John O'Neill

Remove this Banner Ad

The Power Guy

Team Captain
Feb 20, 2002
423
0
Out the back
Other Teams
Brisbane Lions
Just an artice I found about the man at the top, it's an interesting read.


Certain he had secured the votes to ensure Australia would be sole host of next year's rugby World Cup, Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill rang Alan Jones's 2GB program from his Dublin hotel on Thursday, requesting an on-air interview the next day.

A few hours later, a meeting of the 21-member International Rugby Board validated O'Neill's confidence when it voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Rugby World Cup Limited recommendation that Australia should stage all the games in the five-week tournament.

New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive David Rutherford conceded his country received "only a handful of votes" for its application to be co-host. He then flew to Amsterdam ahead of a hostile reception in Auckland.

Even before the final vote, Eddie Tonks, a former chairman of both the IRB and NZRU, branded the Kiwi campaign "tardy and nieve [sic]" in a letter to former ARU chairman Ross Turnbull, who was recruited by Tonks to assist New Zealand's 11th-hour co-host bid.

A series of letters between Tonks and Turnbull reveal the NZRU placed its trust in a handshake agreement with IRB chairman Vernon Pugh not to make public comment.

The Kiwis believed Pugh, a Welsh barrister, would find a way. But, in the final analysis, the man of words was no match for the man of numbers.

O'Neill, a former banker, had done his sums and had warned Turnbull in a series of three handwritten letters that "an independent audit will reveal their [New Zealand's] shortcomings".

Turnbull said yesterday: "O'Neill won because he wouldn't talk to the Kiwis. That's what Pugh and New Zealand wanted. O'Neill didn't turn up in Rome last month when they hoped he'd be there for an IRB tours meeting. He wouldn't see the Kiwis when they offered to fly to Sydney.

"He refused to meet them in Dublin. Good luck to him. He's had a great victory."

O'Neill ensured he was never in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps because he knows the value of being in the right place at the right time.

When he worked at the State Bank as its in-house lawyer, he found himself sitting at his desk at 5 o'clock one evening, filling in the hour before he jumped on a bus and went down to Sydney University, where he coached the Students' third-grade rugby team.

Nick Whitlam was boss of the bank and, concerned about the speed with which his employees clocked off, went on a tour of the building shortly after official closing time.

O'Neill was the only worker Whitlam found in the building.

"I had a meteoric rise after that," O'Neill told the Herald last year. "I never did tell Nick that I was sitting at my desk that night because it was more convenient than going home first."

His rise was so meteoric that when Whitlam resigned, O'Neill replaced him. He will now preside over a tournament that he was always confident Australia would host on its own.

In a letter to Turnbull on March 30, he wrote: "World rugby will be enriched by tens of millions of dollars. A sensational rugby and financial outcome."

Other victories may follow. O'Neill took the moral high ground when any suggestion was made New Zealand could sacrifice a Super12 franchise to Australia in order to regain co-hosting rights. He labelled any such deal "grubby".

The Kiwis always considered it a possibility, even if they believed the deal could be done after a co-hosting agreement was reached.

Tonks, who was co-opted to help NZRU after their negotiators were found inadequate, wrote somewhat cryptically to Turnbull on Thursday: "Super 12 is an add-on but as I understand it, [Rupert] Murdoch is involved here and O'Neill was supposed to have made approaches to Fox [TV network] before any further discussion. This was NOT done until now."

If O'Neill has already made a four-teams-per-country agreement with News Ltd, it is a double defeat for New Zealand.

Whatever O'Neill's approaches to Fox, he has already proved he is as cunning as one.


And that's how Autralia got the World Cup
 
Has John O'Neill promised to spend the the ARU share of the projected profits from the WC on developing an Australian domestic competition?

Just curious because the US certainly made a big thing about the Soccer World Cup developing the groundwork for the MLS.

I've heard those rumours out of Australia about realigning the Super12 also, just remember the Super12 is a television product intended for consumption in three countries.

Do you really think that a 'secret' like that would really be acceptable to New Zealand? If O'Neill was even in discussion with News Ltd with the aim to eliminate a New Zealand team then the All Blacks would boycott the WC.

The Professional Rugby Players Union wouldn't let them make any other decision.

Also pay television in New Zealand is build around Rugby, trashing a product in one market by destroying a financially viable team to promote the game in another is a route I doubt Murdoch is really interested in travelling.

I seriously doubt News Ltd is interested in ever attempting to micro manage sport again do you?

That and it is my team likely to cut.

I can just see the head of NZRFU standing up and telling the Waikato faithful

"While we have always found your hostile some would say open hatred of all thing Auckland amusing, and profitable, we all live in a dynamic world.

'you always suspected a bias in favour of the big unions at the expense of the heartland, that whole Dwayne Monkley eposide, well guess what, you were right,

Rest assured your income stream from television rights will be eagerly accepted by the other New Zealand teams ensuring your level of rugby will never recover.

Now piss off'

Play really well with the locals that would.

Obviously Australia will get another franchise, for this mythical team without a player, a stadium, a sponsor, a coach, a name, a natural home city, but not until the current 10 year television contract for the Super12 and the tri-nations expires.
 
I believe John O'Neill does not have the best intrests of both nations in his sights, which is sad. Perhaps he should take a look at the bigger picture.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Channel 7 TV show Sportswatch had an interview with a former all black captain, who said that New Zealanders were happy that the world cup is staying down south in the Pacific. Apparently there is a board meeting on Thursday (NZRFU) to discuss the issue. The NZRFU, it appears, cut there own heads off by refusing to remove advertising from the stadiums. It was their own fault. Australia had the money and the stadiums so we just took over!
 
Certainly it will be easier for New Zealand to win the WC in Australia compared to South Africa, where the All Blacks were intentionally food poisoned before the 95 final.

I always hated the AB coach Laurie Mains claiming this but it was apparently confirmed by a SARFU committee member last year (blamed over eager SA supporters and denied the SARFU had any involvement)

And don't mention the French :eek:. The IRB alternative for hosting the WC.

New Zealand lost the WC because:

1. The belief in Europe that a World Cup should be held in one country, and not fragmented like the stellar 5N WC in 99.

Lets see if they hold to this high standard when Scotland, Wales and Ireland realise they are to small to sole host a WC.

2. The money. Hosting the WC in Australia is far more profitable than hosting it in New Zealand. Inpart because of the better dollar and larger stadiums, also the draw favoured Australia.

The NZRFU can not get to self-righteous about the money, they certainly know the value of a dollar better than most.

3. On almost every level the '99 WC was a mess. Even the hosting agreement with the principal host was only finalised a week before the competition.

For their own gain individual host countries showed a willingness to ignore the commerical contracts signed by the IRB. Within the IRB hierarchy this created a desire to reform and regulate the awarding and enforcement of all contracts.

Hence arbitary conditions and definitions over time became unnegotiable. Clean stadium meant 100% clean of advertising, corporate boxes and catering.
Zero Advertising meant 500 metres around every venue.

Stadium Australia may be in a empty wasteland to satisfy similar requirements for the Olympics, but New Zealand stadiums are essential suburbian grounds still surrounded by their communities. Petrol station signs would have to come down, etc.

The cost of this transformation would have been massive, still O'Neill says the ARFU is 98% clean.

3. The sponsors. The planned for eight major sponsors has ended up only being three.

The RWCCL is committed to maintaining their projected revenue stream, therefore the obvious shortfall has to be replaced.

The RWCCL imposed ever more strigent conditions on New Zealand and Australia, significantly amending the hosting agreement five times since 1997.

A financial reevaluation last year revealed the NZRFU would suffer a significant financial loss, while both the ARFU and the RWCCL would maintain comparatively large gains.

New Zealand's strategy was to delay, hoping the other parties would be forced to compromise. They actually wanted the mutual support of the ARFU to force the RWCCL to backdown on their 100% clean stadium demands, significantly improving the financial returns for each country.

4. Vernon Pugh. When he told the Chairman of the NZRFU that he recognised New Zealand's environment was different than Australia and that he would be pragmatic about the definitions of clean stadiums the NZRFU took him at his word.

This 'betrayal' is what angered the NZRFU and lead directly to the nasty personal attacks on his character.

4. Eagerness of the ARFU to sole host the WC.

O'Neill wants to grow the game in League/Aussie Rules areas. He had made approaches in the past to 'buy' pools and semis off New Zealand, and the failure of New Zealand to sign in March 2002 without amending the last hosting agreement, something he must have expected, gave him the opportunity to claim sole hosting rights.

Subject of course to New Zealand already having signed a hosting agreement far more favourable toward New Zealand in December 2001. Should New Zealand attempt to enforce this contract, which they certainly will not, then they have the ability to get an injunction which would ineffect prohibit Australia hosting the WC.

Then again there is nothing stopping me filling an application in the nearest High Court for an injunction. :eek:

Mind you while I'm there I should prolly apply for legal aid and go straight to the Privy Council. ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top