Evolution or revolution? No-one knows how tomorrow's governance decision will play out, but it could be messy, writes Patrick McKendry.
New Zealand Rugby’s provincial unions will effectively vote for evolution or revolution at the game’s headquarters in Wellington tomorrow morning.
The indications are that neither governance proposal will have enough support – at least two-thirds of the vote – at the special general meeting, a deadlock that could further entrench positions at a time when all parties involved agree the game here is in trouble.
The New Zealand Māori Rugby board is the latest to back New Zealand Rugby’s recommendation that its Proposal 1 – as recommended by the Pilkington Report – be adopted. The Super Rugby franchises, along with the Taranaki union, are also said to be on board.
The NZ Māori Rugby board and 26 provincial union representatives are the only members able to vote tomorrow.
The New Zealand Players’ Association have already made their position clear – that should the provincial unions reject the recommendation from its governing body and vote in its watered-down version which allows the incumbents to retain influence – Proposal 2 – then it will attempt to run the professional game themselves.
The truth is that no-one knows how things will play out tomorrow – and it will be open to the media – but it has the potential to be a fraught process.
There is a two-hour window for discussion and voting, with, perhaps significantly, a full NZ Rugby board meeting to follow.
What it boils down to is this: it’s a power struggle, and with NZRPA boss Rob Nichol putting his cards on the table recently in such forceful fashion, there may be elements in the opposing camp that want to call his bluff.
In a letter to provincial unions that was released to the media, the NZRPA stated: “The professional rugby players of New Zealand will not be governed by the failed governance processes and outcomes currently in place in New Zealand."
“The adoption of Proposal 2 (or the status quo) entrenches these failed processes and leaves the professional players with no option but to establish alternative governance arrangements for the professional game in New Zealand.
“The adoption of Proposal 2 will be a clear sign to the professional players that PUs believe rugby in New Zealand should be governed by PUs for PUs.”
There may be elements within the wider rugby-supporting public who wonder why Nichol and his association, which includes the increasingly outspoken former captain Richie McCaw, believe they can throw their weight around to this extent.
The answer lies in the way the Silver Lake deal was handled by the board and, just as significantly, the potential for the money raised by the 7.5% sell-off to run out by the end of the decade.
The original deal agreed by the board – who did not properly consult the NZRPA – allowed for a greater equity sell-off before NZRPA’s intervention.
The players’ association later made their agreement contingent on a governance review, and here we are many months later, watching as the various factions quibble over the detail.
A line from the NZ Māori Board’s statement seems appropriate here: “Rugby governance in Aotearoa New Zealand is at a crossroads, and we need to work together to navigate into the future as one. The proverb from Ngāti Maniapoto ‘Kia mau ki tēnā, Kia mau ki te kawau mārō’ suggests our future wellbeing and destiny will be determined by the strength of our commitment to stand together in spirit, mind and purpose. The principles of whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga (relationships and guardianship) are essential for NZ Rugby to survive and thrive in the future.”
It will be put to the test tomorrow morning.
SHARE ME