Blind unions just bluffing

Photo: Manawatu Standard

Pride of Manawatu: rising star Aaron Cruden on the attack against North Harbour.

Relevant offers

Opinion

The winner is...the Halbergs, of course! Get runs, stop theirs to win in 50-over game Hard to take that jab on the chin Zimbabwe so poor we are being misled Rugby the deserving winner at Halberg Awards Sir Bob Jones' boxing tirades becoming tiresome Sports awards ceremonies can be divisive Terry's racism trial exercise in hypocrisy Contador judgement doesn't feel like justice Adams lighter and brighter

OPINION: Here's a question worth pondering. Now that the four unions to be culled from the Air New Zealand Cup – Manawatu, Counties, Northland and Tasman – have revealed themselves to the world by saying they will ask the courts for an injunction to stop the New Zealand Rugby Union axing them from the competition, will they have the nerve to follow through with their threat? Or are they just bluffing?

It's worth pondering, because we have been down this road not so long ago and many of us felt at the time the provinces were bluffing; that their case wasn't remotely watertight, and that the NZRU board caved into their intimidation tactics, revealing a soft underbelly.

A quick glance at the provinces' case this time round suggests something similar; that they are on extremely tenuous legal ground given all but North Harbour not so long ago agreed in writing that the NZRU could "unilaterally" change the competition as it sees fit.

Yes, you read that right. In the latest competition participation agreement, the NZRU stitched in that clause, and the provinces agreed to it.

That in itself doesn't mean much. The four unions could still go to the High Court and argue their circumstances have "materially changed" since waiving their rights away. But will they? Do they possess the audacity?

Will they seriously waste a pile of cash and time arguing a point of law, which, if it goes in their favour, would be open to endless appeals and counter appeals? Such defiance would be unheard of, so the answer to all of the above, in my opinion, is no, of course not, and the statements released by all four unions say as much.

Those statements don't say "we are heading off to court all guns blazing". What the provinces actually revealed this week was that they have merely sought legal advice which suggests grounds for an injunction. So what?

What's more, nowhere do they mention they all surrendered their rights to redress this situation to the NZRU, and nor do they mention how they would get themselves out of that sticky mess. To have done that would have added a bit of perspective to this saga. But this argument is not about perspective. It's about manipulating public opinion, and applying pressure on the game's top politicians, the very people who will decide who wins this fight, and who loses it.

My bet this time is on the politicians; the NZRU board that is.

That's a brave call given they have not shown much nerve in the past when asked to make unpopular decisions.

But several factors have swayed my thinking this time round.

Half of the board, which is being bombarded with emails from rugby stakeholders, are not even in the country at the moment. They are following the All Blacks around Europe, meaning the frantic lobbying has so far fallen on deaf ears.

Then there's the fact that, if they do make the decision to go ahead with the cull, there won't be any blood-letting in the form of board members losing their jobs.

The two elected directors – Graham Mourie and Mark Peters – who next come up for re-election have to automatically stand down because they have already served their maximum three terms. That doesn't, of course, absolve them from their responsibilities.

But it does mean they can make a tough decision without fear, favour or the obvious repercussions.

It's also worth remembering the board has already decided to cull the four teams. To undo that decision, and the entire process that led to it, is not impossible. But it would be easier said than done.

The hopes of the four unions in question now rest in the hands of the players' trade union, led by Rob Nichol.

Nichol is renegotiating their collective agreement and, if the NZRU is to push ahead with its plans, it needs the players' support.

If any ground is to be given or compromises made, it won't be to the four unions, it will be to the players. They hold the whip hand in this process, not Manawatu, which is parroting tired old lines about how the Aaron Crudens of this world will be lost to New Zealand rugby if the province is demoted.

What rot. Cruden was talent-spotted long before he played for the Turbos, and made a name for himself wearing black at junior age-group level. The sooner unions like Manawatu realise their place in New Zealand rugby is as a feeder union to Wellington, where Cruden would be better off playing his rugby, the better.

Greg Ford is the Sunday Star-Times rugby writer.

- © Fairfax NZ News