0
RUGBY UNION: Bret Harris | October 27, 2009
Article from: The Australian
A DISCUSSION paper commissioned by the ARU describes the governance of rugby in Australia as "anachronistic" and "dysfunctional" and recommends a raft of changes, including the establishment of an independent Super Rugby Conference Board.
Other major proposed changes include the election of the ARU board by main stakeholder groups, including provinces, Super rugby franchises, current and retired Wallabies, retired senior officials and the commercial sector. And provincial unions would be solely responsible for community rugby.
The paper, a copy of which has been obtained by The Australian, has been written by Michael Crawford, the respected management consultant who created an influential strategic plan for Australian rugby when the game went professional in the mid-1990s.
With the elaborate title of A Co-operative Framework for Restructuring Australian Rugby for Viability and Competitive Success, the report points out that the ARU constitution was developed in the amateur era and is not equipped to manage professional and community rugby in modern times.
It says the ARU constitution deals directly with the ARU, but indirectly it influences the structure of provincial unions through the flow of funds from the national union.
The voting structure for the ARU board is vested in the constituent provincial unions.
"The net result is a governance and management structure throughout Australian rugby which blurs community and professional matters, frustrates good management, diminishes the opportunity for productive autonomy at all levels and impedes clear responsibility and accountability," Crawford writes.
"No organisation or social movement can thrive under such arrangements, especially when confronted by strong competitors -- as is Australian rugby, both domestically and internationally.
"Australian rugby needs to set community rugby free, and set professional rugby free, each to be managed in its own framework with clear resources (and known limits on them), clear responsibilities and accountability structures, and each managed by people passionate about their task and skilled in it.
"Community rugby certainly owns an asset in rugby's professional teams and is entitled to draw financial and other benefits from those teams and their members.
"But that benefit cannot be any more than professional rugby is able to generate in surplus revenue once it has met the demands of competing successfully and developing in a tough professional sports environment."
Under Crawford's proposals, the ARU would continue as the peak rugby organisation, but the composition of the board would be modernised. "The basis for selecting the ARU board would be modified to suit the times, not those of half a century ago," Crawford writes. "In particular, this means recognising a more diverse set of stakeholders than existed when the ARU was formed.
"It seems unarguable that, representing the broad mass of current community rugby participants, provinces should elect a significant proportion of the board.
"Yet, it also seems unreasonable, in an era of so many disparate stakeholder groups, that officials whose dominant interest is the current management of community rugby should provide even a majority of the ARU board.
"That would entail too much of a risk of subjecting the whole of ARU's activities to current pressures on community rugby.
"Including a representative of the Super rugby franchises would ensure a voice on the board aligned to the realities of professional rugby.
"The remaining board positions, aside from the managing director, would be drawn from the other major stakeholder groups. At the same time it is suggested that a single independent, board-selected position remain."
The paper says there is no possibility of constituting a SANZAR league board based on all the participating franchises because it would be too difficult, but the ARU could create a Super rugby conference with a board that included representatives from each of the franchises. "The membership of the board would consist of one representative from each franchise together with two representatives appointed by the ARU board with matters decided by majority vote of the board," Crawford writes.
Crawford says that funding for each franchise would come from a number of sources, but franchises should not receive funds from a province.
"Indeed, there should be a contractual flow in the opposite direction. Super Rugby teams should be a source of revenue for community rugby in the province," Crawford writes.
"This arrangement only works if there is a clear, arm's length, separation between each franchise and any related provincial union. That would require the franchise, under its own board, to be quite distinct in governance, management and operations, from the board and management of the province."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html