Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
As you, I've been advocating the RFU/FFR model for some time. All clubs affiliate directly to the national body. National body the runs national leagues at the top level and breaks the nation up into geographic regions for regional leagues, juniors etc.
There's no place for state RUs in the system.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Clyne, Eales and Robinson - the 3 stooges.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
well hang on then, I thought Clarke, Day and Pulver were the three stooges?
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
are you kidding me, I haven't started rubbishing those ARU members and I haven't finished either. They are incompetent fools who have mismanaged our national sport and their reputations will never recover from this.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I hear you and nothing what I have not said...I guess my point is when they do something finally good (e.g. at least finally meeting TF and Stookes to have a discussion) we want to make sure we give those numpties some positive encouragement....opps sorry I mean respected Board members...
I think at this point I have been so baffled by the ARU behaviour on seeing a first positive sign from them of doing something remotely sensible I did not want to discourage them! Post deleted as yep this is about at this point stopping further damage to their reputations rather than restoring them
I think at this point I have been so baffled by the ARU behaviour on seeing a first positive sign from them of doing something remotely sensible I did not want to discourage them! Post deleted as yep this is about at this point stopping further damage to their reputations rather than restoring them
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
So lets look at the situation if it becomes apparent that the Force cannot be cut.
1) The ARU is essentially broke, it cannot afford to fund the current teams, and I'd argue in the medium term they cannot fund 4 teams, perhaps any teams as support is collapsing for them, even in NSW and Qld. The argument that if they win all will be good is ridiculous unless you expect them to be in the finals every year in a very strongly contested competition. It just is not a reasonable business model to require that for survival.
2) The ARU has IMO lost the Rugby Public and the mandate to govern the game in this country. They retain the official standing but their decisions will not be accepted (except where they intersect with self interest).
3) Will SANZAAR accept Australia not cutting a side? I am assuming the amended broadcast deal requires an Australian side to be cut. If they will not accept it what penalties will be exacted if a team is not cut and will that then send the ARU insolvent? Will Twiggy cover those costs?
My thoughts on a sustainable resolution that does not involve the total collapse of the ARU and State Unions (which if I am honest I think I actually prefer now days)
1) RUPA agrees to the ridiculous % based deal they currently have ending. Players wanting to play for Australia must be resident in the country and play for a Super side during that year. No Giteau rule. RUPA will have to agree to a reduction in player payments most especially at the top and "match" payments will also be cut.
2) All board and executive positions to be declared vacant. New board members can be elected on the basis of genuine experience in running a Sporting organisation or successful community based business. Lawyers, Bankers and ex-players who do not have said experience need not apply regardless of who their father/mother is/was, or how many tests they played or where they went to school. RUPA has no position on the board, but they will be invited on a regular basis to make a presentation to the board. The executive will be selected primarily for Sports Governance experience, but also include an electronic media specialist to ensure Rugby attains a greater presence in "new" media. Again lawyers and bankers and ex-players and their relatives without said experience need not apply. Remuneration for the positions will be commensurate with the actual turn over of the Rugby, not a factor of their Ego's.
3) The state Unions are required to restructure and cede control to the new ARU, if not they can go broke and control will be taken in any event. They will be re-structured along the same rough guidelines as outlined. Each State/Region will have 1 and 1 only voting board member with the appropriate skills on the New ARU.
4) A Charter/Code of Practice will set out the standards of behaviour required from players and officials and breaches will not be hushed up/investigated in secret or result in secret settlements. Total transparency is required as trust is scarce if not extinct and it must be rebuilt. This will also include the appointment of coaches and assistants. All processes must be transparent and be conducted with a genuine assessment of the applicants. The last three coaches of the Wallabies have been appointed by processes which lacked integrity and due process. With each appointment the outcomes were worse. The current Assistants were selected without any process that we know of and neither has any sustained results at a lower level to justify their selection. Again the social capital needed to be able to make such appointments valid has been spent and now such appointments are rightly questioned.
5) The New ARU will immediately argue for a complete restructure of the Super Rugby to a understandable competition that will provide an engaging competition with an understandable draw and results in a valid finals series. If not forthcoming the new ARU will also begin planning for a stand alone competition not involving SAZAAR partners or with those who wish to be involved as the case may be. Under no circumstances can the current system be retained.
1) The ARU is essentially broke, it cannot afford to fund the current teams, and I'd argue in the medium term they cannot fund 4 teams, perhaps any teams as support is collapsing for them, even in NSW and Qld. The argument that if they win all will be good is ridiculous unless you expect them to be in the finals every year in a very strongly contested competition. It just is not a reasonable business model to require that for survival.
2) The ARU has IMO lost the Rugby Public and the mandate to govern the game in this country. They retain the official standing but their decisions will not be accepted (except where they intersect with self interest).
3) Will SANZAAR accept Australia not cutting a side? I am assuming the amended broadcast deal requires an Australian side to be cut. If they will not accept it what penalties will be exacted if a team is not cut and will that then send the ARU insolvent? Will Twiggy cover those costs?
My thoughts on a sustainable resolution that does not involve the total collapse of the ARU and State Unions (which if I am honest I think I actually prefer now days)
1) RUPA agrees to the ridiculous % based deal they currently have ending. Players wanting to play for Australia must be resident in the country and play for a Super side during that year. No Giteau rule. RUPA will have to agree to a reduction in player payments most especially at the top and "match" payments will also be cut.
2) All board and executive positions to be declared vacant. New board members can be elected on the basis of genuine experience in running a Sporting organisation or successful community based business. Lawyers, Bankers and ex-players who do not have said experience need not apply regardless of who their father/mother is/was, or how many tests they played or where they went to school. RUPA has no position on the board, but they will be invited on a regular basis to make a presentation to the board. The executive will be selected primarily for Sports Governance experience, but also include an electronic media specialist to ensure Rugby attains a greater presence in "new" media. Again lawyers and bankers and ex-players and their relatives without said experience need not apply. Remuneration for the positions will be commensurate with the actual turn over of the Rugby, not a factor of their Ego's.
3) The state Unions are required to restructure and cede control to the new ARU, if not they can go broke and control will be taken in any event. They will be re-structured along the same rough guidelines as outlined. Each State/Region will have 1 and 1 only voting board member with the appropriate skills on the New ARU.
4) A Charter/Code of Practice will set out the standards of behaviour required from players and officials and breaches will not be hushed up/investigated in secret or result in secret settlements. Total transparency is required as trust is scarce if not extinct and it must be rebuilt. This will also include the appointment of coaches and assistants. All processes must be transparent and be conducted with a genuine assessment of the applicants. The last three coaches of the Wallabies have been appointed by processes which lacked integrity and due process. With each appointment the outcomes were worse. The current Assistants were selected without any process that we know of and neither has any sustained results at a lower level to justify their selection. Again the social capital needed to be able to make such appointments valid has been spent and now such appointments are rightly questioned.
5) The New ARU will immediately argue for a complete restructure of the Super Rugby to a understandable competition that will provide an engaging competition with an understandable draw and results in a valid finals series. If not forthcoming the new ARU will also begin planning for a stand alone competition not involving SAZAAR partners or with those who wish to be involved as the case may be. Under no circumstances can the current system be retained.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...d/news-story/026e1a3971eeb22c355cf8e0e30f5741
Well I missed this - TF offering broader support to Australian Rugby if Force reinstated...gees to be a fly on the wall for Tuesday meeting.....
Well I missed this - TF offering broader support to Australian Rugby if Force reinstated...gees to be a fly on the wall for Tuesday meeting.....
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Interestingly wasn't it Nobody and Robinson that Welborn directed his letter to?
Yep - two he had played with. A personal thing.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
How is this sustainable? It'd just lead to the further weakening of the Wallabies as more players will give up their eligibility in order to earn 2 or 3 times as much money overseas.
I don't see how rugby can avoid becoming like soccer. There's too much money in European rugby - and it is increasing. SANZAAR and the ARU have completely stuffed up their attempt to compete financially, if they ever really had any chance to begin with.
The most sustainable solution in my view, post 2020, would be to allow Wallabies players to be picked from anywhere, end or substantially reduce central contracts, and work towards building as good a national or Asia-Pacific region professional tournament as interest and investment allows - while the ARU itself focuses more heavily on grassroots. Hopefully there's more money around for a proper competition than there has been for a test season preparation tournament. But at the very least it'd be a higher standard than the Currie Cup or NPC, and could be built around fan friendly scheduling and local rivalries.
T
TOCC
Guest
Agreed the Giteua law needs to be scrapped, stupid bloody rule to begin with...
Like many of these kind of endesvours in recent years, it's best summed up as fools gold.
Like many of these kind of endesvours in recent years, it's best summed up as fools gold.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Go back about 6 years on this site and you will see I posted those exact concerns.
It is sustainable if the players want to live and play in Australia. If they do not and just want the dollars in the short term then they will opt for the overseas contracts, but they will have a very short career and no profile post that career unless they are an absolute top flight star in those crowded NH competitions which are filled with their own local high profile test players.
I get the argument about them maximising their earnings because their playing career is short, but guess what, welcome to the new world order, careers do not exist anymore except for a few, for the majority they will have four or five jobs in unrelated or barely fields over their lifetime.
As things stand paying the Folau's and Genia's of Australian Rugby obscene money for pretty average performances and zero improvement in their skills execution over a time frame of years has yielded nothing. I see no reason to continue, it certainly won't make the Wallabies perform worse.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
As I said, I'm fine with ending or reducing central contracts for these players. But many or most of those top players will head overseas, many already do. And I'd rather they be picked for the Wallabies (if their ability and form merits it) than not.
If we're going to have financially sustainable professional rugby with a national footprint then I think the only way to also have the best Australian players representing the Wallabies is to remove eligibility restrictions altogether.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Apparently Genia and Folau et al are the best available and they cannot execute the basic skills properly for their position and its been that way for 5 years. I say if they and their ilk want to go, fine C'est La Vie, as I said the results may get a little worse but the fact is we won't be watching overpaid blokes running around not playing to their potential and never even reaching it. In all honesty I could not give a shit if they left tomorrow, overpaid, under performers and whilst they feel they have the position sown up due to contracts and favouritist selections they will never improve.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Sounds like the Tahs management and recruitment organisation performed well again.
I suspect Ponga and Croft and Sua's story might not be dissimilar.