Rutherford, McCaw should fall on their swords or be pushed

By WYNNE GRAY

New Zealand was given an April deadline to sign its rugby World Cup hosting agreement, the solution was simple: sign and get on with it.

Equally, when the Rugby Union board today in Wellington considers the Eichelbaum report into the loss of the rights, there is a simple, initial resolution.

As principal negotiators during the saga, chief executive David Rutherford and chairman Murray McCaw should stand down.

Both have repeatedly stated their rugby mission is to do what is in the best interests of New Zealand rugby.

After the fiasco of the World Cup, that duty has to be their exit.

It appears their hand will have to be forced, though. Before the International Rugby Board voted New Zealand out of the World Cup, and in the three months since the Eichelbaum report was commissioned, there has been no sign from the duo of their leaving.

The messages from the international rugby community have been clear: while Rutherford and McCaw are in charge, New Zealand will not make much progress. Similar communication has been coming from the provincial unions.

That is the reality. The IRB and the provinces have lost confidence in Rutherford and McCaw. They are no longer seen as credible servants for New Zealand rugby.

Rutherford, in particular, as a fulltime employee, wants to retain his job and his reputation. Any forced departure would militate against his future employment and financial security, so he is likely to scrap.

McCaw is employed elsewhere, so the occupational implications for him are not as severe.

If both were able to take their emotion and personal unease out of their decisions, they would see that their departure would be in the best interests of New Zealand rugby. However, like most people put in the same situation, they are fighting for their reputations.

McCaw consistently suggested that he and Rutherford acted at the collective behest of the board. They might have, but it was also up to them to deal personally with the World Cup negotiations.

The hope is that Eichelbaum's report can clarify those details. If he finds Rutherford and McCaw acted entirely on the board's instructions, the malaise grows deeper; there cannot be any great confidence in the rest of the board.

If there was a split, then the lobbying that has been percolating this week among board members to settle on a new chairman will have some validity.

But who? It has to be someone the provinces believe could be a significant player in international diplomacy, a strong voice, a communicator, someone to rebuild relationships with the IRB and the Australian union, but also to advance New Zealand causes.

Deputy chairman John Spicer seems to suit a domestic role; former chairman Rob Fisher has had his turn; and there must be doubts about whether independent businessmen such as Chris Liddell and Craig Norgate would have a conflict or have time to deal with the work.

Lawyers Steve Lunn and Tim Gresson might be in with a chance, but it would be a huge move to promote new members Paul Quinn or Warwick Syers.

If a new chairman is required, some of the strongest discussion might be led by rugby men Lane Penn and Tane Norton, who do not have a vote but sit in on every meeting as president and vice-president of the NZRFU.