New Zealand Rugby Football Union (Inc)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NEW ZEALAND RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION (INC) IN THE MATTER of an Inquiry into an Alleged Breach of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union’s Regulations For Eligibility For Selection To Affiliated Union Senior Representative Teams For The National Provincial Championship And Ranfurly Shield by the Bay of Plenty Rugby Football Union DECISION OF THE NEW ZEALAND RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION SUB-COMMITTEE 1. Introduction 1.1. On Sunday 15 August 2004 Auckland played Bay of Plenty in a First Division National Provincial Championship match at Auckland. Also at stake in the match was the Ranfurly Shield held by Auckland. The game ended in a win for the Bay of Plenty team which took both the National Provincial Championship competition points for the match and the Ranfurly Shield. Included in the Bay of Plenty team playing squad for the match was a player by the name of Colin Bourke who the Bay of Plenty Rugby Football Union (“BOPRFU”) believed was eligible to play by reason of loan arrangements it believed it had previously concluded with the Hawkes Bay Rugby Football Union (“HBRFU”). Bourke took the field and played in the match. 1.2. Following the conclusion of the match, questions arose as to Bourke’s eligibility to play for the Bay of Plenty team. From the information that has been provided to me it is not possible to determine by whom the issue was first raised but it seems clear that within a relatively short time after the match concluded the news media became aware of it. As a result of the publicity which followed the Board of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union determined an Inquiry should be made into the matter and appointed me as a Sub-committee of the Board for that purpose. On appointment I called for submissions from the respective Unions involved, namely the BOPRFU and the HBRFU and the Auckland Rugby Union. Those submissions have been provided by the Unions as requested. The information contained in the submissions from the BOPRFU and the HBRFU have sufficiently crystallised - 2 - the issue for determination by me without the need for any wider inquiry on my part. The position taken by the Auckland Rugby Union is essentially to abide my Decision while noting it expects the National Provincial Championship Competition Rules to be enforced. It does not, however, seek to have the Ranfurly Shield returned as it believes it would be “inappropriate”. 2. The Eligibility Issue 2.1. The eligibility of players to represent the senior representative teams of Unions playing in the National Provincial Championship Competition and the Ranfurly Shield is governed by the NZRU’s Regulations For Eligibility For Selection To Affiliated Union Senior Representative Teams For The National Provincial Championship And Ranfurly Shield (“the Regulations”). Regulation 1 of those Regulations requires that the team playing squad for the senior representative team of a Union comprising of 15 selected players and 7 reserves shall consist only of players who: (a) are registered with a Club competing in a Club competition conducted under the control and jurisdiction of that Union; and (b) have not: (i) (except in a respect not applicable in this case) at or after 1 May of the current calendar year been registered with a Club competing in a competition conducted under the control and jurisdiction of another Union; or (ii) (except in a respect also not applicable in this case) at or after 1 May of the current calendar year been registered as a member of a Club or other Rugby organisation in an overseas country. 2.2. That requirement is, however, subject to exceptions, one of which relates to what are described in the Regulations as “Outside Players”. Subject to an overall restriction of six such players, the team playing squad for the senior representative team of a Union for the National Provincial Championship round robin competition or Ranfurly Shield matches may include players who do not meet the requirements of Regulation 1(a) and (b)(i) set out above provided that certain requirements set out in Regulation 5 are met. One such requirement is that specified in paragraph (b) of Regulation 5, namely that where the Outside Player has been registered with a Club competing in a competition conducted under the control and jurisdiction of another Union, the Union wishing to include the player in its team playing squad has obtained the prior written consent of that other Union. The consent is required to be - 3 - unconditional except to the extent that the Union granting consent may require the player to return if he will be selected in that Union’s team playing squad for its senior representative team’s next match as a result of injury to another player. There is no dispute in this case that except in relation to the requirements of Regulation 5(b) Bourke met the conditions for inclusion in the Bay of Plenty team’s playing squad for the Auckland match as an Outside Player. 2.3. Prior to the events recorded as follows, Bourke was registered with the Taradale Rugby Club in Hawkes Bay and, as a member of that Club, competed in competitions conducted by the HBRFU. In early June 2004 the HBRFU received advice, it seems of an informal kind, that Bourke would be moving to the Bay of Plenty. That was followed by a letter from the BOPRFU to the HBRFU faxed on 15 July 2004 in which the BOPRFU formally requested “the loan to transfer of the Hawkes Bay registered player Colin Bourke for the 2004 NPC Season.” The letter indicated the transfer fee of $15,000.00 would be deposited with the NZRU on 19 July and requested the Chief Executive Officer of the HBRFU “sign the transfer documents and deposit with the NZRU on the same date”. The Chief Executive Officer of the HBRFU did not respond to the letter because, as appears from the submissions, there were matters (unspecified) with Bourke which had not been resolved. Thereafter the Academy Manager of the HBRFU sent a note to Mr Craig Morris, the Bay of Plenty Team Manager in the following terms: “Craig, so we can get this all cleared up, we require Colin to return the 2 contracts he was allocated, and for him to repay the $1,500 which he was paid under clause 4.3(ii) of his Academy contract. Colin is obligated to repay his selection bonus under the termination clause 7.5 and clause 5.2(c) of his Academy contract.” There is some dispute as to when the note was sent; the BOPRFU has indicated it received the note on either 16 or 18 July whereas the HBRFU has suggested the note followed a discussion between the Academy Manager and Mr Morris on 27 July. On 19 July the BOPRFU deposited the transfer fee of $15,000.00 with the NZRU as indicated in its letter of 15 July and on 11 August it deposited the $1,500.00 referred to in the Academy Manager’s letter set out above into the bank account of the HBRFU. This apparently followed involvement by a representative of the Players Association as a result of which he recommended the payment be made. It appears that although there was a telephone discussion between the Chief Executive Officer of the BOPRFU and a staff member of the HBRFU about the payment of the $1,500.00 it was not drawn to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of the HBRFU. In his submissions to me the Chief Executive Officer of the HBRFU has confirmed that had he been aware of that payment having been - 4 - made on 11 August, the papers relating to the “loan/transfer” of Bourke would have been signed off immediately. As events transpired, following the match on 15 August, on confirmation of the matters just outlined, the Chief Executive Officer of the HBRFU completed the loan/transfer documentation and confirmed that with the Chief Executive Officer of the BOPRFU. The only additional events requiring mention are that on 11 August the BOPRFU notified the NZRU of its NPC squad which included Bourke and that on 28 July the HBRFU sent a fax message to the BOPRFU attaching Bourke’s Rugby Academy contract and 2003 NPC contract “in an attempt to have the matter speedily resolved”. The fax message requested the copies of the contracts be destroyed by the BOPRFU once the matter had been resolved. Subsequently the originals of the contracts were returned to the HBRFU some time prior to the match on 15 August and fax copies in the possession of the BOPRFU were destroyed as requested. 2.4. Against that background, the HBRFU in its submissions contends that it had not, as at the time of the match played against Auckland on 15 August, given the prior written consent required by Regulation 5(b) to Bourke being included in the Bay of Plenty team playing squad as an Outside Player. The BOPRFU takes the contrary position. It contends the requirements of the correspondence comprising the letter of 15 July to the HBRFU, the letter from the HBRFU’s Academy Manager and the further letter of 28 July concerning Bourke’s contracts were all met by 11 August and that by the time of the match against Auckland on 15 August the consent which it says is evidenced by that documentation had become unconditional. A number of other points in support of that contention have been advanced by the BOPRFU but generally they do not address the critical issue for determination and for that reason are not repeated here.