Australian Rugby / RA

[I like to watch]

If you recruit someone to help out someone who is failing.
You set out clear parameters about what tasks/outcomes the new guy will be measured on.
You don’t allow the guy who is failing to dictate which bits he is willing to handover.
If you want to be successful.....

 

[KOB1987]

If you recruit someone to help out someone who is failing.
You set out clear parameters about what tasks/outcomes the new guy will be measured on.
You don’t allow the guy who is failing to dictate which bits he is willing to handover.
If you want to be successful...

I doubt that it's quite like that. A large portion of the requisite tasks between the two roles will be clearly Cheika's and others will be clearly Johnson's. There will be some overlap or 'grey areas' and it's these tasks which they'll need to determine whose responsibility they fall under. This would not be a unique approach when there is a new appointment made which is between two other roles, in this instance the CEO and head coach. Writing that leads me to think that there will also be some roles which are currently Raelene's which will now become Johnson's, but that wasn't addressed as it wasn't in the context of the question she was asked.

I get the past dissatisfaction and lack of confidence from QH et al, but I'm just trying to be a bit objective about how they might be approaching it.

 

[half]

Puts on helmet, awaits the rocks being thrown.

My very limited understanding is RA is not full of cash and money.

I also believe the path forward is vira a National Domestic Competition [NDC]. Which I think today needs to be based on a USA franchise model, see many of my post on this before.

I also understand as things stand today the Wallabies are a huge source of revenue to RA. The thinking [and rightly so me thinks] is that a more competitive Wallabies would increase revenue, and a failing Wallabies means less revenue.

My bone of contention is the addition of extra resources to the Wallabies is a continuation of decades of management decisions whereby we devote so much of available management time and resources and so much of the scarce revenue to the Wallabies that we have less to spend on the develop of an NDC, and less management time available to consider the why’s and were-fours, of developing a NDC.

So once again, we pour revenue into the Wallabies, and add further to issue of all other things remaining the same

 

[Quick Hands]

Puts on helmet, awaits the rocks being thrown.

My very limited understanding is RA is not full of cash and money.

I also believe the path forward is vira a National Domestic Competition [NDC]. Which I think today needs to be based on a USA franchise model, see many of my post on this before.

I also understand as things stand today the Wallabies are a huge source of revenue to RA. The thinking [and rightly so me thinks] is that a more competitive Wallabies would increase revenue, and a failing Wallabies means less revenue.

My bone of contention is the addition of extra resources to the Wallabies is a continuation of decades of management decisions whereby we devote so much of available management time and resources and so much of the scarce revenue to the Wallabies that we have less to spend on the develop of an NDC, and less management time available to consider the why’s and were-fours, of developing a NDC.

So once again, we pour revenue into the Wallabies, and add further to issue of all other things remaining the same

If we can't run a domestic professional league, then we should fold our tents and give it all away. Said league could include teams from the Pacific Islands (playing the majority of their games out of parts of Sydney and Brisbane where there is a large PI population - Cambelltown being an example). I've been suggesting such for a while, but was always told that impoverished island nations had nothing to offer - then Fiji won the NRC.

 

[Quick Hands]

I doubt that it's quite like that. A large portion of the requisite tasks between the two roles will be clearly Cheika's and others will be clearly Johnson's. There will be some overlap or 'grey areas' and it's these tasks which they'll need to determine whose responsibility they fall under. This would not be a unique approach when there is a new appointment made which is between two other roles, in this instance the CEO and head coach. Writing that leads me to think that there will also be some roles which are currently Raelene's which will now become Johnson's, but that wasn't addressed as it wasn't in the context of the question she was asked.

I get the past dissatisfaction and lack of confidence from QH et al, but I'm just trying to be a bit objective about how they might be approaching it.

Such lack of confidence is unfortunately based on recent historical facts. We've seen a number of these announcements which were termed 'the saviour of the game' - Super 18, HPU version 2017 etc.

While I'm sure that the thinking behind the DOR is well-meaning and it's a position which overseas unions have adopted with success. Where it will most likely fall down is that in those other unions, there have been organisational restructures which have recognised that everything in rugby relates to what is going on at the level above or below and thus in those places new administrative structures are geared to the 21st century. In contrast the ARU/RA response has seen piecemeal additions and subtractions to a flawed structure based on 19th century colonial boundaries. Such additions and subtractions leave gaps and overlaps and very unclear lines of responsibilities and accountabilities.

There's still a lack of recognition in the organisation that while the Wallabies are extremely important in terms of funds generation and profile, that putting all our eggs in one basket is not a sound strategy, nor is neglecting juniors and club rugby in the hope that if the Wallabies are going well that there will be some sort of trickle down effect which will make everything alright.

 

[half]

Almost scared to post this, the 60's song ""Runaway" springs to mind on what I should do after posting. The metal helmet will not be enough I am sure and some maybe many will read something sinister re what i am about to post.

Soccer has been in a three year civil war and as many would know elected a new board a few weeks ago. Thee new board added two teams but thats not what I wants post.

Today the new board sent an open letter to their fans and players, acknowledging past errors, however setting an agenda to engage all stakeholders, players, fans, in what they want within a very board framework. Its something I have posted and pleaded about for years.

Deep down in my soul I hope rugby copies this and changes the terms Rugby and Football, and deletes things that don't apply to rugby.

The link follows and it long nay very long so I will copy also bits of the open letter. Contrast this with our arguments over coaching and what the RA board publish. Its actually worth reading if only to see what can be done by a board that wants to engage rather than hide.

Imagine Cameron and the board holding community forums, with fans, and park team players and coaches. Note just bits copied most of the letter not copied.

https://www.ffa.com.au/news/open-letter-australian-football-community

Whilst expansion of the Hyundai A-League was a key outcome of the meeting which has rightly excited football fans, this was just one part of a longer conversation which we’d like to provide you more insight on.

...............

The first step in that process is to set out an ambitious 100-day plan which seeks to define a true unity of purpose across the football family.

........

In our first 100 days, we will embark on an extensive consultation process across the country. As a first step, a series of forums, attended by Directors, will be held in the New Year. The forums will include a series of Community Football Summits involving Member Federations, Zones and District Associations, grassroots clubs, NPL clubs, coaches, referees, fans, Women’s Council members and other stakeholder groups across each capital city.

These forums will provide the opportunity to explore future plans but more importantly listen to the feedback of the football community

.......

 

[Slim 293]

A League huh?

 

[half]

A League huh?

If thats how you see it fine... thats why I almost never posted it.

Actually its nothing to do with the A-League, its about how a sporting governance body in Australia with many stakeholders and fans upset with the management of their sport has reacted.

I believe that using working examples before our eyes is actually very smart. But I fear its like climate deniers and Trump supporters whereby even a mention of certain words will result in reaction to the key word rather than the substance of what it is.

 

[Slim 293]

And I almost never replied.........

I believe that using working examples before our eyes is actually very smart. But I fear its like climate deniers and Trump supporters whereby even a mention of certain words will result in reaction to the key word rather than the substance of what it is.

Your analogy is not......... apt.

 

[hoggy]

There's still a lack of recognition in the organisation that while the Wallabies are extremely important in terms of funds generation and profile, that putting all our eggs in one basket is not a sound strategy, nor is neglecting juniors and club rugby in the hope that if the Wallabies are going well that there will be some sort of trickle down effect which will make everything alright.

I will go further and say it is the prime reason why rugby union is struggling to grow in this country, the lack of domestic growth but even more so, lack of desire to drive domestic growth is the biggest impediment to the game here.

We are running a one trick pony, and any change is to only ever double down on the one trick pony.

 

[Juan Cote]

worse still is that our one trick isn't very good

 

[Beer Baron]

I believe that using working examples before our eyes is actually very smart. But I fear its like climate alarmists/deniers and Trump detractors/supporters whereby even a mention of certain words will result in reaction to the key word rather than the substance of what it is.

Fixed for you.

 

[Slim 293]

Fixed for you.

No, no you did not.........

 

[Beer Baron]

hahaha ok. Will keep this thread to rugby.

I'm more concerned that the person brought on to help Cheika is focusing on off field activities. It''s on field where we need help!

 

[RedsHappy]

hahaha ok. Will keep this thread to rugby.

I'm more concerned that the person brought on to help Cheika is focusing on off field activities. It''s on field where we need help!

Ain't that the truth!

And why on earth could the 'financially struggling' RA afford a (probably) $400,000 + pa new executive as DoR just to manage 'off field' Wallaby matters when there's not been the slightest bit of evidence from any source anywhere that 'Wallaby off-field tasks and problems' are today a major contributor to 3 years of near-record Wallaby skills mediocrity and consistently poor results?

The appointment of the new DoR does not make any sense based upon the explicit RA CEO explanations given re 'off-field priorities and focus'.

However, it's obvious this is but a screen of convenience in part no doubt to pacify Cheika's not inconsiderable ego.

The DoR position only makes sense and could be justified on the basis that:

(a) The CEO and board feel incapable of choosing and over-sighting the Wallaby coaching set-up and so need major experienced assistance in this key area and

(b) RA cannot immediately find a viable improvement upon Cheika as HC and

(c) They have (rightly) concluded that the "Cheika as King Unfettered" model that has applied to date as to how MC has been allowed to unilaterally run the entire Wallaby set-up is seriously flawed and a new and strong force must be placed above him and to consciously supplement or change his MO and that of his AC choices, etc.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the most likely option is they see Scott Johnson as becoming the head coach after the RWC and this is a transition into that role to hopefully improve things in the interim.

 

[RedsHappy]

I think the most likely option is they see Scott Johnson as becoming the head coach after the RWC and this is a transition into that role to hopefully improve things in the interim.

Not that I agree with the choice but I agree that's a very real possibility in the minds of RA and is consistent with all of the 3 points re this DoR role I noted above in #4975.

SJ's direct hands on HC coaching record is hardly encouraging. Prima facie he'd be a very high risk choice as Wallaby HC.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not that I agree with the choice but I agree that's a very real possibility in the minds of RA and is consistent with all of the 3 points re this DoR role I noted above in #4975.

SJ's direct hands on HC coaching record is hardly encouraging. Prima facie he'd be a very high risk choice as Wallaby HC.

Although the sheer ham-fistedness of the appointment and explanation of role description are in complete accordance with the usual ARU/RA manner of operation.

I haven't read rugby.co.au aka Pravda RU to see if the Johnson appointment/DOR has been hailed at the 'saviour of Australian rugby.' An epithet normally reserved for ARU/RA howlers such as Super 18 and the Ben Whittaker led HPU.

 

[Quick Hands]

Are there not several former Wallabies on the board as well? Clyne clearly has to go. Castle has time to steer the ship in the right direction but she needs to make sure she has the right people around her. What input has there been from the others on the board?

Just as it's generally accepted that all great/good players don't necessarily make good coaches, I'm somewhat baffled as to why people think that people such as Eales, Waugh and Robinson who were great players would make good board members on the basis of their playing history.

 

[wamberal]

Just as it's generally accepted that all great/good players don't necessarily make good coaches, I'm somewhat baffled as to why people think that people such as Eales, Waugh and Robinson who were great players would make good board members on the basis of their playing history.

Now, let me think about this. I wonder whether BHP has any people on their board with mining experience?


Being a director is not rocket science. You are given papers to read, you meet, you talk about the proposals in the papers, then you vote.


It does help if you know something about the business.