Login To all fellow referees and referees’ societies,
I’m writing to you today because I believe that our reputation within the game is being damaged by the Rugby Football Referees Union (‘RFRU’), the Union that represent us.
Yours – and my – representatives have decided to take the lead in calling for a Special General Meeting, in collaboration with the Championship clubs, in which they intend to call for the Chief Executive of the RFU to be sacked. That is their right, of course. But when calling for the meeting, they have used inflammatory language and provided inaccurate information, which affects the credibility of every referee across England.
In 30 years of refereeing in both the community and professional game, I have never felt the need to send a letter like this, but as a proud member of my refereeing society and as an ambassador of our role, I believe it is important for me to correct the major inaccuracies that our representatives are feeding to the game.
It is absolutely the right of members to hold an organisation to account, but if someone is to mount a campaign within the game, I also believe that any statements they make need to be accurate. In this case, they are not.
Inflammatory Language
On Friday 3rd January, the secretary of the Rugby Football Referees Union (‘RFRU’), sent a resolution to clubs across the country and accused ‘Council Members [of] either being silent or trying to stifle good governance and democracy by actively briefing against it.’
When our Union sends an email with language like this, it damages every referee, because if referees can openly criticise other members of the game, why can’t the game openly criticise referees? This is something we have all worked hard to campaign against. The Council members the RFRU accuse of trying to stifle good governance are volunteers of the game, just like you.
Inaccurate Information
The resolution includes the following inaccurate statements:
This is incorrect. I have spoken with the RFU finance team, and they don’t recognise, and cannot reconcile, the figure that the RFRU have quoted of £130m+. To the contrary, the finance team pointed out that the RFU has made significant financial progress over the last four years.
As per the independently audited report and accounts, across the last two men’s World Cup cycles, which included the unprecedented impacts of Covid, the RFU has generated:
o A net profit of £5.4m contributing to positive P&L reserves of £83.6m;
o Net positive cashflow of £3.3m, including full repayment of historically high levels of debt of £75m; and
o A closing cash balance of £59m and an additional £35m of undrawn credit facilities.
This financial performance across the last two World Cup cycles, has allowed the RFU to invest more than £730m back into the game and more than £18m in driving long-term revenue growth from sponsorship, the stadium and the community game.
I have asked the RFRU to explain where they obtained the ‘£130m+’ figure. They said they would come back to me. They have not.
This is incorrect. Settlement agreements are confidential, however, the year in which Eddie Jones left the RFU, the Annual Report shows the restructuring costs – which included all staff restructuring costs across the organisation – were £900k.
It was devastating to see four clubs go into administration, but they were independent businesses, with directors responsible for running them. Their financial management does not rest with the RFU. Their owners were no longer willing to invest in clubs that were loss-making. It would have been wrong for the RFU to bail out these clubs. And where would the money have come from?
This has been dealt with. For the duration of the eight years of the Professional Game Partnership, the RFU Council agreed that promotion and relegation would continue through a play-off between the Premiership and Championship provided that the Championship club met the relevant minimum standards.
There was extensive consultation with the Championship clubs, which led to greater flexibility for aspiring clubs to reach a capacity of 10,001 over a four-year period.
Setting the structure of promotion and relegation continues to be the responsibility of the Council and remains throughout the pyramid.
Council voted to lower the height of the tackle in the community game, two years ago today, in order to make it safer. The word “waist” was initially used to define the line rather than the “sternum”, contrary to the advice of the Executive. The RFRU council representative was part of that decision.
Though it was the Council’s role to decide these changes, the RFU, as whole, acknowledged engagement with the game could have been better during the build-up to the decision being made.
The law change followed significant research that evidenced this would result in a reduction in concussion and head-on-head contact.
Council was aware. Executive pay is set by the Remuneration Committee under the supervision of the Board. Council has a representative on that committee.
The RFU Board had six council members on it when it was agreed. In total, at least 18 Council Members were involved in the in Long-Term Incentive Payments discussions over the last four years. It was also publicly disclosed in the annual reports of 21/22 and 22/23.
This is incorrect. Investment in Community Rugby has been a priority, and the Community Game Future Project has been agreed and will see £30m a year invested with more coaches, more resources for clubs, and accessible forms of T1 non-contact rugby being taken into thousathousands of schools.
Discussions with the RFRU
In seeking to understand why the RFRU decided to send misleading and inaccurate information with such inflammatory language to clubs, and to understand where the misinformation has come from, I spoke to Adam White, the Secretary of the RFRU. He told me that most of the misleading wording was provided by Championship club representatives.
The wording wasn’t checked or challenged by the RFRU, and I have written to them to ask whether they intend to correct the inaccuracies with everyone who they have been lobbying to sign the motion. They have not replied. The SGM resolution has gone out in the name of the RFRU and therefore in the name of its members, and so I believe it is the responsibility of the RFRU to correct the inaccuracies and false assertions.
Adam White also confirmed that the RFRU believed they should lead the campaign for change in the leadership of the RFU and confirmed that the RFRU have the right to provide a public opinion about the promotion and relegation in the professional men’s game. The members of the RFRU were never asked if they agreed with taking such a public view on this, and as a member, I totally disagree with it.
It’s also worth noting that the resolution called for the Chair of the Board to resign. The Chair of the Board, Tom Ilube, resigned on 20 December 2024, stating that ‘recent events have become a distraction from the game’.
The resolution called for a Special General Meeting no later than 28th February. This is the middle of the men’s Six Nations; a time when we should surely be celebrating our game. This is also a Rugby World Cup year. A year when we should be celebrating our Red Roses.
Summary
The RFRU has thrust referees into headlines. This is not a place where referees should be. People may disagree with me on that, which has happened a lot in my career. But if any referee, any society, any club – community-based or professional – want to discuss this further, I am always available. And I will always be honest, dealing only in facts.
I would encourage other referees to ask their representatives why they have made accusations against Council members using highly charged language, and provided false information in your name. Refereeing deserves better.
For anyone who might find it useful, I have attached a summary of the RFU and Council structure and a more in-depth overview of how the RFRU lead the call for an SGM.
I’m very proud to represent referees on the RFU Board and I will continue to do so with the same passion and integrity as I have done throughout my refereeing career. I believe referees should have a strong voice in the game, but this is not the right way to do it and the changes they call for will not improve our game.
Thank you for your time.
Wayne
The RFU Structure
Many of you will be aware of the structure of the RFU, but I found this a useful refresher.
The RFU is a members’ organisation. That means the members are the ultimate decision-makers. The members of the RFU are the constituent bodies, clubs, the referee societies and Council Members themselves.
The members are represented on the RFU Council by 46 elected officials, split into geographical region, such as Gloucestershire and Eastern Counties. The members decide upon their council representatives.
The RFU Council also includes representatives of other major stakeholders, such as the Rugby Players’ Association, the Championship Clubs, National League Clubs and Premiership Rugby, plus some co-opted members. Council elects the RFU President each year. Part of the President’s role is to chair the Council meetings.
Council Members are also deeply involved in the decision-making of the RFU. They make the final decisions on the RFU Regulations (including in relation to the league structure), and also form the majority of the key rugby committees in the RFU (for example the Community Game Board which agrees the funding structure in the community game) and the Governance Standing Committee, and those bodies’ subcommittees.
The Council also provides members for the more corporate committees in the RFU such as the Audit and Risk Committee and the Remuneration Committee.
The RFU Board updates the Council regularly at formal and informal meetings throughout the year, including detailed updates on the financial position of the RFU.
The five Board members who are also on Council, also provide regular updates to their colleagues.
The day to day running of the RFU is overseen by the RFU Executive. The RFU employs approximately 490 individuals. The RFU Executive reports to the RFU Board. The RFU Board is made up of 12 people, and they scrutinise the decisions of the Executive team.
Five members of the RFU board are also elected members of Council, and the Chair and CEO also sit on the Council.
Members can hold the Board to account at the annual general meeting or they can call for a special general meeting to take place.
My Role on the RFU Board
In September 2024, I was asked if I would join the board of the RFU, as the RFU’s Senior Professional Game Board Representative.
In short, I would be part of a group of individuals, including representatives from the Rugy Players Association and Premiership Rugby, who would be responsible for overseeing the Men’s Professional Game Partnership, an eight year agreement signed on 12 September 2024. The agreement includes how teams can be promoted to, or relegated from, the Premiership.
When I accepted the role, I explained that I wanted to build trust across the game and provide honest and frank feedback whenever it was needed.
The RFRU Structure
The Rugby Football Referees’ Union (RFRU) represents Match Officials in England. All the refereeing societies across England are represented by the RFRU. The RFRU has a representative on the RFU Council.
Letters from the RFRU to clubs
At a Council Meeting that took place on 25 November 2024, one of the items discussed was the Annual Financial Report and the payment made to the CEO and other executives as part of a Long-Term Incentive Plan.
On Tuesday 3 December, the RFU president called an informal meeting of Council Members to take place on 18 December, explaining that following the Council meeting on 25 November, it was clear that there are a lot of views and questions from members of Council around the annual report, and he thought it be a good idea to discuss them in person.
On 4 December, the RFRU also sent a letter to clubs across the country seeking support for a special general meeting which would commission an independent review of the Long-Term Incentive Plan, encouraging ‘… others to support the motion so as we can seek answers from the RFU’. The RFRU also asked refereeing societies to share with your clubs ‘…for signatory as well’.
On 5 December 2024, the President of the RFU, informed Council that an independent review into the Long-Term Incentive Payments was to be set up. This is being conducted by the independent law firm Freshfields working to Terms of Reference determined by three members of the RFU Council, one of whom is the RFRU representative on the Council. The findings are due late January / early February.
The RFRU decide that this was not enough, and on the 18 December 2024, prior to the independent review reporting back, they decided to draft a second resolution in collaboration with the Championship clubs.
It called upon the RFU Board of Directors to terminate the employment of the CEO as soon as practicably possible. Again, the RFRU also sent the resolution to clubs across the country.
On Friday 3 January, the Secretary of the RFRU re-sent the resolution to clubs across the country and in an accompanying email accused ‘Council Members [of] either being silent or trying to stifle good governance and democracy by actively briefing against it [the second resolution].
On Thursday 9 January, Adam White sent the letter to RFU calling for an SGM. Even though he had been in regular correspondence with the RFU’s general counsel, Angus Bujalski, that letter did not contain any evidence that the clubs listed had in fact authorised the requisition for the SGM. Mr Bujalski emailed Mr White and asked when the signed requests would arrive as it was not a valid request until that happened.