Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'm actually interested to see what burning questions FP had on his mind.
But at the same time: does anyone here want a return to Greg Growden attack dog and/or dickhead journalism? Look at the state of the game.
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
I'm actually interested to see what burning questions FP had on his mind.
But at the same time: does anyone here want a return to Greg Growden attack dog and/or dickhead journalism? Look at the state of the game.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
It would be fascinating to see who blinked on the "free speech" part in agreeing to such interviews.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Whilst the weight of readership opinion appears to run against my point of view, I'm still keen for a root-and-branch review of Australian rugby.
Just analysing the elite level is not going to be of any use if the structure holding up the Wallabies is not investigated. That means grassroots rugby and the current administrators must be included in a re-start of our current parlous situation.
The Folau imbroglio may have had a happier ending - we won't know unless a transparent analysis is put before us mug punters. Soft interviews from Fitzy don't fit that criteria.
That's my rationale for a whole-of-sport review and an opportunity to sweep out the current board (which includes the CEO). If they are doing such a great job, they'd win their positions back.
Rugby in Australia is swimming in treacle and only looking at the Wallabies won't fix anything fundamental.
Our woeful results and declining followership demand a major intervention.
Finsbury Girl
Trevor Allan (34)
A soft puff PR piece indeed.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
I’m sure there would be plenty of NRL clubs or the NRL itself with offers on table for Raylene Castle should anything not work out at the ARU.
The reference from the Bulldogs would be a ticket to any role in the NRL.
The reference from the Bulldogs would be a ticket to any role in the NRL.
What could you have done better in the Folou saga?
What steps have you taken within the RUPA players agreement clarify this going forward
You have the policy of Rugby being an inclusive sport, does that inclusiveness include religiously conservative Christians and Muslims? Or are they now excluded if they extol their beliefs?
You have a large conservative Christian Islander player base, a number have already walked away from Super Rugby teams, what comfort can you give them that they can live their religious lives while being professional rugby players
It is now a just a don't ask, don't tell approach?
How much of the policy is driven by your current sponsors needs.
If a new sponsor was offering triple the amount, would you change your policy to meet their needs
What is your policy on non transitioned Trans players playing Women's rugby?
How are you working to get the various states to commit to a consistent style of a play and working together
How are you working to ensure warehousing of players is limited
You and the previous coach did not have a good relationship, what could you do in the future to ensure a good relationship with the new coach going forward
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'm going to split that into 2 sections
PART THE FIRST: FOLAU
(with the massive risk of digging up this mealy corpse to dance around it, yet again)
EDIT: Just had a thought about the Folau thing - with court action pending, maybe those questions were off limits?
Loading the question with "better" is a sign of intent.
A key comment she made in the article along the lines of: if we did NOT re-sign him due to the first round of Instagram controversy, then we'd have got just as much criticism. Essentially he put RA in a no-win situation in the second round, and has shown no signs he'd do anything different.
I'd be keen to hear your opinion on what they could have done better, though. Enlighten us.
It was covered via sources there was no specific clause in his contract and he refused to enter into anything of the sort. Castle and RA took him at his word - honesty being a very important thing to the religious, I am led to believe. Employment law experts have pointed out that the broader inclusion policies of RA cover the situation in any case.
Fact: you can't please everyone. If someone wants to be a professional rugby player in the public eye AND hold ultra-conservative views about homosexuality in the public eye, that won't work for their employer.
If they hold those beliefs and keep them within their religion - during their own times of worship and gathering away from rugby - then I don't see a problem. Separate those parts of your life that cause conflict. People do it every day.
None of this should matter to the deeply religious, of course, because their faith is what sustains them, not their multi-million dollar tax-free property portfolios, accumulated through the game they now choose to thumb their nose at.
Who, specifically? I don't follow the player lists that much so it would be interesting to see the sample size.
See point above wrt holding dichotomous positions.
Tying off this part specifically: if I was an excellent employee at my place of work, and deeply religious, how long do you think I'd last if I started trying to "counsel" gay/trans/whatever people into seeing the error of their ways?
(The funniest part about the entire Christian/gay thing is the bible didn't actually mention homosexuality as a sin until some English translations in the 40s; pederasty was the actual problem. But like all good hater conservative ideas, once it got traction, it became yet another control mechanism.)
PART THE FIRST: FOLAU
(with the massive risk of digging up this mealy corpse to dance around it, yet again)
EDIT: Just had a thought about the Folau thing - with court action pending, maybe those questions were off limits?
Loading the question with "better" is a sign of intent.
A key comment she made in the article along the lines of: if we did NOT re-sign him due to the first round of Instagram controversy, then we'd have got just as much criticism. Essentially he put RA in a no-win situation in the second round, and has shown no signs he'd do anything different.
I'd be keen to hear your opinion on what they could have done better, though. Enlighten us.
It was covered via sources there was no specific clause in his contract and he refused to enter into anything of the sort. Castle and RA took him at his word - honesty being a very important thing to the religious, I am led to believe. Employment law experts have pointed out that the broader inclusion policies of RA cover the situation in any case.
Fact: you can't please everyone. If someone wants to be a professional rugby player in the public eye AND hold ultra-conservative views about homosexuality in the public eye, that won't work for their employer.
If they hold those beliefs and keep them within their religion - during their own times of worship and gathering away from rugby - then I don't see a problem. Separate those parts of your life that cause conflict. People do it every day.
None of this should matter to the deeply religious, of course, because their faith is what sustains them, not their multi-million dollar tax-free property portfolios, accumulated through the game they now choose to thumb their nose at.
Who, specifically? I don't follow the player lists that much so it would be interesting to see the sample size.
See point above wrt holding dichotomous positions.
Tying off this part specifically: if I was an excellent employee at my place of work, and deeply religious, how long do you think I'd last if I started trying to "counsel" gay/trans/whatever people into seeing the error of their ways?
(The funniest part about the entire Christian/gay thing is the bible didn't actually mention homosexuality as a sin until some English translations in the 40s; pederasty was the actual problem. But like all good hater conservative ideas, once it got traction, it became yet another control mechanism.)
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
PART THE SECOND: Everything Else
Well, there's a reason those kinds of questions aren't asked: they're asinine.
Only certain companies are going to have the kind of money RA would negotiate for sponsorship, and in all likelihood they've established modern, workable policies for inclusion and not being a dick to others.
Triple the money would be nice, but won't happen if the 2 organisations don't have aligned values.
That is a good question - with the growth of women's rugby, and I imagine they're only just starting to think about it, given it is happening in the UK women's comp.
The policy for now is probably "case by case basis" because there is no policy for something that is such a tiny part of the game, statistically speaking.
Good questions, though I'd put that more in the Scott Johnson box if he's going to be responsible for, well, anything at all.
We definitely need a more aligned structural approach to ensure we have the best players on the field as often as possible. I'm against warehousing talent in certain locations, and that includes Premier Rugby.
At the same time, we can't have everyone playing exactly the same style because rugby is about variety. Certainly at pro level we need to understand and execute the basics of winning better, but with a schools comp that is a shemozzle, we're going to need half a generation to get it right.
Also a good question - though loaded with finger pointing, so probably could be asked another way.
I think in the case where she gets a say in hiring the coach, the relationship has a greater chance of working. Sometimes people in corporate life don't get on. Pulver was Mr Rollover and completely out of his depth, so he was a great fit for Cheika.
Well, there's a reason those kinds of questions aren't asked: they're asinine.
Only certain companies are going to have the kind of money RA would negotiate for sponsorship, and in all likelihood they've established modern, workable policies for inclusion and not being a dick to others.
Triple the money would be nice, but won't happen if the 2 organisations don't have aligned values.
That is a good question - with the growth of women's rugby, and I imagine they're only just starting to think about it, given it is happening in the UK women's comp.
The policy for now is probably "case by case basis" because there is no policy for something that is such a tiny part of the game, statistically speaking.
Good questions, though I'd put that more in the Scott Johnson box if he's going to be responsible for, well, anything at all.
We definitely need a more aligned structural approach to ensure we have the best players on the field as often as possible. I'm against warehousing talent in certain locations, and that includes Premier Rugby.
At the same time, we can't have everyone playing exactly the same style because rugby is about variety. Certainly at pro level we need to understand and execute the basics of winning better, but with a schools comp that is a shemozzle, we're going to need half a generation to get it right.
Also a good question - though loaded with finger pointing, so probably could be asked another way.
I think in the case where she gets a say in hiring the coach, the relationship has a greater chance of working. Sometimes people in corporate life don't get on. Pulver was Mr Rollover and completely out of his depth, so he was a great fit for Cheika.
After every f*ck up a decent CEO should have some self reflection on what they could have done better
We have a RUPA agreement that doesn't allow negative clauses from what I understand, so she was hamstrung in how clear she could have been.
I also write contracts all day, you don't sign multi million dollar deals with key employees and lead sticking points to hand shakes. He was at fault, but so were the contract negotiations. But we have no acceptance of that. We will see after the court case if there is change
a couple of the Tahs squad left, the Newcastle based hooker was one of them
We had one of those, a jehovah witness, and she wasn't an excellent employee but our lawyers said we couldn't sack her for it. We has to find another reason
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
quoting the bible, trying to "save" people
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Were those bible passages telling a minority they’re wrong for being born that way and going to hell for it?
All kinds of fun stuff, at work, not on a social media account, not surreptitiously videoed performing a sermon.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Everyone to their own, I don’t consider the public condemnation and ostracising of minorities as “fun stuff”.
You’re Mormon would have no place in my workplace
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
She must have been wasting a lot of her own and her workmates' time, I assume. Is this not a cause for dismissal?
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
Written by someone who has never held a managing position in Australia.
I don't care if you now claim you have - you clearly haven't by the utter shit you just wrote right there.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
I believe John Folau was another. Probably understandable, however.