What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Interesting information.

ozbash

Referee
Messages
26,922
Archangel2 said:
Oh by the way Skinner, Mean, Oz Bash, Sam the Man, nice site! I think you maybe getting some new freinds here....all good! Talk again soon.

Welcome aboard mate :D
 

Archangel2

Juniors
Messages
168
Just so we can keep the conversation lively....heres some more interesting information.
If the hairs still there fellas this will curl it. Its by my Mate "Wellyboy" He's a bit challenged when it comes to electronic/internetty stuff. So I said I would post it for him.
As you will see it does raise a few questions....

“League: Tour profits set to slash predicted loss” by Michael Brown of the NZ Herald is a definite must read, as is his other article “League: Sportswear firm sue NZRL for $3m over jersey deal”

It is one of the most accurate overviews of the current situation. The paragraphs that I’m really interested in though said “At a time when former chairman Andrew Chalmers is being accused of frivolous spending, the losses seemed related to events beyond his control - the centenary test against Australia and the $600,000 shortfall in funding from gaming machines.

One of Chalmers' main objectives as chairman was to reduce the NZRL's reliance on gaming machine funding.

It received about $2.8 million in funding in 2006 but, while this is becoming an increasingly uncertain source for all sports, it is especially difficult for rugby league in the wake of recent investigations into the appropriation of funds.
Former Kiwis prop Brent Todd was sentenced on Friday for poker machine fraud, while investigations into other rugby league identities are ongoing.”

So now we have Tim Connolly Managing Director of SAS suing the NZRL for $3M. Quite simply if the NZRL is going to be sold down the drain then as members we have a right to know what’s going on and what the conflicts of interest and or relationships might be? The Sunday Star Times had the following report in June 2006 which sheds some light:

Sources have told me overnight that they believe that the NZRL never had a written agreement with SAS Clothing at any stage. The period involved is 2002 to 2006 which is when Selwyn Pearson was Executive Chairman of the NZRL...(Ah Sideshow Sel again!) Other sources have also confirmed that there is I believe, "a family connection between Tim Connolly and Selwyn Bennett."

Sources have also told me that SAS Clothing, branded with Lion Foundation logo, was being handed out to Western Alliance clubs in 2003 for no charge, so presumably the NZRL was securing funding for this from the Lion Foundation? It would be interesting to know how much gaming money the NZRL has secured to purchase SAS Clothing during the 2002 to 2006 period?

I have also noted that SAS sponsor at least one of the Auckland Rugby League competitions...

So why was the move to ISC made and who are the “ex-Board members” from the 2006 Board most likely to appear as witnesses to support Tim Connolly suing the NZRL for $3M?

Was Andrew Chalmers motive to try and distance the NZRL from the gaming link as Michael Brown has alluded to and was clothing part of that? It would seem likely.

On further checking I have found that Steve Kilgallon first revealed in the Sunday Star Times in September 2007 that legal exchanges were taking place between SAS Clothing and the NZRL.

On 2 November 2007 Brent Todd and his business partner plead guilty to fraud and it is announced that a deal has been done for Todd to appear as a witness for SFO.

Sunday News expose 11 November 2007 on NZRL “cash crisis” targeting Andrew Chalmers spending. Sources believed to be those linked around previous NZRL Board regimes.

Rumour mill is also in full swing apparently someone is running around the districts, desperately trying to sell kit(buy sh#t jerseys, get sh#t tracksuit....)

It seems to me more and more, that this is not about growing and developing the game of rugby league anymore but all about self-preservation. The plot thickens....as does my hair!
Now I'm off for a Pie at Sweeneys!
 

Archangel2

Juniors
Messages
168
In regard to SAS clothing, Tim Connolly saying that "All of the ex-board members who voted ratified [the agreement] have all said they are happy to stand up in court and say they fully agree with our position....."
So who are the board members? Who is going to be the 'Rat' here?
And stand up in court and damage Rugby League($3 million worth of damage) to Rugby League Grassroots....us the Clubmembers all over our country?

The NZRL Audited accounts for 2006 list the “Executive Members” of the NZRL Board as:

• Selwyn Pearson (President) Resigned March 2006
• Keith Pittman Resigned July 2006
• Selwyn Bennett Resigned October 2006
• Andrew Chalmers Elected March 2005
• Keith Burgess Elected March 2006
• Peter Douglas Elected March 2005

• Vinnie Weir co-opted November 2007
• Tony Kemp co-opted Novermbr 2007

At the NZRL AGM on 28 April 2007 the following Board appointments were confirmed:

• Andrew Chalmers Resigned 30 November 2007
• Ray Haffenden
• Vinnie Weir
• Neville Keisha
• Phil Campbell
• Peter Kerridge

The independents appointed after that were:

• Glenda Hughes Resigned 30 November 2007
• Simon Doig Resigned 30 November 2007
• Eddie Mathews Resigned 30 November 2007
Well cant see it being the independants, or Chalmers, so that leaves the little Auckland Cabal, do they have reasons, well as they say 'Bloods thicker than water' So that could be one reason...What do we do? Dunno...but it does remind me of a UB40 song.
"Theres a rat in the kitchen waht am I gonna do? Theres a rat in the kitchen waht am I gonna do? Gonna fix that rat thats what I'm gonna do! Gonna fix that rat thats what I'm gonna do!"
Maybe its time to fix the rats in our game...start looking yourselves. As Mulder would say "The truth is out there!"
 

Rich102

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,750
Thanks for the posts Archangel 2, and welcome to the forum.

It is a fair while since I was associated with either the ARL or NZRL. I always thought it was a weakness of the board selection process of both these bodies that the Auckland clubs (in the case of the ARL) and districts (in the case of the NZRL) proposed delegates to fill the board positions. You don't have to be a genius to realise that clubs are not going to appoint their brightest, most entrepreneurial member onto the board - they are going to keep such a person within the club. So the delegate tends to be an older, stick-in-the-mud type guy in a watchdog role, more concerned with safeguarding the status quo than promoting anything involving risk. A group of these around a board table are not going to come up with any innovative ideas, far less implement them!

Our sport has always had traditional "working class" support and, whilst this does not make for stupid administrators, it may not be the best place to search for a group of people to lead our game forward. I am not criticising our supporters nor undervaluing the input of hard working clubmen and women ; just saying that not many top companies have boards entirely composed of "factory floor" members.

I had some dealings with the ARL board under George Rainey. George was a through and through league man to the core and a strong chairman. The board of the time were all likeable men, but drones. If George ever wanted to get something contentious passed by the board he always did his homework and made sure before the meeting that he had sufficient support to carry his ideas. This board was safe and sound and introduced, among other things, floodlights to Carlaw Park. But they were never going to propel rugby league into the 21st century with pizzazz.

Private enterprise can provide valuable input at board level and we have a number of successful businessmen involved in the game. Peter Leitch is a prime example and league is lucky to have him, he has single-handedly done more to promote the game than both the ARL and NZRL together. But such men, with the time and perserverance necessary, are very thin on the ground.

How do I see the sport moving forward? Well we need to be inovative and entrepreneurial. I would like to see applications called for the position of Chairman of the NZRL from allcomers. Applicants would be vetted by an independant management consultancy who would recommend a shortlist. The districts would then vote for one man. The successful applicant would then appoint his own board. The board would also have one director, to act as trustee on behalf of the districts, with the power of veto. This board would then be given a one year budget and a small stipend. Their budgets and commitments would have to be submitted to, and passed by, a monthly meeting of the districts. At the end of the year, after the books are audited and the districts have scrutinised them, the chairman and board would be given a percentage of the operating profit. No profit - no pay!

As with everything there is a risk involved with this approach, but to my mind it is a smaller risk than to continue with our current system.

The other way to go is to get rid of the district's control of the board altogether. Appoint a brains-trust of qualified people to advise on the best structure to lead our game forward. They would look at the Australian and ESL structures. The big thing is we need to encourage and reward success, not foster and preserve mediocrity. We have an exciting game which I believe has the potential to be the largest TV spectator sport in Australia and NZ. The potential is huge. It is time we moved forward and stopped being hobbled by management structures that came out of the mines of northern England. I wonder, if he had to contend with the structure in place today, if Dally Messenger's ground breaking tour would ever have got underway?

In business I have been ever mindful that finding people to highlight the dangers of any project is easy. Finding the rare person to bring that project to a successful conclusion is the talent of a visionary leader.
 

Rich102

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,750
Question for the moderators. Why can't we have a spell check built into the message posting windows?
 

Archangel2

Juniors
Messages
168
I agree with al of what you say, however until you get rid of the people infecting our sport fully, it will remain active sore that will continue to weep pus...I think we have over the last few weeks the cr#p that some inside our game will go to to protect themselves or mates from harm. So while I agree with 95% of what you say Rich 102, the fact remains that these people just regroup and start repairing there agenda. And within a few months history repeats...The parallells between Chalmers removal and how they did it and Cardens a few years ago is phenomanal(Yup Spellchecks a wonderful thing!)

And as some would say they needed to go....and to those people the end will always justify the means. However short term vs long term I still believe we will see what Chalmers was doing was for the good of the game longterm!

One question that has allways bothered me, how did they get rid of Rainey?
And when did Bernie Wood first come on the NZRL Board?
 

Skinner

Coach
Messages
13,581
Rich102 said:
Question for the moderators. Why can't we have a spell check built into the message posting windows?

That's actually a question for the Admins and the tech folk.

Firefox does it but IE does not.
 

Skinner

Coach
Messages
13,581
Rich102 said:
Thanks for the posts Archangel 2, and welcome to the forum.

It is a fair while since I was associated with either the ARL or NZRL. I always thought it was a weakness of the board selection process of both these bodies that the Auckland clubs (in the case of the ARL) and districts (in the case of the NZRL) proposed delegates to fill the board positions. You don't have to be a genius to realise that clubs are not going to appoint their brightest, most entrepreneurial member onto the board - they are going to keep such a person within the club. So the delegate tends to be an older, stick-in-the-mud type guy in a watchdog role, more concerned with safeguarding the status quo than promoting anything involving risk. A group of these around a board table are not going to come up with any innovative ideas, far less implement them!

Our sport has always had traditional "working class" support and, whilst this does not make for stupid administrators, it may not be the best place to search for a group of people to lead our game forward. I am not criticising our supporters nor undervaluing the input of hard working clubmen and women ; just saying that not many top companies have boards entirely composed of "factory floor" members.

I had some dealings with the ARL board under George Rainey. George was a through and through league man to the core and a strong chairman. The board of the time were all likeable men, but drones. If George ever wanted to get something contentious passed by the board he always did his homework and made sure before the meeting that he had sufficient support to carry his ideas. This board was safe and sound and introduced, among other things, floodlights to Carlaw Park. But they were never going to propel rugby league into the 21st century with pizzazz.

Private enterprise can provide valuable input at board level and we have a number of successful businessmen involved in the game. Peter Leitch is a prime example and league is lucky to have him, he has single-handedly done more to promote the game than both the ARL and NZRL together. But such men, with the time and perserverance necessary, are very thin on the ground.

How do I see the sport moving forward? Well we need to be inovative and entrepreneurial. I would like to see applications called for the position of Chairman of the NZRL from allcomers. Applicants would be vetted by an independant management consultancy who would recommend a shortlist. The districts would then vote for one man. The successful applicant would then appoint his own board. The board would also have one director, to act as trustee on behalf of the districts, with the power of veto. This board would then be given a one year budget and a small stipend. Their budgets and commitments would have to be submitted to, and passed by, a monthly meeting of the districts. At the end of the year, after the books are audited and the districts have scrutinised them, the chairman and board would be given a percentage of the operating profit. No profit - no pay!

As with everything there is a risk involved with this approach, but to my mind it is a smaller risk than to continue with our current system.

The other way to go is to get rid of the district's control of the board altogether. Appoint a brains-trust of qualified people to advise on the best structure to lead our game forward. They would look at the Australian and ESL structures. The big thing is we need to encourage and reward success, not foster and preserve mediocrity. We have an exciting game which I believe has the potential to be the largest TV spectator sport in Australia and NZ. The potential is huge. It is time we moved forward and stopped being hobbled by management structures that came out of the mines of northern England. I wonder, if he had to contend with the structure in place today, if Dally Messenger's ground breaking tour would ever have got underway?

In business I have been ever mindful that finding people to highlight the dangers of any project is easy. Finding the rare person to bring that project to a successful conclusion is the talent of a visionary leader.

You would not believe Rich, how long I have been begging for this type of structure,
at both district league (in my case, Auckland) and at parent body level.

The old method of, at district level, having the the Clubs nominate and vote the
Chairman and Board members, and at NZRL level, having the districts do the same thing
has got us to where we are today......going directly down the toilet.

I had indicated that I would not return to a district admin position until the constitution and structure
was changed.

That will now not happen as we are moving to NSW next year.
 

mean

Juniors
Messages
560
“Crunch time for NZRL
by Dominion Post Rugby League reporter Sam Worthington

The New Zealand Rugby League’s head honchos will meet with SPARC today in an attempt to ease the national body’s concerns over the sport’s perilous financial position.
New Chairman Ray Haffenden, who will meet SPARC along with NZRL general manager Peter Cordtz, has announced a projected $1.25 million loss, though that figure is expected to be reduced once revenue from the tour of Britain and France arrives.

Former NZRL Chairman Andrew Chalmers had been criticised for a lack of accountability but outgoing SPARC Chief Executive Nick Hill said “the concern’s really pre-date Andrew Chalmers.”

“These are long running issues around the way the game is governed in New Zealand and set up and where Ray Haffenden sees it going.”

Hill said both SPARC and New Zealanders in general had become frustrated at rugby league to present a united front and handle finances. He said the management problems could force aspiring footballers to other sports. “I think the sport in New Zealand has struggled at a governance level for a long time. New Zealanders are concerned. It is really important that these things are sorted.”

SPARC has previously cut off funding to the NZRL and now funds at a reduced level. Hill gave a reminder of his powers yesterday. “We can say ‘well, we’re not happy and therefore we’ll stop funding you’ but we want to be careful when we do that.”

The NZRL’s woes include a $3 million lawsuit pending from disgruntled ex-apparel supplier SAS, though Cordtz said he was confident they would win the case. ‘if we weren’t in a position to do what we’ve done, we wouldn’t have done it,’ he said , adding it was concerning nonetheless. ‘With everything else that’s going on, it is obviously a distraction we don’t need right now.”

The NZRL will also meet with Central Zone General Manager Mark O’Connor and Wellington Rugby League Chairman and former ACT MP Stephen Franks.

Meanwhile, Haffenden refused to comment on a Sydney Morning Herald story suggesting the NZRL was about to scrap the Kiwis coaching residency rule to open the door for Australian super coach Wayne Bennett to coach New Zealand. Bennett is believed to be offside with the Brisbane board.

Haffenden said incumbent Kiwi’s coach Gary Kemble had completed a review of his performance during the international season and that had been presented to Cordtz, who in turn would present the findings to the board.”


Even Nick Hill vindicates Chalmers!

I've always had faith in what Andrew Chalmers could do for the game. It's a shame that unfounded politics and bad mouthing from aggrieved ousted scabs ruined any chance of that happening. And we all know why...
 

ozbash

Referee
Messages
26,922
Outgoing Sparc boss Nick Hill has issued a pointed warning to rugby league bosses as the sport's major financial backers, including the government funding agency, told the NZRL to stop fighting in public or face funding cuts.


It appears that gaming trusts and Sparc want the NZRL to stop conducting political infighting in newsprint and demonstrate their governance problems are over.

The Star-Times understands new NZRL chairman Ray Haffenden has told his board strongly that media leaks must stop and has reminded them of a board charter preventing them from talking to the press.

Haffenden, who did not return calls for comment before deadline, and general manager Peter Cordtz were in Wellington this week meeting Sparc and gaming trusts, and were told that Sparc want to intervene and help sort out the game's administration: a step normally reserved for sports considered to be in real trouble.

`The key issue for everyone was wanting a sense of our stability going forward, unity," said Cordtz.

"You don't lose four directors without creating some anxiety and it was an opportunity for them to meet Ray and ask those questions of him as chairman."

But Hill, Sparc's chief executive, who steps down in March, worded it more strongly.

"We told them we are concerned about the governance of rugby league, by the events recently and in fact, over time, which do mean we are concerned about where the sport is headed," said Hill.

"The sport has suffered some real credibility loss, with the resignations [of four directors, including former chairman Andrew Chalmers] and also with the fact that the sport seems to be factionalised and washing its dirty linen in public.

"We said to them it is crucial for them to establish credibility at governance level and our support for them really depends on them doing that and we are, as we would be with any sport, prepared to help them and we are having to think about what help we are able to provide them.

"I certainly think they have a challenge in front of them."

Sparc had not already cut league's funding, but Hill confirmed the agency had taken those steps in the past with previous administrators.

Cordtz described the meetings in the capital as "touching base with key partners" but said Sparc gave no indication of funding being under threat.

He said the meetings were not about "rushing off to plead for more money" but were to reassure funders the game was sorting out its issues.

The funding plea may be this week, with meetings with the game's sponsors now scheduled.

The league received $600,000 less from gaming charities this year than expected and are tightening their belts in anticipation that pokie cash will keep shrinking.

Mike Knell, chief executive of one of the league's biggest backers, the New Zealand Community Trust, said he hadn't met Haffenden but had spoken to him.

"It would be fair to say we are monitoring the situation and we are interested to see how it is developed," he said.

Asked if the league's funding was under threat, he declined to comment.

But he said it was "always a concern where there is media attention".

stuff
 

Latest posts

Top