When I said Fire Sale...
NZ Rugby’s bungling over the performance of the All Blacks coaching team has put a spotlight on the leadership of the organisation. But as National Correspondent Dana Johannsen reports, concerns have been mounting about the competency and make-up of the NZ Rugby board for some time.
What began as a debate over the competency of the All Blacks coaching staff has morphed into one over the leadership of NZ Rugby. This one may be messier to resolve.
Faced with the seemingly boundless public debate about Ian Foster’s tenability as All Blacks coach, NZ Rugby bosses faltered in a manner we have rarely seen by top administrators of the game, prompting questions over the leadership of the organisation.
But Stuff can reveal concerns have been mounting over the performance, decision-making and make-up of the board for some time. Now, the organisation’s board is set for an uncomfortable examination through a wide-ranging governance review.
After an ugly public fall-out between the national body and the Players’ Association last year over stalled negotiations in the Silver Lake deal, NZ Rugby bosses agreed to a governance and constitution review in order to get the Players’ Association back to the bargaining table.
In all the hype that accompanied the groundbreaking deal with the multi-billion-dollar American investment firm in June, the caveat introduced by the Players’ Association garnered little attention. But the bold power move by the players representative body could lead to the most significant governance shake-up of NZ Rugby in 20 years.
Publicly, the review has been positioned as a move to ensure that the national body’s governance structures and processes are “fit for purpose” for the new era of private equity investment.
However, one source close to the negotiations told Stuff the main driver behind the Players’ Association push for a review was a growing frustration at NZ Rugby’s pattern of “blowing up relationships”, including:
The breakdown between NZ Rugby and the Players’ Association over Silver Lake negotiations.
NZ Rugby’s relationship between its SANZAAR partners hitting an all-time low.
The national body’s treatment of the provincial unions – its constituent members – as the “noose around their neck”.
NZ Rugby’s handling of the bidding process for the licences for two new Pacific Island teams in the revamped 2022 Super Rugby competition.
A “dismissive and arrogant” attitude towards media – and by extension, the public.
In addition, NZ Rugby has faced open questions about its management of conflicts of interest on its board, with Bart Campbell’s business interests coming under particular scrutiny, while others have questioned whether there is the right mix of skills and experience around the boardroom table.
Under the terms of the Silver Lake deal, signed in early June, the review was to start within 60 days of the agreement being finalised. Stuff understands the terms of reference have been signed off and circulated among key stakeholders, while the independent review panel is in the process of being appointed.
Another key stipulation of the review is that it’s a public process, with the findings to be published in full. This will be welcomed by the wider rugby community given the lack of trust in the leadership of NZ Rugby following its bungled handling of questions of Foster’s future in the All Blacks’ top job.
“It’s not what happens, but the way you deal with it – and the way they dealt with it was just shocking,” one high-profile member of the rugby community told Stuff.
“If [chief executive Mark Robinson and Foster] had stood side by side throughout this entire process, they did not need all this confused and negative narrative.
“Where were the board and management through this? What the hell were they up to?”
The review is expected to put the actions and decision-making of the board under a level of scrutiny not seen since the 2002 Sir Thomas Eichelbaum review of the NZRFU (as the national body were christened back then) following the loss of the co-hosting rights with Australia of the 2003 Rugby World Cup.
NZ Rugby chairman Stewart Mitchell says he is confident that the performance of his board will stand up to the scrutiny.
“I think it is a good board, and it is working well at the moment,” he says.
“We always have to keep ahead of the game and be relevant to New Zealand society, so I am more than comfortable with having a review, we have changes afoot with the establishment of our commercial arm, so that has governance implications. There is statutory change afoot as well, so I think [the review] is timely.”
While NZ Rugby’s series of PR missteps over the last six weeks has drawn the most headlines, a greater failure came at the end of last year, when the board failed to properly interrogate the reasons behind the All Blacks’ lacklustre performances on the northern tour. Sources claim a lack of high performance knowledge on the board was exposed when it readily accepted the narrative that Covid-related challenges and the difficulties of bubble life were to blame for the poor performances.
Others have questioned whether the board’s attention was diverted by a more immediate coaching crisis. At the time, the organisation was also dealing with the fall-out from the Black Ferns capitulation on their trip to the Northern Hemisphere and allegations of bullying within the environment, leading to an independent review.
In any event, rather than making a considered call at the beginning of the year, giving them time to bed in any changes, NZ Rugby put itself in the position where it needed to make coaching decisions on the fly in the midst of the Rugby Championship, leading to claims the retention of Foster was driven in part in the interests of expediency.
Stuff understands the board was initially split down the middle on the decision of whether to retain Foster, with Mitchell getting the deciding vote. Once the call had been made, the board later agreed to throw its weight behind Foster.
Mitchell, though, is adamant there was no indecision. He says claims of a split board were “categorically not correct”.
“The board was unanimous in its decision to reappoint Ian Foster as head coach.”
In announcing the retention of Foster following a mid-season “debrief”, Robinson said his organisation had “drawn a line under” the issue. However, behind the scenes the fall-out rumbles on.
The treatment of Crusaders coach Scott Robertson – the man widely tipped to replace Foster – during the process has caused angst. Robertson is understood to have been told to assemble his coaching team following the All Blacks’ 26-10 loss to South Africa in the opening game of the Rugby Championship. Robertson’s roster was said to include Blues coach Leon MacDonald and Hurricanes mentor Jason Holland, forcing those clubs to begin working on contingency plans for its own coaching rosters.
Mitchell would not be drawn on questions over NZ Rugby’s discussions with Robertson or whether he felt the six-time Super Rugby winning coach was treated fairly during the process.
“I don’t really want to go there,” said Mitchell.
“Scott is a very important part of our rugby eco-system, he’s a very good coach, and I’m sure his time will come.”
But the apparent flip-flopping from NZ Rugby management has led to a loss of goodwill among both Foster and Robertson sympathisers. It also had a patch-up job on its hands with Super Rugby bosses left miffed by the needless coaching panic.
At the same time, New Zealand is starting tense negotiations with its SANZAAR partners over the shape of the Super Rugby competition beyond next season, in which several sources have claimed NZ Rugby is still feeling the effects of decisions made by former chairman Brent Impey.
Impey was accused of “burning SANZAAR to the ground” in 2020 by pushing ahead with a domestic competition during Covid at a time when the partners should have been working together.
However, one source points out that with Impey out of the fray, he has become a convenient scapegoat for the relationship breakdown, as NZ Rugby enter damage control mode.
“There were collective decisions made for which they all have to take responsibility,” they said.
All can agree that Impey was a dominant chair, who was hugely influential in appointing Robinson to the top job.
There was some discomfort that Impey remained on the board after his chairmanship ended, preventing Robinson from developing his own style as a chief executive. Now out of Impey’s shadow, Robinson appears indecisive, with NZ Rugby suddenly acutely reactive to public opinion.
The process to appoint a new board chair was also far from straightforward, with early signs that media entrepreneur and former East Coast representative Bailey Mackey was the frontrunner for the job, before an 11th hour backflip saw veteran administrator Mitchell voted in.
“It’s a pretty interesting shop window,” one source told Stuff.
“You have a chairman that is there by virtue of a last minute change of heart, and a CEO that doesn’t seem to be able to get a lot done, and a poor public persona.”
There have also been broader questions over whether the board has enough “quality people” and the necessary expertise to lead the organisation into a new era. Others have raised concerns that one NZ Rugby’s biggest assets on the board - Bart Campbell, a leading figure in the sportainment industry - comes with too many commercial ties.
The upcoming review will provide an answer to those questions, and, if necessary, the mechanism for change within NZ Rugby that many within the game view as overdue.
Are you telling us you a Pom masquerading as Kiwi to accept the plaudits of being an AB supporter? 
Mate I am beyond disappointed, here was I thinking you were a real person! 
