Australian Rugby / RA

[Braveheart81]

I think it is a very pertinent comment that somebody who proved faithless and conspired with a rebel entity to sign a number of other players whilst in a leadership position with the ARU, is not a suitable candidate to now lead the organisation.

Isn't it leadership?

I'm pretty sure the players weren't against the idea. The competition from World Rugby Corporation ultimately pushed up what News Corp paid to secure the rights.

Super League was offering big dollars to a lot of the players (even ones who would have been wholly unsuitable for rugby league).

I can't imagine the outcome would have been better if the captain of the team was telling the players they shouldn't consider professional rugby contracts. The captain is appointed to lead the players, not to act as a narc to make sure the players follow the ARU's bidding at all times.

 

[Derpus]

Given that it's routine to assess presidents and prime ministers on their performance after 100 days, I think it's fair to say you can form an impression of how a sports executive is doing after nearly two years in the role.

Routine doesn't mean correct.

 

[dru]

fair enough. And what have you come up with?

I'll have a go.

The answer has to be that even after 2 years it's hard to evaluate. I'd love to tar her with the same brush as the rest of the RA mob but it clearly isn't logical to do so.

Relationship and leadership wrt the board: It would need inside info to comment. She doesnt seem to suffer the more extreme issues that Pulver was hit with, whether by her influence or just circumstance is hard to know.

Leadership and direction of the professional game: I was going to mark this as so-so. Nothing particularly innovative (ala Pulver and NRC). NRC has trundled rather than been pushed. But no glaring negatives. On a downside an apparent strategy of feint praise as the form of obstruction to Twiggy is not good from my perspective. Let's chalk that up to Clyne.

Leadership and direction to Premier rugby: Again I have seen little obvious initiatives here, but if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, matters with the SRU have not just calmed, but a more proactive stance is being taken by the SRU in things like NRC. She may just be lucky here, but she hasnt done anything to exacerbate the Pulver relation either. QPR has continued to push and the relationship with the Reds seems as strong as ever. Other states dont seem to have any biting public issues with RA right now. So, steady hand at the tiller.

Leadership and direction to the Amateur game I think the grass roots is not getting the attention it deserves. She's working with budget limitations and reality. No obvious initiatives from the perspective of the general fan. Call her performance so-so, again though, not going backwards.

Pathways and age groups: The suggestion is we chalk this up to Pulver? But we only have 2 years to assess. Well done Castle.

Folau saga: depending which side of the polemic you sit on she was either less than poor or excellent under crazy circumstances. Like everything else on this matter there will be no consensus so better left alone in the discussion.

Super Rugby: We need to see the next negotiations, big milestone coming. Though I imagine it has Clyne's fingerprints more than Castle's. Her relationship with NZ bothers me, but I'm mostly on my own here. Super Rugby performance has not yet proven a turn in the down trend, but we have not had to follow Clyne's "room for 3 teams only" graph and spreadsheet. Needs more time to assess.

Cheika: She inherited a one-sided contract and needed to guide quietly to avoiding scaring the horses. She put in place controls to dampen the Cheika excess. RA must shoulder blame with Cheika, but does that include Castle? Test will be going forward and what happens around coaching set up for 2020. I'll give her faint praise on this.



Just my knee jerk response here. I'd love to hear thoughts from people directly involved with the clubs at all levels. Rugby has steadied under Castle's watch at nearly all levels. There are no innovations or initiatives but generally the down trend seems to have flattened.

I don't think she is ever going to be a CEO to be excited about, but there seems to be little reason to call for her head.

 

[I like to watch]

I also think the chance of Folau successfully suing Rugby Australia would be way higher if this had happened. I am not a lawyer but I would think Folau would have had a strong case for constructive dismissal. RA has taken their highest profile player who has had a minor disciplinary issue (the first post and apology) and as a result you've decided that the only way they can continue their employment is by accepting employment conditions that apply to no one else.

if the intention of the clause was to constructively dismiss him, they only needed to offer an amount they knew he wouldn’t accept, or just decide to offer him nothing.
He had no right for an extension completely on his terms, or even an extension on any terms.
No one does.
Inserting standards of behaviour would clearly have reduced Izzies options, had he breached the standards outlined in his contract.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

You all need to remember one compelling factor: RA gets to influence who sits on the NSWRU and QRU boards - RA's funds keep them alive every year FFS and bail them out as needed on crisis 'o'clock - and so these boards have a vested interest in preserving their known mates and friends on the RA board. The iterative closed loop.

In significant part it's this institutionally inbred, mutual backscratching and self-reinforcing system of governance that has kept the low competence, arrogance and 'no one is accountable in truth to anyone' modality alive and underpinning the way our code is run in this country.

The results of this governance MO are there for all to see. The pattern of slow, systemic destruction is undeniable.

So a reminder that governance in rugby is buggered by the boys club

 

[Gnostic]

Isn't it leadership?



I'm pretty sure the players weren't against the idea. The competition from World Rugby Corporation ultimately pushed up what News Corp paid to secure the rights.



Super League was offering big dollars to a lot of the players (even ones who would have been wholly unsuitable for rugby league).



I can't imagine the outcome would have been better if the captain of the team was telling the players they shouldn't consider professional rugby contracts. The captain is appointed to lead the players, not to act as a narc to make sure the players follow the ARU's bidding at all times.

A person of integrity, holding a formal position of leadership for an organisation doesn't in good faith maintain that position and at the same time negotiate to over throw it by stealth with not only a competitor but one that would completely supplant that organisation. If you read the book the negotiations for the World Rugby Corp was underway in 1994, yet he carried the Captaincy on in 1995. Do you think honesty to the ARU and resigning the Captaincy because of "injury" or some other excuse could have been the way to go. Integrity is not something that can bought, once it is lost it is lost. Something far too many people fail to realise.

 

[Joe King]

I wrote to the ARU (now RA) a few years ago with the idea of them putting up banners around the place (e.g. at traffic lights, outside schools, etc.) with something like, 'Play Rugby - Go to the Olympics' written on them to promote the sport.

They put me in touch with the NSWRU. When I contacted them, they put me back in touch with the ARU. When I told the NSWRU that the ARU had already put me in touch with them, they expressed their frustration at the ARU.

 

[Ignoto]

All that aside the need for genuine sports management experience is paramount and this executive and board is fairly homogenous in its qualifications. Gender is not a qualification no matter how much the activists would like to make it one.

My retort was, Flanker was so hell bent on the appointments being done for 'PC' reasons, when there is clearly more merit to their appointment than being a woman. We can debate whether there are too many Fin. Service orientated board members on the board, but that's a seperate argument than the other two were/are running with. On the face of all three being appointed to the board, they have enough merit for a position on any board in this country.

 

[RedsHappy]

My retort was, Flanker was so hell bent on the appointments being done for 'PC' reasons, when there is clearly more merit to their appointment than being a woman. We can debate whether there are too many Fin. Service orientated board members on the board, but that's a seperate argument than the other two were/are running with. On the face of all three being appointed to the board, they have enough merit for a position on any board in this country.

As it's likely I am 'one of the other two', and as you insist on wilful distortion to keep scoring attack points, I will make my final comments on this:

- I did NOT say these NED ARU/RA appointments were solely PC - though I did and do think there was undoubtedly was an element of that​

​

- I DID say that, more importantly, IMO there was no evidence they were of a kind well-tailored to the 'reasonably urgently fix a major set of problems in a declining pro sports code' situation absolutely needed then and now within ARU/RA. The appointments seemed way more about 'prestige and impressive' general resumes well outside the more precise competencies and experiences needed to fix pro rugby in Australia, and I stand by this assessment (and I stated why) and think it is partially well-backed by the still-declining state of RA/pro rugby today in this country and the clearly hapless performance of RA generally​

​

- I DID say these NED persons could potentially be well or better suited to board challenges of a different type presented by those within RA and Australian rugby more generally.​

Finally, and this is an area I work in, your contention that such resumes as you clearly respect would 'have enough merit for any board position in this country' is not well assessed. Truly sound and value-adding Board NED selections must be tailored not to some 'general standard of competence' but rather to the more precise nature of the culture, challenges, skill types, experience types essential to meet the strategic needs of the particular company/entity concerned and such needs vary hugely from entity to entity.

Indeed, NEDs selected in a manner independent of such particular needs often fail in their roles no matter how grand or impressive are their overall historical credentials.

 

[RedsHappy]

Eddie has the cattle, and he apparently has an unlimited budget. Tuialagi is a prime example of the sort of player who would have been pretty handy in our squad, he went to the northern hemisphere for big money.

Eddie does have the advantage of pretty good self-control, and he also seems to be able to put a lot of time into analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. Unlike Chubby, who seems to believe that he can win solely because of his sheer willpower.

You keep saying this, the 'unlimited EJ (Eddie Jones) budget', in an oblique defence of what RA does or does not do re its investment here in national coaching resources.

But do you know this for a fact? Or is it just your own speculation?

 

[Ignoto]

Finally, and this is an area I work in, your contention that such resumes as you clearly respect would 'have enough merit for any board position in this country' is not well assessed. Truly sound and value-adding Board NED selections must be tailored not to some 'general standard of competence' but rather to the more precise nature of the culture, challenges, skill types, experience types essential to meet the strategic needs of the particular company/entity concerned and such needs vary hugely from entity to entity.

You can tout that I'm wrong as much as you want and tell us that this is your specialty area, but you lose all credibility with these types of statements:

These were principally Pulveresque appointments and the criteria were clear: PC gender balance, ‘prestige backgrounds’, ‘impressive resumes’. Lots of ARU board feel-good-about-ourselves-we-are-modern-types-and-our-virtue-is-duly-signalled.

Without knowing who the other candidates are, how can you say with a straight face any of the above. In particular, who are these other 'value-adding' and 'tailored' people who put their hand up and were knocked back? If you have any evidence to illustrate that any of these appointments support your PC balancing claims OR even who with a better resume that applied for the board position and was knocked back, then pony it up.

 

[RedsHappy]

You can tout that I'm wrong as much as you want and tell us that this is your specialty area, but you lose all credibility with these types of statements:

Without knowing who the other candidates are, how can you say with a straight face any of the above. In particular, who are these other 'value-adding' and 'tailored' people who put their hand up and were knocked back? If you have any evidence to illustrate that any of these appointments support your PC balancing claims OR even who with a better resume that applied for the board position and was knocked back, then pony it up.

(Promising this will be my last......):

You are distorting again, and your goal posts in this debate are highly mobile, and you're now adding patronising comments to try and bolster your arguments.

That is wholly irrelevant to this particular discussion, who the other theoretical NED candidates are or were. We are talking about the particular candidates chosen and so declared in public - one must assume these were surely not the only candidates available from any source - and my assessment (you beg to differ) is based solely upon these. As I have said, in my opinion, these are neither optimal nor the right type of candidates for ARU/RA NED positions, you think they are or were very good, apt and well-qualified for the ARU/RA needs.

Which 'other candidates' may have been does not matter (to this debate) - those other candidates may have been better qualified in some way or may have been outside the brief for such by the then ARU and a different brief would likely - as is normal - have resulted in quite different candidates. (There are certainly many parties within the general rugby sphere whom IIRC have said they would like to join the RA board or whom have suggested parties to do so.)

We just have radically different perspectives on this subject, so best to leave it as 'agree to disagree'.

 

[RugbyReg]

Former RA Board Member, Geoff Stooke, has written to the Chairs and CEOs of each of the members of Australian Rugby, plus the CEO of GRR. Focus is, unsurprisingly, the need for change.

He starts with the Wallaby coaching structure. Nothing significant here - independent review, don't rush the decision etc.

His main focus is the constitution which is the tool for change.

He's supportive of the recent change to amend voting rights as below:

Prior to the changes, the voting rights were:
- NSWRU: 5
- QRU: 3
- ACTRU: 1
- WARU: 1
- SARU: 1
- VRU: 1
- NTRU: 1
- TRU: 1

This was a total of fourteen, with the NSWRU holding the voting power to prevent any constitutional change.


The recommended changes were approved and are:
- Each State or Territory Union with 50,000 or less participants (6): 1
- Each State or Territory Union with more than 50,000 participants (2): 2
- Each Super Rugby Licensee (4): 1
- Rugby Players Association: 1

This is a total of fifteen

His concern is more around the appointment of directors.

Basically there is a nomination committee established to source, consider and nominate Directors. The nomination committee is:

- the Chair (who is the Chair of RA)
- one member elected by Directors
- two persons elected by Voting Members

There have been numerous vacancies in this committee from about late 2017 until easter this year.

Various Director appointments were made when the Nominations Committee had only two or three members- this included the election of two Directors in April 2019. The Nominations Committee had only two members when the two Director nominations were submitted by the Nominations Committee to the Annual General Meeting in April 2019- one of the two members of the Nominations Committee at that time was the Chair of the Rugby Australia Board.

Significantly, Voting Members are not given a choice of Directors and must support or not support the nominations, without any information on possible alternatives.

Further this nomination committee is also apparently responsible for Board and Board Member performance. So Clyne is leading the review of himself. Sometimes with only 1 or 2 others on the nomination committee.

Stooke suggests axing the nomination committee:

Guidelines could be developed to encourage diversity in areas such as gender, ethnicity and geographical distribution. Whilst the current Board demonstrates gender diversity, it does little else in the area of diversity. Seven Directors from Sydney and two from Brisbane, hardly suggests geographical diversity or appropriate representation on a Board meant to represent a national sporting body

He concludes with a basic call to action that the members need to stand up to RA, call a Special General Meeting and take back the power.

Unfortunately, I don't think that sits with Sport Australia's best governance guidelines, which is fixed to funding, but I'd like to see the members take more of a role.

 

[Ignoto]

As I have said, in my opinion, these are neither optimal nor the right type of candidates for ARU/RA NED positions, you think they are or were very good, apt and well-qualified for the ARU/RA needs.

Which 'other candidates' may have been does not matter (to this debate)

No it does RedsHappy. You and others criticized the female appointments as being PC driven, who then in turn appointed Castle because she was a fellow women. When everything we've been told publicly is, it was Castle vs Kearns for the CEO back in the day.

You and others complained that their appointments were/are the wrong kind of appointments. Which is a valid complaint and one I won't argue. However, where I draw the line is completely undermining their other appointments in life and bringing their gender into the debate (that's where this all started).

Now, the other candidates who may have applied (or not) does matter. If a vacancy needed to be filled and your ideal candidates didn't apply, but other 'non ideal' candidates did, then who's to blame for a 'non sporting administrator' being appointed?

You mentioned "(There are certainly many parties within the general rugby sphere whom IIRC have said they would like to join the RA board or whom have suggested parties to do so.)"

Well, did they or did they not put an application in? This world is full of too much hot air and I do not care for sideline critics. There's a bullshit quote that goes around of "Be the change you want to see in the world". So these people should be puckering up.

Now, all my above comments are mute and invalid if worthy candidates did apply and were knocked back. But, from the information I've read, nothing is suggesting otherwise.

 

[Dctarget]

You keep saying this, the 'unlimited EJ (Eddie Jones) budget', in an oblique defence of what RA does or does not do re its investment here in national coaching resources.

But do you know this for a fact? Or is it just your own speculation?

Not sure about unlimited, but they did manage to pay $200,000 to the Stormers to break EJ (Eddie Jones)'s contract when signing him. That's purely for breaking the contract and nothing else.

 

[cyclopath]

You keep saying this, the 'unlimited EJ (Eddie Jones) budget', in an oblique defence of what RA does or does not do re its investment here in national coaching resources.

But do you know this for a fact? Or is it just your own speculation?

Maybe not unlimited, but perhaps just a couple more storeys up to the ceiling compared to RA.

The budget to get / support Eddie.

England coach Eddie Jones blows £3million Rugby World Cup budget and sends ex-captain Will Carling to raise further £250,000

Eddie Jones has been ordered to moderate his spending in the build-up to the World Cup after the RFU announced losses yesterday of £30.9 million.


England's RFU to spend $233 million in bid to win 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan

 

[Tex]

It'd be like going from a chauffeured Bentley to a holden maloo

 

[cyclopath]

It'd be like going from a chauffeured Bentley to a holden maloo

Leyland P76 more like.

 

[Tex]

'Strap in you meme lovin fucks, we're taking this band all the way to Paris!'

 

[Gnostic]

Leyland P76 more like.

Have you seen what a P76 is worth now days? The kicker would be ours isn't in good nick.