Hey crisis team ... let's see what you can do with this one

By WYNNE GRAY

Last September, an unsolicited document came to the Herald. It detailed plans to set up a crisis response team at the New Zealand Rugby Union.

Members of that group will not have been short of work since.

For the past week, since news broke from Dublin, they should have been nose deep in dossiers about how New Zealand lost their claim to host the World Cup.

Some provinces want an independent review of the debacle, others want answers when the NZRFU board finishes meeting today in Wellington.

In the winter of 1997, at a Dunedin hotel, the then-convivial transtasman partners gathered to plan their offer for the 2003 World Cup.

They chose to call it an Anzac bid.

Today, on Anzac Day, the NZRFU has to unravel the strategies, plans and personnel who were involved in the World Cup crash.

It must also research the winning formula from its old allies, Australia, and then decide how New Zealand rugby can progress from this administrative wreckage.

NZRFU options, in no particular order, could be: Do nothing, order an internal review, appoint an independent review panel to report back in three weeks, seek resignations or make some sackings.

Neither of the final choices appears likely, given the stoic resistance towards recrimination by chairman Murray McCaw and chief executive David Rutherford, and the speed with which the NZRFU generally works.

Doing nothing would not appease the growing concern of the provinces who have to act on behalf of their rugby constituents.

They have to ignore the grants they get annually from the NZRFU, and start asking many questions of the game's directors.

A selection of posers could include:

* Was the NZRFU hellbent on staging the World Cup? Did it assign all the resources it could?

* What was the idea behind attacking Vernon Pugh and the IRB, and using tainted administrator Ross Turnbull?

* What harmony was there between McCaw, Rutherford, Rob Fisher and Tim Gresson?

* Can the NZRFU continue with Rutherford and McCaw when IRB delegates say there will be repeat defeats like the hefty 16-5 World Cup vote if the pair stay as international negotiators?

* Why did the provinces not know the NZRFU would table an alternative bid in Dublin to host a solitary pool, including the All Blacks?

The NZRFU will look for time, hoping the nation's ire will disappear as the Super 12 builds to its climax and the All Blacks are chosen.

Denials about any World Cup dramas were standard fare last year for the NZRFU. Some were classics.

"We are 100 per cent committed to our role in co-hosting the next World Cup and we are probably about two years ahead in planning compared to the last event in 1999," Rutherford said in October.

Since Rutherford was appointed late that year, after spells at Fletcher-Duroid and Wrightsons, his management style has been under some scrutiny.

A number of senior officials, such as Bill Wallace, Cameron Harland, Peter Ciurlionis and Jack Ralston have left.

Others are considering their future at the Huddart Parker Building.

There has been staff frustration that Rutherford bypasses much of their counsel and deals directly with the board.

It is felt processes are too slow because Rutherford is reluctant to delegate, he wants to oversee every move.

New Zealand awaits his next step.