Latest news with #GovernanceandRepresentationReview
Telegraph
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
In move to modernise English rugby, RFU has poked the bear
Nothing, it seems, is certain except death, taxes, and an RFU revolt. The guns may still be only cooling from the last confrontation, the special general meeting held at the end of March with the aim of forcing out the governing body's chief executive, Bill Sweeney. Sweeney prevailed, yet it seems that hopes of a permanent peace remain faint, judging by the reaction to the Rugby Football Union's revelation on Wednesday of radical proposals to overhaul the organisation's governance, including axing of its 63-strong council. The RFU was quick to insist that the review had been led by an independent group set up by the council, and the board and executive, including Sweeney, had not been involved 'apart from being part of general consultation so far in some cases'. It is also true that the 'Governance and Representation Review' was not a result of the SGM but had been ongoing since September 2023. Yet the perception of a land grab to dismantle the body that has harboured fierce critics of both Sweeney and the board – a revolt before Christmas culminated in the resignation of former chairman Tom Ilube over the bonus scandal – did not take long to take root. The fact that the RFU only released the papers to the council via a Zoom call at noon was interpreted as an indication of the lack of trust and an alarming sign of dysfunctionality between the executive and the council. 'These proposals are a blatant attempt to reduce the influence of members and scrutiny of the board and executive,' said one source. 'It is like the government trying to abolish parliament.' Within hours, the Whole Game Union, the organisation representing around 250 clubs that led the call for the SGM in March, had been sparked back to life, issuing a statement that while the role and composition of the council was 'sorely in need of reform ... the proposals would reduce the scrutiny of the Board and executive, two bodies that have brought the RFU to its knees'. The phoney peace looks to be over, at least for another few months until the RFU's annual general meeting on June 30. A counter proposal to the RFU's plan, which has been signed by Chichester RFC and Nottingham RFC, has already been lodged and calls for 11 rule changes to make council members more accountable but also calling for key decisions, such as the RFU's strategic plan, to be approved by the council, not just the board. 'The objective is to ensure that members regain a meaningful role in shaping the union's strategic direction and provides a platform that enables the RFU to be restructured into a well-led, well-governed, and high-performing National Governing Body (NGB) that serves the needs of all its members,' the letter states. The RFU proposal in contrast wants to replace the council with 'a smaller national advisory group' or replacing those members with game representatives who would be embedded within all the decision-making bodies, 'including in suggested regional growth boards'. It has now begun a nationwide consultation 'seeking views from across the rugby community'. Proposals also include 'accelerating ideas to develop a genuinely devolved regional system so those in the game can feel closer to and can influence the decisions which impact them directly'. Emboldened by the feedback from the roadshows held in the run-up to the SGM, and by winning a second vote promising a governance review, including devolution of powers to the regions, by an 80 per cent majority, the RFU clearly see this as a moment to press ahead with a new structure. But the concern is that by being too radical, it has merely poked the bear. The WGU, in reaction to the vote at the SGM, said that it would hold off calling another one only if the RFU delivered reform. With two governance proposals now set to go to a vote of the clubs in June, the concern for the RFU is that it will not meet the 66 per cent threshold needed for its proposal to be accepted. And that is before the issue is addressed of council members voting like turkeys for Christmas. Those with long memories will know that we have been here before, several times. The last major revolt at the top of the RFU in 2011 resulted in a review, carried out by Slaughter and May, that proposed reducing the council to just 25 members. That even had the support of the then sports minister, Hugh Robertson, but was ultimately kicked into the long grass. The hope must be that a way forward can be settled upon, for what is certain is that the status quo cannot remain, something at least the two parties agree on. The game is still hurting from the traumatic months that followed the disclosure of the RFU's annual report last November revealing the extent of the largesse of salaries and bonuses. It cannot afford another public squabble. What is also clear is that those who see the dismantling of the council as a move that will strengthen Sweeney's hand are misplaced. The wounds from the last battle revolt are still too fresh.
Telegraph
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
English rugby will never change if members do not bother voting
In the end, there was one shocking figure as the votes were read out regarding Bill Sweeney's future, but it was not related to the numbers either supporting or looking to oust the chief executive of the Rugby Football Union. The eyebrow-raiser was the level of turnout for one of the most important RFU votes in the past 20 years. To give the full context, there are over 2,000 RFU member clubs who are then split into two categories – voting members (clubs or referee societies) and non-voting members (members of their constituent body, casual clubs, work teams and so on), leaving you with 1,300 eligible voters. Out of those 1,300 there were 672 votes cast during Thursday's Special General Meeting for the motion of no confidence in Sweeney, with a further 36 abstaining. Which means a shade over half of those eligible voters participated. This was supposed to be a pivotal moment, the chance for those aggrieved by the management of English rugby at grassroots level – well, all levels – to force change at the top after years of frustration. And only around 54 per cent participated? That's it? Even if you park the Sweeney motion for a moment, the second motion to expedite the process of the Governance and Representation Review, leading to a greater say for clubs at a local level among other proposals from the recent RFU roadshow events, should surely have generated some enthusiasm, even if you took a cynical view and felt it was merely designed to be a distraction from Sweeney's future and to prove the RFU were willing to change. Yet even then there were fewer than 700 votes cast. Sir Bill Beaumont, the RFU's interim chair, lauded afterwards that members had 'voted emphatically to support our CEO', which works when you look at the actual votes on the night - not that 200-plus votes against you is necessarily a good outcome – but less so when you consider how many potential voters did not participate. So, why didn't they? One reason, and this is being generous, could have been access. Tim Cunis, part of Old Pauline Football Club in Barnes, noted while votes were being cast that it had been 'hugely difficult' if you were not an honorary secretary of a club to get permission to attend the SGM. He also described the software to vote, for those representatives who had been appointed and who were not honorary secretaries, as not being 'user friendly', boldly comparing it to Horizon from the Post Office scandal. No one else raised these concerns, so they should be taken with a pinch of salt. There are two other explanations. One is that the members who did not vote simply felt that there was no issue whatsoever with the RFU and Sweeney and how the game is being run, be it whether their concerns were being heard or the size of Sweeney's salary. Maintain the status quo. And while that sentiment is fine, you would still hope they would at least exercise their right to vote by honouring the process and supporting to keep Sweeney in place.
