Australian Rugby / RA

[dru]

I am suggesting that there is the potential that what she wants the ARU to do and what the ARU should do aren't necessarily the same thing.

Fair enough. It seems to me that she has operated on the Nominations Committee with a very public ethic that perfectly fits that committee's obligations.

I doubt the ARU has too many followers with respect to success in doing what is should be doing. So if Sukkar is not aligned to that, well it's a fair start.

Personally I'd suggest that she was failing her duty if she wasn't pushing buttons right now. Double down on that if the buttons were anything but opposite what the ARU Board has been up to.

I understand that women's rugby will be considered as something of a one horse show, a driver that completely fails to be holistic in seeking solutions for the ARU. But remember that she, and her organisation, has supported NRC and the Shute Shield (more specifically Sydney Uni) etc.

It's all a bit unexpected, but this might just be the grass Roots impetus to put a size 12 boot through the show.

And of course it might not.

 

[KOB1987]

I think the existence of the nominations committee is good. It is a sensible reform.

I have not said that Sukkar has done anything inappropriate or that anything she has done so far is conflicted.

What I am saying is that now that there seems to be a rift between her and the ARU over this issue means there is the potential that she is conflicted going forward when it comes time to nominate new board members.

I am not in any way suggesting she has done anything wrong or will do anything improper.

I am suggesting that there is the potential that what she wants the ARU to do and what the ARU should do aren't necessarily the same thing.

I was going to say something similar. There is nothing illegal or immoral about having a conflict of interest. It's common (if not mandatory) for board/committee meetings to open with a declaration of pecuniary interests. Once the interest is identified any matters of concern that are raised are dealt with appropriately at the time (e.g. abstaining from a vote).

Where there is an ongoing conflict which could cloud the decision making of the role the person is involved with the person usually has to choose between divesting the interest or resigning from the position (e.g. if the Communications minister owned a swag of NewsCorp shares).

As BH points out there is a potential conflict of interest here and you'd expect that to be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Braveheart81]

In the year the ARU is launching the National Uni 7s Series with 8 teams playing 4 tournaments, would it also be good planning to try and implement a women's NRC at the same time?

Maybe the priority is back to front although I personally don't think it is.

I do think trying to do both in a single year would be reckless and would set up both to fail.

 

[Braveheart81]

I was going to say something similar. There is nothing illegal or immoral about having a conflict of interest. It's common (if not mandatory) for board/committee meetings to open with a declaration of pecuniary interests. Once the interest is identified any matters of concern that are raised are dealt with appropriately at the time (e.g. abstaining from a vote).

Where there is an ongoing conflict which could cloud the decision making of the role the person is involved with the person usually has to choose between divesting the interest or resigning from the position (e.g. if the Communications minister owned a swag of NewsCorp shares).

As BH points out there is a potential conflict of interest here and you'd expect that to be dealt with appropriately.

I also don't think that potential conflict has existed until now since she has withdrawn the Buildcorp sponsorship and made it clear it was due to disagreement with the ARU's direction on a particular issue.

 

[cyclopath]

I was going to say something similar. There is nothing illegal or immoral about having a conflict of interest. It's common (if not mandatory) for board/committee meetings to open with a declaration of pecuniary interests. Once the interest is identified any matters of concern that are raised are dealt with appropriately at the time (e.g. abstaining from a vote).

Where there is an ongoing conflict which could cloud the decision making of the role the person is involved with the person usually has to choose between divesting the interest or resigning from the position (e.g. if the Communications minister owned a swag of NewsCorp shares).

As BH points out there is a potential conflict of interest here and you'd expect that to be dealt with appropriately.

So, "KOB" ............ which Obeid are you?

 

[I like to watch]

So, "KOB" .... which Obeid are you?

He'd be the one that is still not required to wear 'bracelets' for court appearances

 

[KOB1987]

So, "KOB" .... which Obeid are you?

Ha! I said there was nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, that's different to actually using it to your benefit!

 

[Lee Enfield]

yeah screw juniors too.

No more of this silly age group stuff.

Let's just have a open levels of rugby across the country.

We could have competitions and teams made up of 14 year olds boys, 19 year old women, 50 year old men - who cares. Just break down the barriers.

This isn't about national age based competitions and age based equality. So your argument is basically moot and pointless. I think it is often referred to as dog whistling.

But Yes, age groups for juniors should go and be replaced with weight divisions, open to all 32 genders.

And why shouldn't a 50 year old be allowed to play in a professional team if they are good enough and capable? We have seen 40+ year olds play sport at elite levels.

So you were against Brad Thorn playing at 40. What about Brett Favre playing till 43? What about Tom Brady planning to play till 45? What about Steve Menzies playing till practically 40? What about Ricky Ponting playing till 38? Floyd Mayweather boxing till 40? George Smith playing at 36? If not, what is your age cut off for forced retirement of professional players.

Why shouldn't a 19 year old adult be allowed to play in a professonal team if they are good enough and capable? Were you against James O'Connor playing super rugby at 17 and the wallabies at 18?

Isn't that what gender equality is about, breaking down barriers based on gender?????

The simple and equality answer is to remove gender completely from the equation and open up all levels of sport, be it juniors right through to elite to all players regardless of gender.

If women who can meet the physical requirements are allowed to serve in the infantry and special forces and fight along side and against men, then surely, they should be allowed to play sport along side and against men?

 

[Braveheart81]

Oh for fucks sake.

.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

My point was that Masters seems to be saying the ARU board is in trouble because they lost a big sponsor whereas if you add the points together, the logical conclusion to me is that it makes Sukkar's position a difficult one to maintain. She is pretty conflicted.

Masters didn't seem to make the connection at all that Sukkar's place is now pretty heavily compromised between her role on the nominations committee and her position against the current board over women's rugby.

Master's is in love with her - he has been for some time IIRC

 

[formerflanker]

The much-touted success of womens' AFL appears to be based on the copious amounts of free tickets given away to ensure crowd numbers.
Don't let the AFL publicity machine give us ideas about the potential success of womens' rugby.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Relax.



Sukkar is not on the board.

You left the ball teed up. Hard to resist.

Fair call.
She should not be a member of the ARU Board Nomination Committee - she is far from sufficiently disinterested

 

[Braveheart81]

The much-touted success of womens' AFL appears to be based on the copious amounts of free tickets given away to ensure crowd numbers.
Don't let the AFL publicity machine give us ideas about the potential success of womens' rugby.

The crowds were still excellent and would have remained that way even if modest ticket prices were charged.

Plenty of people watched it on TV.

The reality is they well and truly have a viable competition that will get much stronger very quickly if they pay the players enough to be full time professionals (even if only for six months a year).

 

[I like to watch]

The much-touted success of womens' AFL appears to be based on the copious amounts of free tickets given away to ensure crowd numbers.
Don't let the AFL publicity machine give us ideas about the potential success of womens' rugby.

It's unequivocally been a raging success.
But Women's AFL in Vic can't be compared to women's Rugby in NSW, I reckon they would rival Sydney subbies in term of teams.
We are years behind AFL in terms of women's participation, and a National comp was considered a bridge too far by them.
lets crawl before we walk.

 

[William88]

There are talks she could actually Have even bigger shoes to fill.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...trigger-boardroom-change-20170608-gwnaav.html

 

[2bluesfan]

Patsy on the other hand relieved me of any risk of having to pay CGT on my few NAB shares for most of my adult life, so I guess I owe him something.

Remarkably sanguine of you Unfortunately it brings back memories of some of my own less successful investments.

 

[kiap]

In the year the ARU is launching the National Uni 7s Series with 8 teams playing 4 tournaments, would it also be good planning to try and implement a women's NRC at the same time?

Maybe the priority is back to front although I personally don't think it is.

I do think trying to do both in a single year would be reckless and would set up both to fail.

Troublesome wimmin.

They've exceeded their quota.

One initiative per year. No more!

 

[Slim 293]

The crowds were still excellent and would have remained that way even if modest ticket prices were charged.

Plenty of people watched it on TV.

The reality is they well and truly have a viable competition that will get much stronger very quickly if they pay the players enough to be full time professionals (even if only for six months a year).

And today Essendon launched their team for next year........ so with their fanbase it's going to generate some extra buzz when it kicks off again in 2018.

 

[Lee Enfield]

The crowds were still excellent and would have remained that way even if modest ticket prices were charged.

Plenty of people watched it on TV.

The reality is they well and truly have a viable competition that will get much stronger very quickly if they pay the players enough to be full time professionals (even if only for six months a year).

The average crowd across the season for the aflw was 6828, and tickets were free.
The average crowd for super rugby to date across the 5 Australian franchises is 11,653 and tickets are not free.
The average crowd for A league this season was 13,018, and tickets were not free.
The average crowd to date for nrl is 14,908, and tickets are not free.
The average crowd to date for afl is 34,284, and tickets are not free.

So, if average crowds of 6828 with free tickets is excellent, you have extremely low standards. I can also find no data that backs up your claim that crowds would have remained excellent had modest ticket prices been charged.

Comparing Super Rugby crowds to the excellent crowds of the aflw, then super rugby is in an extremely strong position. Furthermore, considering the poor performance of the super rugby teams, the average crowd figures compare favourably to A league and nrl, with all codes doing poorly compared to the afl.

I would say that the average crowd figures for the aflw are poor, especially considering the free tickets and the strong crowd figures and support of AFL.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's a league in its first season where players were paid a pittance so weren't really professional.

I think people are kidding if they think crowds would have flatlined if tickets weren't free. How many people turn up to things just because they're free?

Some NRC games have been free and it doesn't really produce different crowd numbers.

AFL Women's is a no brainer for the AFL to put more money into so the players can be properly professional. That will cause standard to rise rapidly and interest will increase.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk