New Zealand rugby’s civil war appears destined to rumble well beyond Thursday’s Special General Meeting vote asthe big provincial unions align behind their governance proposal that threatens to spark a split with the game’s professional players.
Eight months on from the Pilkington review’s damning report, which said rugby’s governance structure was not fit for purpose, rugby’s warring factions appear little closer to reaching a unified solution on the best way to tackle the game’s many pressing and vexed problems.
The first, which is endorsed by New Zealand Rugby (NZR), the New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association, Super Rugby Pacific franchises and some provinces such as Taranaki, favours a process to appoint nine independent board members.
This proposal, though, has next to no chance of garnering enough votes. The traditional provincial powers, including Wellington, Auckland, Canterbury, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay and North Harbour, form an influential bloc of 35 votes that will ensure the proposal does not progress.
Taranaki is believed to be one of the few provincial unions likely to endorse the first proposal. Photo / Photosport
Despite extensive lobbying and a concerted public campaign that included four All Blacks captains backing the push for full board independence, most unions are steadfast in their commitment to an alternative proposal that at least three of the nine NZR board members must have experience of serving on a provincial board.
To vote through their proposal, the provincial unions must reach a two-thirds (67 per cent) threshold.
Votes are determined based on participation numbers. With the big six unions holding 35 of the 90 votes, they control the balance of power, particularly with most of the Heartland unions thought to be on their side.
Such a divisive backdrop dictates there are two live scenarios, neither of which is likely to usher through the push for full board independence.
The first scenario is that the provincial unions vote through their proposal which would, should she remain true to her word, lead NZR chairwoman Dame Patsy Reddy to resign and the rest of the board to reapply for their posts.
NZ Rugby chair Dame Patsy Reddy, All Blacks coach Scott Robertson and NZ Rugby CEO Mark Robinson. Photo / Mark Mitchell
In March, Reddy, who will not attend Thursday’s meeting as she is overseas on leave, told the unions behind closed doors that she would stay on to see through any proposal but would then resign if the Pilkington review’s recommendations were not enacted, because she does not support the provincial unions’ way forward.
This scenario would pit the provinces firmly against the Players’ Association, which has threatened to form a breakaway organisation to govern the professional game, as it firmly believes the representative board model has proved a disaster.
In a climate of distrust, factions and in-fighting, that threat is believed to have swayed some unions to vote against the Players’ Association-supported proposal.
The other possibility is that the provincial unions cannot muster the required two-thirds majority to support their proposal – in which case the status quo, which everyone concedes must change, will remain.
There are murmurings that the provinces could then attempt to remove the entire NZR board at its annual meeting, which must be held no later than July 26. However, the 75 per cent voting threshold for that extreme path sets a high bar.
The status quo would leave the game in limbo, with all parties forced back to the already protracted negotiating table to find a solution before the annual meeting. And with the divide so clearly drawn, reaching a unified solution appears impossible.
Blues captain Patrick Tuipulotu, one of five current players to sign a letter to the provincial unions detailing the Players’ Association’s stance, outlined his desire for change.
Blues captain Patrick Tuipulotu is a strong supporter of Proposal 1, under which all nine NZ Rugby board members would be independently appointed. Photo / Photosport
“There was an independent review done. They’ve come up with a set of recommendations that we feel strongly should be adhered to to help the future of our game. Hopefully, our game doesn’t get to the point it dies out because we haven’t adhered to those,” Tuipulotu said.
“Essentially, we’re hoping Proposal 1 goes through so we can work on the things we need improved together with the NZRU. We don’t want it to be a hit out between players, NZRPA and the NZRU because we’re not the only people in it. There’s the club teams, the kids, the families who all contribute to rugby in our country. That’s where I stand on it.
“Part of the recommendations were around the board and how they are elected – selecting people based on a set of skills that the rugby community needs to go forward and make hard decisions for the benefit of the whole game. That’s why I feel strongly about trying to get Proposal 1 through. It’s a hard thing to get across but we’ll see this Thursday.”
While Thursday’s vote is billed as a defining moment for the game, the players’ hopes appear doomed before they reach the start line. Once the votes are cast, therefore, a major fallout looms.
Wellington Rugby chairman Russell Poole said: “Our proposal, on behalf of 150,000 players and 30,000 volunteers, is that the board that oversees all rugby in New Zealand should have at least three members with experience running the community game, in addition to the other modern governance skills.
“The proposals are effectively identical, apart from our request that three of the nine members have experience on a provincial union board. We agree with recommendations modernising the board – all nine board members will go through the same independent recruitment process without any involvement by provincial unions.”
