The Spammers have been SPAMMED, is back online!

Wednesday, January 11, 2006


General Discussions: How a secret ballot is playing out on paper


This is potentially getting very ugly. Furore over RWC 2011 yet to settle.

By Simon Barnes

THE correspondence trail following the IRB’s controversial decision to deny Japan the 2011 World Cup shows no sign of abating, particularly with regard to the role played by Jamie Scott, the honorary secretary of the Asian RFU (ARFU). Having been quizzed after the decision by Megumi Horikoshi, the Japanese delegate at the vote, an indignant Scott made his feelings clear to the Japanese RFU (JRFU).

To: Koji Tokumasu, Chief Executive, JRFU
From: Jamie Scott, Honorary Secretary, ARFU
Date: November 22, 2005
I HAVE to say that it is a great disappointment to me that the Japan RFU appear to have thought that I would not vote in the way that was requested and instructed of me by the Asian RFU; and of being advised of that impression by the Japan RFU representative following the IRB meeting.

I have discussed the matter with the other officers of the Asian RFU and they share my disappointment and agree with me that this is very unfair and small thanks for the support, both of myself personally and that of the ARFU.

Five days later, the JRFU explained Horikoshi’s actions in its reply to Scott and the paper trail went cold — but only for a while. Upon receipt of instructions from Priyantha Ekanayake, the president of the ARFU, a firm of solicitors wrote to the IRB demanding it organise a fresh vote. The letter on January 5 from London-based Addleshaw Goddard claimed that because of the secrecy surrounding the ballot, nobody could be certain that procedures were not “used by council members to obtain dubious benefits for themselves or their unions”, or that council members carried out the mandate of their own individual union, so that “inducements could be given with impunity”.

The IRB did not reply and dismissed calls for a new vote, but that was not enough to mollify Scott. In a letter to the solicitors, he said that under the ARFU’s constitution even the president is barred from raising correspondence. Only one man has the authority. Himself.

To: Hamish Shaw, Addleshaw Goddard
From: Jamie Scott, Honorary Secretary, ARFU
Date: January 8, 2006
I REFER to your e-mail of January 5 attaching a letter to the chairman of the IRB, concerning the decision to award the hosting of the Rugby World Cup 2011 to New Zealand and purporting to be in consequence of instructions given to you by the ARFU. Whomever has purported to give you these instructions has done so, not only without the authority of the ARFU but also ultra vires the rules of the ARFU. Only its honorary secretary general is authorised to conduct business between the union and outsiders. Therefore you are required to cease and desist purporting to act for and on behalf of the ARFU.

Unabashed, the solicitors fired off another e-mail to the IRB yesterday.

To: Dr Syd Millar, Chairman, IRB
From: Hamish Porter, Addleshaw Goddard
Date: January 10, 2006
WE HAVE read in the press that the IRB has been informed that we had no authority to write the letter on behalf of the ARFU and does not intend to reply to it. Our instructions came from the president of the ARFU. We have received a disavowal of the letter from the secretary, Jamie Scott, purporting to revoke our instructions. We confirm that our instructions remain as they were on January 5. The issues raised have provoked interest because they are of concern to those who care about rugby. We invite the IRB, therefore, to address these issues publicly, rather than duck them on the pretext of a disagreement between two officers of the ARFU.

And there it ends — for now.


Born in New Zealand, Jamie Scott, the chief executive of the ARFU, has lived in Asia for 30 years and is a founder member of the Valley Rugby Football Union Club, the Hong Kong champions. Scott is a life vice-president of the Union.

this could get real ugly.

NZ born ARFU dude....i smell a rat.

maybe davids can help on this one, can the ARFU or JRFU perhaps sue the IRB if no response is received by them from what we all know to be a sham and old boys club decision?

i mean we are talking about millions in revenue!!!!

i find it strange that for such a grand event, where so much money is involved, in a professional era, no report is made available to indicate why the irb believes NZ, apart from a sentimental point of view, is better suited to host the event than japan or SA?

surely a member union to the irb, japan, has got as much right as the older unions?

in a organisation like the IRB, the biggest is not surely the best?

yes they carry a lot of weight but what is the point for unions to spend millions preparing tenders if it is decided behind closed doors and between old boys club members who gets the votes?

very strange indeed, almost seems like SARU got their tricks from the IRB. same shit, different organisation.
The plot sickens

It looks like the Kiwis pulled every dirty trick in the book to get this one.
You can't blame them though.

To the victor, the spoils.

Just because our guys were naive and the Japanese out-gunned, doesn't mean that New Zealand don't deserve another chance to host the big one 24 years after first hosting it.

I would have been happy for any of the 3 to get it. NZ just wielded a bigger stick.
The SA contingent knew it was all over when they came across Syd Millar with his arm around his old buddy, Pinetree Meads, in a pub the night before the vote.

It was finished and klaar right there.

We sent some fools when we could have sent the likes of Morne, Frik etc.

I would like to see the two following world cups going to Argentina and then USA or Russia.
well i was one against SA getting it. so i am not looking for excuses at all.

but the point i want to make is that with millions involved, these okes must have some case????
No, apparently not against the IRB.

If there is any case to be made it is directly against the ARFU or the individual.

It therefore has no bearing on the IRB's decision according to the Times.

The decision stands and won't be rescinded under any circumstances, you can bet on that.
okay but can legal action be considered? against the irb and shady underhand dealings?  
In short, no.

Not unless it turns out that undue pressure was placed on anyone.

I reckon that's exactly what's happening and ja Ras the decision may not be voluntarily rescinded, but I'd think the Inns of Court boys may have a different view on things or maybe the International Sports Arbitration Tribunal in THe Hague.

I actually think this promises and underhand beforehand shady deals is greatly distasteful. If the allocation of te Cup depends on this kind of thing then it is actually something we should vomit on. It's a favours for friends thing and that is just plain bribery and corruption, because it means the genuine merits and demerits of a bid simply go out the window.

It's in Zurich Switzerland, not the Hague

That's the International Court of Justice
my point exactly davids.

this is going to get ugly.
But PA, you must agree that the pre-voting shenannigens were certainly uglier and should actually have no part in the determination of the bid.

Look at what Salt Lake City spent on f---ing bribes to Olympic officials to get the winter olympics.

It's shameful.

In fact it should be banned and litigating about this shameful horsetrading is a good start.

Please don't misunderstand. I actually don't mind that the Kiwis got it.
nah me neither, i just think in today's day and age, organisations can ill afford to be seen as cheaters or bribers, strange how this plagues rugby as a whole, and people wonder why it is not as big as football.  
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?