibility with his players and the rugby public should never have been squandered in the defence of what is increasingly being seen as an indefensible action. If any one man should have been quarantined from this imbroglio, it was the Wallabies coach.

A number of other legal actions are now swirling around O'Neill and the ARU. It is doubtful whether the Tuqiri case, for which the papers were filed yesterday, will ever see the inside of a courtroom. The last thing the ARU needs is for former Wallabies coach John Connolly or any of the other numerous former employees sacked by O'Neill to take the stand, swear to tell the truth and then be asked: did John O'Neill ever say or do anything to cause you to believe he was looking for an excuse to sack Lote Tuqiri?

And among a host of high-profile rugby identities who have fallen out with O'Neill, one is now understood to have launched defamation action against him.

Even the relationships that should be the strongest - the ARU with its constituent states - are frayed to breaking point. The accusation that ARU officials are working to undermine Victorian Rugby Union chairman Gary Gray in advance of Melbourne's selection as the Super 15 expansion team would be bizarre were it not for the mounting body of evidence that suggests it's true. In the wake of the report in The Australian yesterday on the apparent destabilisation campaign, affidavits have been sworn that do not paint a high-ranking ARU official in a good light. ARU chairman Peter McGrath, who is supposedly investigating the allegations, would do well to ask for copies of the sworn statements.

Then, even more bizarrely, Queensland Rugby Union chairman Peter Lewis revealed that he believes he is the target of a "Sydney-based" campaign to topple him. Asked if the ARU was orchestrating the push, Lewis guardedly replied: "I don't know."

Under normal circumstances, Lewis's answer should have been a snort and a derisive: "Of course not." The fact that the chairman of a major state union was entertaining the proposition that the national body is playing the man not the ball was telling.

Clearly, as with RUPA, the states' relationships with the ARU can't get much worse. Or perhaps it can. Battle has not yet been officially joined on the vexed issue of private equity.

Through all of this turmoil, McGrath and other members of the ARU board have maintained a spectacular silence.

One board member approached for comment on the Tuqiri sacking insisted it was not his job to second-guess the CEO about hirings and firings.

What nonsense! That's precisely the oversight role the board should be playing, especially when the employee sacked is one of the highest-paid and most popular members of the Wallabies.

It should be of the gravest concern to the board that so much energy is being expended on issues and campaigns that do nothing to advance the standing of rugby in Australia, and indeed threaten to impoverish the game on many levels.

Now is the time for McGrath to confound his critics by taking a strong stand to get the ARU back on track. If the challenge is too much for him, he should stand down for the good of the game.

If nothing else, the ARU board members should seek the advice of one of their own number, former chief of the Australian Defence Force Peter Cosgrove, on the wisdom of fighting wars on multiple fronts.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015703,00.html

The Board Member is correct in what he said, or perhaps didn't say, it isn't his job to second guess the CEO in the media and outside of the Board Room.
Turns out, despite being quoted, that Dempsey has now said on the Rugby Club that the players aren't "terrified"...but Dempsey, that is what you said!
I believe RUPA has jumped the gun and should have waited to hear the outcome from the court case before launching an investigation.
I believe Dempsey it trying to remain relevent and justify his position rather than acting on player concern.
I believe JO'N is a gump but would have had very sound legal advice and, if not, will be on the dole line.
And I believe this article has "agenda" written all over it.

"The last thing the ARU needs is for former Wallabies coach John Connolly or any of the other numerous former employees sacked by O'Neill to take the stand, swear to tell the truth and then be asked: did John O'Neill ever say or do anything to cause you to believe he was looking for an excuse to sack Lote Tuqiri?"

I wonder what would happen if O'Neill just said "Well der, I was expecting he would cock-up again, that is why I sent him the letter telling him what would happen if he did." At the end of the day it is an absolute irrelevance whether JO'N was praying for Tuqiri to cock-up, it is only relevant whether the sacking was within the terms of the contract (to be determined by the court) and complied with the collective bargaining agreement (to be determined with RUPA). Saying JO'Ns state of mind had anything to do with it would be stupid - it would be like saying you aren't entitled to winning the lottery if that is what you were hoping for.

Scare mongering and selling papers....that's the agenda.

The one thing that makes me fairly confident that the ARU/JO'N are on solid ground is the fact that Deans spoke up about it. He is a good bloke and nobodies fool and for him to say something in the ARU's defence then that means a lot!

RUPA has to be seen act... But it will be a slow process... and likely only finish after Lote's day in court... It was interesting to note that Dempsey said on The Rugby Club that this was the first Summary Dismissal in the professional era with the Wallabies.

Which I find dubious. It might be the first dismissal of someone whilst on Wallabies duty, but from a player/RUPA point of view surely there is no difference with the sacking on Henjak - the ARU was co-signatory of the contract, so presumably due process had to be adhered to, the cops weren't involved etc, etc.

I think I used the term "summary dismissal" in an earlier post, too. I'm not so sure it applies to this situation, though. From what's been made public it seems Tuqiri was dismissed after two prior "warnings". Surely he's not so poorly advised that it applies to the "third strike" in isolation. The issue might only be whether the offenses warranted termination, whether the collective agreement applies and was properly adhered to or, as some have said, it's purely a matter of contract law.

Who'd a thought a bunch of Rugby boys would form a union and take on their employer? Must be a bloody Bogan plot, eh Rex? No more Pinko Mungos!! :P

Am I being a bit simplistic thinking that Lote is calling their bluff?
Scenario: He has sat down with his people and they advise him he doesn't have enough to go to the ARU and get them to give an out of court settlement to keep the dirty laundry in the closet. So, the next step is "threaten" (not literally but by going to trial) the ARU with legal action as they have enough to make a flimsy case and cause plenty of mud to be thrown. Then the ARU are left to counter with the settlement they didn't want to do or go to trial and probably win legally but lose in the media etc. Meanwhile, if it goes forward and he wins he gets "his money", if he loses he loses face and still has the same as he had before less legal fees, sails off to a superannuation league for five years and comes home to retire when all the dust has settled.