Australian Rugby / RA

[jimmydubs]

I wonder how many people applied?

An article on Rugby.com.au did say but I can't find it now, maybe edited out in an article revision. Can't remember exact number but it was a lot, circa 200.
They've got a recruitment company handling it till short-list, aren't rushing, waiting for right candidate. Bill may stay till Feb to ensure they find the right yes man with the correct cranial topography to seamlessly mate with Clynes ass.

Fucking joke. Richard Graham global car park search 2.0

 

[dru]

He's mainly a businessman, having been involved in a few medical companies, as well as obviously a lot of time on Sports Administration. His main "medical" work is / was as a surgical assistant for Orthopaedic surgeons. I think the practice of medicine will struggle along without one Surgical Assistant. From a business point of view I'd say he's hardly unqualified. I have no idea if he is the best person for the job (who even knows if many applied for the position), and I fully understand the rationale for people wanting no-one from within the tent taking the position. I probably think it's better too. But this is probably a place he has been working towards if you look at his CV.

Cyclo:

Firstly there is nothing “wrong” with a medical practitioner as a CEO.

But then you suggest his CV has been building for this role. Not in my short review of his background - unless of course you add in an old boys network.

Right now what is needed for ARU board chair and CEO is:
x fundamentally someone who has not been involved previously, new blood.
x see first point
x sporting administration experience (no not board experience, administrative experience)
x see first point
x business experience, building and creating business, not administration
x see first point

I cant come up with a perfect candidate, but there’s a bloke in WA I’d have on the list for sure.

This bloke is from the current debacle and palpably did fuck all to stop the mahem. I cant think of a worse CV for the role of our next CEO.

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo:

Firstly there is nothing “wrong” with a medical practitioner as a CEO.

But then you suggest his CV has been building for this role. Not in my short review of his background - unless of course you add in an old boys network.

Right now what is needed for ARU board chair and CEO is:
x fundamentally someone who has not been involved previously, new blood.
x see first point
x sporting administration experience (no not board experience, administrative experience)
x see first point
x business experience, building and creating business, not administration
x see first point

I cant come up with a perfect candidate, but there’s a bloke in WA I’d have on the list for sure.

This bloke is from the current debacle and palpably did fuck all to stop the mahem. I cant think of a worse CV for the role of our next CEO.

Firstly, I asked Inside Shoulder, not you, what the big deal with him being a medico was, since he made a point of it. Someone else dismissed him also as a medico, ignoring what he has actually been doing. It seems irrelevant. Secondly, I didn't say he was well qualified, I said this is probably where he has been aiming. Looking at his CV suggests that to me. Hard to say he's unqualified. He certainly might well be unsuitable. The two are not the same.

 

[dru]

Firstly, I asked Inside Shoulder, not you, what the big deal with him being a medico was, since he made a point of it. Someone else dismissed him also as a medico, ignoring what he has actually been doing. It seems irrelevant. Secondly, I didn't say he was well qualified, I said this is probably where he has been aiming. Looking at his CV suggests that to me. Hard to say he's unqualified. He certainly might well be unsuitable. The two are not the same.

Cyclo, you object to a response that is not from a targeted specific individual, on a public forum for god’s sake. If you cant work it out, let me clarify, on this particular issue I’m with IS not you. And no. I wont shut up simply because it suits you to argue with an individual and not the cohort he is part of.

For the record I’m not saying your medical man, Brumby and Wallaby as he is, well he is not simply “unqualified”, I’m saying that his CV should prohibit him from this role. I cant bold or u derline it, so let me repeat - the bloke should be prohibited, from the CEO role.

It’s a kind of fundamental difference of opinion, and his fabulous medical credentials dont mean a damn.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What, exactly, is the big issue with him being a doctor?

Its not a typical pathway into corporate governance and his pathway into the area was paved by his rugby connections according to BOQ. If he had compelling qualifications and/or experience there would less of an issue with it but even then its just more jobs for the boys with dubious relevant qualifications and nothing new to bring to the job. Frankly, it would be a ridiculous appointment.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

He's mainly a businessman, having been involved in a few medical companies, as well as obviously a lot of time on Sports Administration. His main "medical" work is / was as a surgical assistant for Orthopaedic surgeons. I think the practice of medicine will struggle along without one Surgical Assistant. From a business point of view I'd say he's hardly unqualified. I have no idea if he is the best person for the job (who even knows if many applied for the position), and I fully understand the rationale for people wanting no-one from within the tent taking the position. I probably think it's better too. But this is probably a place he has been working towards if you look at his CV.

If he was an immunologist, or perhaps a geneticist, he'd be the perfect choice

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo, you object to a response that is not from a targeted specific individual, on a public forum for god’s sake. If you cant work it out, let me clarify, on this particular issue I’m with IS not you. And no. I wont shut up simply because it suits you to argue with an individual and not the cohort he is part of.

For the record I’m not saying your medical man, Brumby and Wallaby as he is, well he is not simply “unqualified”, I’m saying that his CV should prohibit him from this role. I cant bold or u derline it, so let me repeat - the bloke should be prohibited, from the CEO role.

It’s a kind of fundamental difference of opinion, and his fabulous medical credentials dont mean a damn.

Did I tell you to shut up? No. Just not sure why you felt the need to answer a question I asked of someone else. I don't really give a fuck who you're "with", or not to be honest.
He's not "my" medical man. I was surprised someone thought thought it was a relevant reason for him not to apply. I didn't say he had fabulous medical credentials - in fact I sort of said the opposite. Someone's intelligence, or ability to learn in other fields is hardly constrained by the initial degree they did. Plenty of CEOs have risen without MBAs. I suspect they would look at candidates actual abilities, and experience not some letters. And before you go off again, I didn't actually say he was the best or even an appropriate candidate, not being privy to his specific abilities.
I got what you said the first time, cheers.

 

[wamberal]

It will not matter who is chosen, he (or, heaven forbid, she) will be the wrong choice, because they went to the wrong school, live in the wrong suburb, come from NSW, or don’t come from NSW, played the game at the top level or didn’t reach the top, they have a business background or don’t have a business background. If they are a current rugby administrator that will be wrong. If they have no rugby administration background, that will be wrong too.

Whatever, whatever, whinge, whinge, whinge. I can see it all now.

 

[RugbyReg]

Look Brett may be the most highly credentialed candidate, and he does have suitable qualities and experience, but appointing from the board in the current environment is the dumbest thing the ARU could do at the moment.

The look is just terrible.

 

[cyclopath]

Look Brett may be the most highly credentialed candidate, and he does have suitable qualities and experience, but appointing from the board in the current environment is the dumbest thing the ARU could do at the moment.

The look is just terrible.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[wamberal]

The look is just terrible.

The “look” only matters to the 5000 or so rusted on diehards who take an interest in this sort of minutiae.




As I said earlier, to the diehards it will not matter much who is appointed, 4500 of them will continue to be unhappy, and the remaining 500 will be unhappy a week later when he does, or does not do, something.


Pick the right candidate. Frankly, the field of potential CEOs would be absolutely miniscule. Who on earth would want the job?

 

[cyclopath]

The “look” only matters to the 5000 or so rusted on diehards who take an interest in this sort of minutiae.




As I said earlier, to the diehards it will not matter much who is appointed, 4500 of them will continue to be unhappy, and the remaining 500 will be unhappy a week later when he does, or does not do, something.


Pick the right candidate. Frankly, the field of potential CEOs would be absolutely miniscule. Who on earth would want the job?

I think that is one of the biggest concerns, and why I mused about how many candidates did apply.
I mean, I know a guy who would probably be an excellent candidate, very well qualified, and available and he just laughed when I suggested he should look at it ( I was not that serious, as he is a great bloke and I wouldn't wish it upon him).

 

[wamberal]

I assume that one of the executive search firms are engaged to try to find somebody.


Although, to be brutally frank, I wonder who would even take the search on?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Did I tell you to shut up? No. Just not sure why you felt the need to answer a question I asked of someone else. I don't really give a fuck who you're "with", or not to be honest.
He's not "my" medical man. I was surprised someone thought thought it was a relevant reason for him not to apply. I didn't say he had fabulous medical credentials - in fact I sort of said the opposite. Someone's intelligence, or ability to learn in other fields is hardly constrained by the initial degree they did. Plenty of CEOs have risen without MBAs. I suspect they would look at candidates actual abilities, and experience not some letters. And before you go off again, I didn't actually say he was the best or even an appropriate candidate, not being privy to his specific abilities.
I got what you said the first time, cheers.

David Kirk was first a doctor and then a businessman. Im not suggesting its a disqualifying characteristic in and of itself. I think your points as to how many applied and who would want the job are well made. No doubt that's part of the problem - perhaps only someone with nothing to fear from the board or the chairman in particular would want the job. Which leads me to think that we need a benevolent dictator who tells the board how things are going to go: that identifies someone like John O'Neill. It is the most poisoned chalice there is.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It will not matter who is chosen, he (or, heaven forbid, she) will be the wrong choice, because they went to the wrong school, live in the wrong suburb, come from NSW, or don’t come from NSW, played the game at the top level or didn’t reach the top, they have a business background or don’t have a business background. If they are a current rugby administrator that will be wrong. If they have no rugby administration background, that will be wrong too.

Whatever, whatever, whinge, whinge, whinge. I can see it all now.

Thats why I propose Toto Wolff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toto_Wolff) or Christian Horner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Horner). With the latter we can save money on national anthem performers as his wife is ginger spice

 

[wamberal]

Thats why I propose Toto Wolff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toto_Wolff) or Christian Horner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Horner). With the latter we can save money on national anthem performers as his wife is ginger spice

Good thinking, 99.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why would those guys possibly want the job?

It would be a monumental paycut and a thankless task.

Unless they had some altruistic desire to fix Australia Rugby (and I can't see why they would), what's in it for them?

 

[wamberal]

There’s nothing in it, and frankly if there is just about anybody who is qualified by background and ability to do it, and is willing to take it on, we should all get behind him or her, not matter which farking school they went to. (I went to a state school, and frankly all this stuff about the GPS mafia is just pathetic).

 

[Strewthcobber]

. Which leads me to think that we need a benevolent dictator who tells the board how things are going to go: that identifies someone like John O'Neill. It is the most poisoned chalice there is.

Even if you find the next JON they won't have the $30m war chest to play with and disappear like Mr O'Neil

 

[Braveheart81]

The optics of hiring the new CEO either internally or someone from the board is terrible, regardless of their suitability otherwise for the job.

The problem we have is that outside of the person appointed we will never know who the top candidates otherwise were.

It's very possible that of all the candidates they have, Brett Robinson has the best CV for the job (excluding the fact that he is an existing board member).
A relevant question is whether an outsider with a significantly worse CV would be a better hire than Robinson. Whilst the optics of the unrelated hire would be much better, that doesn't necessarily mean the results will be.