UPDATED 7.18pm: New Zealand Rugby Union CEO Steve Tew said claims made by a stripper against Chiefs players have not been substantiated by witnesses, and there will be no action.

LISTEN ABOVE: NZR CEO Steve Tew and Rob Nichol from the New Zealand Players' Association spoke to Larry Williams

The incident was alleged to have taken place at a 'Mad Monday' celebration at the end of the Super Rugby season. 

But Tew said players are not blameless - and Chiefs have been issued with a formal warning that will stay on record.

Tew said the investigation involved the interviewing of players, several independent witnesses and the woman hired for the 2016 celebrations.

“There were some witnesses who were in the room when the routine took place and saw the whole routine, and there were others who witnessed the behaviour during the day, which is all a factor in our investigation.”

The results found that while the performance was legal and consensual, it was wholly inappropriate for professional rugby teams to engage in events of this nature and players should take collective responsibility.

Tew confirmed there was a dispute over payment at the end of the night.

“We took this matter incredibly serious. It is a very long time since rugby has faced such a difficult set of allegations. And our general counsel is a very senior, very experienced, very determined practitioner of law. And I have complete faith in his ability to conduct this investigation.”

He also confirmed NZR won’t ban Mad Monday events as the players will get together at the end of the season and celebrate anyway. The best approach was to manage them and put better support structures around them. 

CEO of the Rugby Players Association Rob Nichol told Larry Williams players are held to a higher standard than most, but they've got to embrace it.

"Moving forward we need to be explicitly clear to everyone that engagement of this kind of entertainment is completely unacceptable, when you're identifiable as a professional rugby team."

Chiefs management has also not escaped mention, with investigators saying they should have worked more closely with the players to ensure both end of year functions were managed appropriately.

NZR does not have grounds to pursue misconduct against individual players.

Coach Dave Rennie said he was “incredibly disappointed” in what had happened, and management had questioned why they were not aware of what was going on.

“There will be changes made...it was an error in judgement, it was a poor day, and there have been massive repercussions because of that.

“We will have an opportunity to earn respect back in the community once we come back together.”

There were nine independent witnesses spoken to excluding all the players and staff.

The stripper, known as Scarlette, has also issued a statement following the revelations.

“I am disappointed but not surprised at the outcome of the NZR’s internal investigation.

“My advice for all women is if you are going to attend an all-male event such as the one organised by the Chiefs, whether you are a paid worker or not, take a friend or a supporter who can make sure you are safe and who can vouch for you afterwards if needed.”

Scarlette said she does not intend to make any further comment.

The Union said it's deeply embarrassed to have to be dealing with the saga.

Sponsor My Food Bag has just announced it will terminate a three-year partnership with the Chiefs rugby team.

Chief executive Cecilia Robinson said the recent conduct at the post-season event was insupportable and does not reflect the values of My Food Bag, its staff or the thousands of families that My Food Bag serves each week.

However, she said they will continue to sponsor a few of the team’s individual athletes, Liam Messam, Tawera Kerr Barlow, Sam Cane and Brodie Retallick.

She said the company will instead donate the remaining Chiefs sponsorship fees for 2016, of $10,000, to the Women’s Refuge.

#CHIEFS fallout, My Food Bag pulls money and gives to Women's Refuge instead @NewstalkZB pic.twitter.com/pvbwRTUKtn

— Kim Baker Wilson (@kimbakerwilson) September 7, 2016

Chiefs CEO Andrew Flexman said two sponsors had decided to terminate their agreement with the Chiefs because of the scandal.

He had not considered stepping down because of the controversy.

“My full focus has been on this investigation. The reality is that is a matter for me to discuss at a future point with my board, and I’m sure that those discussions will take place.”

Margaret Comer, corporate services executive of Gallagher Group, Chiefs main sponsor, said she’s pleased with the outcome of the investigation.

“We support the findings, we are happy with the process that was followed and really other than that we have no further comment.”

Asked for her views on NZR not banning Mad Mondays, Comer says that kind of decision is outside the company’s brief.

“That’s a decision for the Chiefs, really. We are a sponsor and that’s where our input starts and ends.”

She confirmed the company will continue to sponsor the Chiefs and it had no plans to end their partnership.

“No, definitely not.”

Comer’s comments were more conservative today than when she spoke to media at the time the story broke last month, stating “if a woman takes her clothes off and walks around in a group of men, what are supposed to do if one of them tries to touch her”.

Comer is also a trustee on the board of Waikato Women’s Refuge. Women’s Refuge New Zealand chief executive Dr Ang Jury described Comer’s comments at the time as “appalling and disappointing”.

Following the “Mad Monday” celebration, Rachael Kirk, who runs Strippers R Us, said she had removed "Scarlette" from her website.

Kirk told the Herald on Sunday that was because the woman had agreed to allow one player to touch her in return for $50, which was against company policy.

Tew would not confirm if the investigation had found that an extra payment was made to allow touching.

“I’m not in a position to go into the detail that our general counsel went through. There was a dispute over payment. Why that dispute occurred is not completely clear.

“This particular form of entertainment is inappropriate. The detail of which, I think for the person involved, is best left out of the conversation as well.”