stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
Would it be a better sign if McLean said she has "the half-hearted support of the board"? Or if he refused to comment?
What nonsense.
True, she's not a coach.
Would it be a better sign if McLean said she has "the half-hearted support of the board"? Or if he refused to comment?
What nonsense.
True, but it’s Fairfax saying it this time, not News.Ive yet to see a single forum poster, social media mug or journo give a valid reason why she deserves it - outside of Folau.
Just wild unqualified statements about how bad she's been.
Then if you read the SMH is says she hasn’t received a cent and is not expecting any in the current climate. Pulver also received a $500k bonus in the final year of his contract, which Castle is in the same year.The Australian reports that: Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle is due to receive a $114,000 bonus despite the organisation recording a $9.4 million loss last year.
The Australian reports that: Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle is due to receive a $114,000 bonus despite the organisation recording a $9.4 million loss last year.
I for one would not like to see RA "cede control" to anybody : like them or loathe them, RA is our sport's governing body, and they represent all of us. And of course they are recognised as such by WR (World Rugby).
They represent most of us!
My opinion only but i think Raelene has been doing a rather good job in the shitty circumstances she was handed to her by Bill and that useless piece of work Clyne. When you think about she inherited Clyne, Cheika, Old boys network in her ear and probably one of the most political infighting sport in Australia.
Maybe Bill Pulver not giving the clubs any money famously saying ‘because they would piss it up against the wall’ is the best thing he ever did!
I for one would not like to see RA "cede control" to anybody : like them or loathe them, RA is our sport's governing body, and they represent all of us. And of course they are recognised as such by WR (World Rugby).
I agree. Super Rugby, or any future competition, would probably benefit a lot from having a management team solely interested in the success of that particular competition. The committee of self interested national unions aren't suited to running anything. They just don't run it professionally.I wouldn't welcome them completely ceding control. More just control over the professional arm beyond that of the Wallabies. I think RA main responsibilities should be the national game and the community game. Participation and the like. They should have a seat on any organisation that emerged to run the pro game but not be the primary drivers of it.
One thing about Pulver, in contrast with O'Neill, was the donation of half his exit year bonus (probably should have handed over the rest to the rugby foundation as well, but that's a separate punch up). But to reflect on that: What was the basis of such a move - possibly benefiting the non-pro game outside the reach of RUPA?The possibility of RA going into receivership is an interesting one, I don't imagine the RUPA posturing would look all that brilliant if that happened!