1
CEO Sweeney set to start tackling busy RFU in-tray on Thursday
By Online Editors
Bill Sweeney will begin his role as the Rugby Football Union’s new chief executive on Thursday. It was revealed in February that Sweeney is to replace Steve Brown, who announced his shock resignation late last year, and has since been negotiating his release from his post at the British Olympic Association.
The RFU has confirmed that he officially starts this week and his arrival will mean Nigel Melville, acting chief executive since Brown’s departure, will resume as Twickenham’s director of professional rugby.
A number of pressing concerns face Sweeney, among them clarifying the future of Eddie Jones and overseeing a succession plan for the eventual departure of England’s head coach.
Melville is responsible for identifying and recruiting Jones’ replacement but the process is shrouded in confusion as this autumn’s World Cup looms.
Every bit as pressing are the RFU’s financial difficulties that have forced 62 redundancies and dealing with the Gallagher Premiership clubs, who have been emboldened by an injection of funds from private equity.
It was November when Brown quite after just 15 months in the role. The union had faced challenging financial times during his brief tenure, with the RFU posting losses of £30.9million for the last financial year.
There was also talk of reducing the match fees paid to England players, whilst the renovation of the East Stand at Twickenham, which was completed last year, ended up £26m over budget, at a total cost of close to £80m.
Sweeney had been at the BOA since 2013, after leaving his role as head of global business development at Puma. His role at the BOA saw him oversee sporting, commercial, brand and communications departments, as well as being in overall charge of the BOA’s preparation for the summer and winter Olympics.
Speaking on the hire in February, RFU chairman Andy Cosslett said: “We're delighted to announce Bill’s appointment as CEO. He brings a rare combination of experience from the worlds of blue chip business and elite sport and has a tremendous track record in both. His passion for the game is deep rooted and this will stand him in very good stead.”
WATCH: Part four of The Academy, the RugbyPass documentary series on Leicester Tigers
Trending on RugbyPass
2
OTD – Declan Kidney takes step up into Test rugby
3
'Damaging' Jordie Barrett move only helps All Blacks- ex-Ireland wing
4
Stuart Hogg addresses rumours of rugby return
5
Latest Comments
Who got the benefits out of Schmidt, Lowe, Aki, and Gibson Park?
Go to commentsI’m all for speeding up the game. But can we be certain that the slowness of the game contributed to fans walking out? I’m not so sure. Super rugby largely suffered from most fans only being able to, really, follow the games played in their own time zone. So at least a third of the fan base wasn’t engaged at any point in time. As a Saffer following SA teams in the URC - I now watch virtually every European game played on the weekend. In SR, I wouldn’t be bothered to follow the games being played on the other side of the world, at weird hours, if my team wasn’t playing. I now follow the whole tournament and not just the games in my time zone. Second, with New Zealand teams always winning. It’s like formula one. When one team dominates, people lose interest. After COVID, with SA leaving and Australia dipping in form, SR became an even greater one horse race. Thats why I think Japan’s league needs to get in the mix. The international flavor of those teams could make for a great spectacle. But surely if we believe that shaving seconds off lost time events in rugby is going to draw fans back, we should be shown some figures that supports this idea before we draw any major conclusions. Where are the stats that shows these changes have made that sort of impact? We’ve measured down to the average no. Of seconds per game. Where the measurement of the impact on the fanbase? Does a rugby “fan” who lost interest because of ball in play time suddenly have a revived interest because we’ve saved or brought back into play a matter of seconds or a few minutes each game? I doubt it. I don’t thinks it’s even a noticeable difference to be impactful. The 20 min red card idea. Agreed. Let’s give it a go. But I think it’s fairer that the player sent off is substituted and plays no further part in the game as a consequence.
Go to comments