A HEAVYWEIGHT alliance of disgruntled Australian rugby identities — including Brett Papworth, Alan Jones and Bob Dwyer — are seeking to form a new organisation to wrest power back for the clubs and help end the game’s “malaise.”

Former Wallaby and longtime Rugby Australia critic Papworth is the ‘acting co-ordinator’ of a ‘steering committee’ that features former Test coaches Jones and Dwyer as well as fellow agitators Dilip Kumar, Dick Marks, Peter Maxwell and Russell Tulloch.

Papworth has penned a 2613 word letter titled ‘A Clarion Call’ which is directed at clubs and other rugby stakeholders and has been obtained by foxsports.com.au.

There are strong similarities to a 2016 letter authored by Papworth, who is dismayed with the game’s governance structure and what he percieves as a lack of direction.

The letter bemoans what Papworth views as an unnecessary and harmful disconnect between Rugby Australia and the game’s grassroots, and seeks the support of clubs to form a new association with a “strong advocacy role” whose options “will be boundless.”

PODCAST! Former Wallaby and skills coach Glen Ella on Australia’s misfiring backline and the changes he’d make, indigenous rugby and his experiences with Eddie Jones

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes by CLICKING HERE

MORE RUGBY NEWS

‘WE’RE GOING TO WIN’: Genia adamant Wallabies’ fortunes will turn

GAME CHANGER? Wallabies welcome World Rugby’s ‘Folau rule’ tweak

PERSPECTIVE: Pocock wants Wallabies big picture focus

Even the staunchest rugby supporter would concede that the game is nearing crisis in Australia, with the Wallabies slumping to a worst ever position of seventh in the world rankings and the code struggling to compete with AFL, NRL, cricket and football in the ultra competitive national sporting landscape.

Papworth argues in the letter that rugby in Australia has an abundance of intellectual property and potential resource but is being hamstrung by a lack of a voice within the current governance structure.

“This is a call for action; not action from a few whose influence would be limited, but from the entire grassroots of the game of rugby in Australia,” Papworth writes.

“The influence generated from such action could be the catalyst for the unequivocal change that is needed.”

Rugby Australia last year made the painful decision to cut the Western Force from Super Rugby, saying it would redirect funds saved into the grassroots of the game.

And former Wallaby Daniel Herbert recently implored Rugby Australia to implement a centralised high performance system, in line with the successful programs in New Zealand and Ireland.

Get every game of the 2018 Mitsubishi Estate Rugby Championship LIVE into your living room. FREE Sport HD + Entertainment as part of 2 months free with no lock-in contract. SIGN UP TODAY. T&Cs apply

Former Wallaby Brett Papworth has issued a ‘clarion call’ to clubs to try to affect change.

In the letter, Papworth claimed the alliance had the support of Australia’s Rugby Union Players’ Association, and quoted its president, Waratahs hooker Damien Fitzpatrick.

But after reading foxsports.com.au’s report on Tuesday, a RUPA spokesperson said they were “completely blindsided” by the release of the document.

“The single-sentence quote attributed to RUPA President Damien Fitzpatrick comes from a private email between himself and Dick Marks in February, after Marks congratulated Fitzpatrick on his appointment as RUPA President,” the spokesperson said.

“It is taken completely out of context, and nowhere in that email has RUPA endorsed the formation of an Australian Rugby Clubs Association.

“Furthermore, RUPA has had not any dialogue or conversation with anybody on behalf of this committee, and since that private email exchange in February has not had any other conversation with any party about an Australian Rugby Clubs Association.

“Further references to RUPA within this document include other inaccuracies and they do not represent the views of RUPA.”

— READ BRETT PAPWORTH’S LETTER TO CLUBS AND RUGBY STAKEHOLDERS IN FULL BELOW...

‘A CLARION CALL’

A small group of experienced rugby stalwarts is offering to put in place an organisation to help end the Australian rugby malaise — and if the concept is embraced, it will be exclusively owned and controlled by you.

A comprehensive rationale and explanation are in the attachment, but essentially the plan is to form a peak body representing the major stakeholder in the game — rugby clubs like yours which are the heart and soul grassroots.

Your members are now further away from the decision making hub than they ever were.

Once upon a time your environment was largely controlled by a State union consisting mainly of committee people with vast experience in their clubs.

Some of those administrators from the heartlands of NSW, Queensland and one from the other states went on to the National Body to continue their advocacy for clubland among other responsibilities.

Access to and interaction with the top was easy.

Then we had an outsider come along and tell us this was all wrong.

We let him design a new constitution for us — one that for quite a duration gave us only one director with any club administrative experience at all.

It was literally a disqualification to have any current connection with a sector of rugby, such as a club or provincial union.

The professional players association, RUPA, providing a very small proportion of Australia’s players has access as shareholders of Rugby Australia.

Through RUPA those players can influence director installations.

We don’t decry that and we welcome RUPA’s support for our plan that has the potential to give many more amateur players similar representation.

This is your chance to have a very big say in the way our great game is governed and a peak body will encourage supporters to formally join their local clubs in the interests of solidarity. For the movement to proceed, it requires a very quick and positive response to the questionnaire.

If the appetite is there, the vehicle will be delivered.

Steering Committee: Bob Dwyer, Alan Jones, Dilip Kumar, Dick Marks, Peter Maxwell, Brett Papworth and Russell Tulloch.

Survey Letter

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE

This is a call for action; not action from a few whose influence would be limited, but from the entire grassroots of the game of rugby in Australia.

The influence generated from such action could be the catalyst for the unequivocal change that is needed.

This letter includes a long explanation.

Serious moves cannot come to fruition without a wide-ranging consideration of the many factors involved.

The Steering Committee

A steering committee has been established consisting of: Bob Dwyer, Alan Jones, Dilip Kumar, Dick Marks, Peter Maxwell, Brett Papworth and Russell Tulloch.

Apart from Brett Papworth on the Executive Committee and Russell Tulloch in a secretarial capacity this group will be in an establishment role only.

If the clubs provide the imprimatur it is most likely that in the inaugural year the governance will consist of one representative from each of Queensland, NSW, NSW Country, ACT and WA plus Brett Papworth.

Thereafter democratic elections will determine the composition.

These experienced rugby people on the Steering Committee feel they have been forced to act in the face of constant messages of disappointment and disenchantment about the state of Australian rugby.

Complainants invariably raise the symptoms, but rarely identify a cause and almost never prescribe a cure.

Committee members see a way ahead and, as with all pioneers, they are willing to work to get something started that they believe will make a difference.

Let’s examine the problem by, quite appropriately, using the ailment analogy.

SYMPTOMS:

These are apparent with:

• Rugby now in two camps RA and WA

• Falling numbers of young people playing 15-a-side rugby in regular competitions

• Clubs closing down (most notably the historic Waratahs in Newcastle and, potentially, West Harbour in Sydney)

• Clubs not being consulted on policy

• Rusted-on supporters losing interest and not being replaced

• Poor crowds at professional matches

• Financially struggling major unions

• Incoherent strategic investment policy

• Unacceptable results from our second tier professional teams including 40 consecutive losses to New Zealand teams over two years

• An emaciated and non-productive coach-education program

• Inadequate finishing school for talented school-leaving players

• A depressing national u/20 record (our future Wallabies)

• Diminishing Wallaby performances as follows:

Results against those others in “the big eight” (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, New Zealand and South Africa) over the last two years and to September 10, 2018

WINS: 8

DRAWS: 2

LOSSES: 18

That is not to ignore the fact that the premiership clubs in Sydney and Brisbane are running reinvigorated competitions, Western Australia is proving very resilient and the Australian Women’s Sevens Team won their sport’s inaugural Olympic gold medal.

We have the natural resources to often do well in spite of circumstances, but the purpose of this rallying call is to do much better and to fulfil Australia’s rugby potential.

CAUSE:

The blame game can be pointless and futile, but if you want reform frankness is imperative. There can be no avoiding the fact that ‘the buck stops at the top’ because nearly all the important decisions and policies are now made or crafted at the national level.

The game’s previous federal system has been dismantled and we now have unrestrained central power.

We will argue that this is a major part of the problem.

The danger of independent boards especially with directors learning about rugby on the job is a leaning to centralized policies that adhere to the “one shoe fits all” philosophy.

Of course it doesn’t and those on the ground locally, in the diverse regions have the practical solutions.

That is the cornerstone of representative governance, coalface knowledge — the Federal System derided by the architect of the current Constitution actually works, just check the record.

Furthermore consider this.

If Rugby Australia really believes that rugby organisations should be run by outsider independent boards then why doesn’t it renounce its representative privilege on World Rugby and support a Nominations Committee to recommend non Australian replacements?

The old system of the amateur days left a great legacy to the new breed of leaders: a champion squad of players; a best-practice development system, a regularly winning international schoolboy team; and a national coaching program which was the envy of the world.

All of this had carried Australian through to its second Rugby World Cup win in 1999.

On top of that the old system put into place the Super Rugby and Tri-Nations professional competitions which were fully funded by News Corporation — a truly great effort by unpaid administrators.

Significantly, they were highly experienced in the running of the game at all levels and totally familiar with the essence of the game at the grassroots.

The word ‘significantly’ is important as Rugby Australia, for many months, had a board in which only one director had any community rugby administrative experience.

In the ‘70s and ‘80s a number of giant leaps forward were made by way of:

(a) the establishment of a National Coaching Scheme;

(b) the introduction of an expanded Wallaby management group;

(c) membership of the Australian Institute of Sport; and

(d) initiation of regular competition with New Zealand provinces.

Since those halcyon days good systems have been dismantled, poor processes have been installed, equity has become a lost guiding principle, there has been a vacuum of international leadership, confidence has dissipated and decisions have been made to cause damaging division and financial hardship.

Another major initiative or even just a bright idea is way overdue.

So the root cause of Australia’s rugby problem comes back to where the buck stops, national governance — the judgments and the decisions have not involved enough rugby acumen and the reason for this is a constitution not suitable for sport.

Cricket is suffering from the same problem — not enough relevant knowledge or understanding.

Rugby leaders are now largely chosen by small groups called Nomination Committees comprising some members unknown to the average loyal, reliable, and hard-working supporters.

These highly influential committees have no specified modus operandi so can basically recommend directors under whatever method or influence they choose.

In simple terms their introduction has killed true democracy, reduced merit-based appointments and introduced the insidious practice of identity politics.

The latter relates to backgrounds such as age, religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status.

You don’t need an independent board to cater for all as a geographical representative is perfectly capable of looking after the broad church.

The Steering Committee believes that Rugby union is a game for all, and good governance is the key to ensuring that all involved in the sport are appropriately and fairly represented — note ‘represented’.

They also believe that Representative Boards staffed primarily with members who represent the constituents are the best placed to deliver.

The theory is that with a vetting or recruiting Nominations Committee you can orchestrate a complete skills set on the board; this is a simplistic and flawed notion.

From whatever side of national politics you come, you would concede that two of our best Government treasurers have been Paul Keating and Peter Costello.

Paul Keating was a rock band leader and Peter Costello was a lawyer — so much for financial qualifications.

Detailed expertise can be easily accessed when it is needed and so it goes for the rest of the skills set other than the core requirement of rugby understanding — ironically the one often overlooked.

Contradictorily Nomination Committee members do not seem to be required to be ‘independent’ like the people they are helping to put into office, as some have been presidents of prominent rugby lobbies while performing this supposedly detached function.

Governance is not only about the formulation of policies, but expediency in seizing a chance when presented.

Mulling over opportunities with dithering delays undercuts initiative.

CURE:

The solution is getting a system that provides for more informed decision making and involves the grassroots in that process.

That may eventually require changing the governing body’s constitution.

This has been done before, albeit disastrously on the last occasion six years ago.

The non-representative theory requiring independent directors unconnected to any rugby organisation simply does not work, as we have seen.

It does not produce well enough informed personnel to address immediate problems, strategically plan for the future or to lead internationally.

It is reliant on bureaucrats who do not have the same specialised knowledgeable as the many gifted rugby people who earn their livings in the more challenging working environments outside rugby.

What the theorists fail to understand is that the rugby community is privileged in having an abundance of intellect and as much corporate experience in its own ranks as you could ever need.

There is clearly no reason to import external independent brains.

Rugby cannot afford directors who have to learn on the job.

It needs directors from a rugby background that, preferably, qualifies them to immediately go straight to an international forum if they need to and to command respect.

The current new independents-based system is inherently self selecting with directors naturally inclined to be loyal to the chairman of the Nominations Committee who is the Board Chairman.

Is allegiance to that person really better than allegiance to major stakeholders?

You might ask why an outsider was chosen to write the new rugby constitution and to effectively tell the well-versed and savvy rugby community how to govern itself.

A further constitutional change will be central to any framework used in the reconciliation process with Western Australia — surely a high priority.

The clubs which are the life blood of the game can help to make it happen.

Clubland is entitled to a much greater and much more direct say in our game’s governance.

Those enjoying the trappings of rugby office won’t like this proposed change because the whole purpose of the six-year-old constitution was to exclude rugby interest groups from leadership roles.

As it stands, the constitution leads to boards composed mainly of paid ‘corporates’ who often have no current ties to Australia’s rugby constituency and very often have little or no insight into our sport.

The professional players, through RUPA, have direct representation at least in the sense of voting as a shareholder on the selection of RA directors.

RUPA’s office and staff are funded by RA although RUPA is a trade union primarily focussed on wages and conditions.

RUPA advocates strongly and successfully on behalf of its constituents.

The Steering Committee of this new movement has no problem with that; and RUPA has no problem with the Steering Committee forming a similar structure:

“RUPA is supportive of any mechanism for the Clubs to consolidate a consensus view.” — Damien Fitzpatrick, President.

This mutual respect is appreciated.

RUPA can continue to advocate for the fully paid players, but a clubs organisation would champion everything that a club stands for — pretty much the whole game.

It should not be forgotten that the clubs produce nearly all the professional players.

THE PROPOSAL:

The prerequisite is to recognise that nothing will change without voting pressure or the weight of public opinion that can be mobilised by a major stakeholder — and there is no greater stakeholder than the clubs.

In a nutshell this initiative is to create a powerful grassroots voice.

Since the introduction of professionalism much of the attention has gone to that top end of the game.

As elite competition raises much of the funding for the game, we recognise the importance of this sector, but that focus should not lead to neglect of the masses that comprise Rugby’s very foundation.

The vehicle will be a clubs peak body, effectively an Australian Rugby Clubs Association.

The purpose of the association will essentially be to have a strong advocacy role but through a state-of-the art interactive website will also become a hub for communication among the clubs and will advertise events and programs.

Its options will be boundless and democracy will be guaranteed, with a representative Executive Committee responsible to the member clubs.

The way ahead:

• This letter with questionnaire will go to all the 850 rugby clubs in Australia, firstly by email to the premier clubs in Sydney and Brisbane plus the seven leading clubs in the ACT, and shortly afterwards to all the others by a mixture of email and post.

The questionnaire will determine the appetite for the formation of the new organisation.

• In the case of a positive response a constitution will be drawn up, an initial committee will be appointed, a part time secretariat will be established and the business will start.

Low-cost contingency plans are already proceeding.

• Initially, the funding will come from membership fees but once established the association will be pursuing commercial opportunities.

Some members of this Steering Committee have already been advocating and making a strong policy input on the issues of coach education and dwindling school competitions.

Joining with other stalwarts they see this project as the only way of commanding more grassroots attention and solving some of the problems.

The committee understands the challenges that face ‘Clubland’ and see this initiative as a start to overcoming some of the present hardships.

Establishing the association will require a lot of work, but if the will is there, it will be accomplished.

To evaluate that commitment we need your cooperation in filling out the questionaire and returning it to either the email or postal address on the letterhead.

Please respond quickly in the knowledge that apathy and ambivalence will be our biggest hurdles and that solidarity will be the clubs most powerful tool.

Yours sincerely,

Brett Papworth,

Acting Coordinator