Australian Rugby / RA

[Braveheart81]

The cynic in me wonders whether they've now seen that Rugby Australia is a stronger chance of hosting the 2027 RWC so now is the time to get embedded so they can all feather their nests when there are vast sums of money flowing around in a few years time.

 

[Derpus]

The cynic in me wonders whether they've now seen that Rugby Australia is a stronger chance of hosting the 2027 RWC so now is the time to get embedded so they can all feather their nests when there are vast sums of money flowing around in a few years time.

Just more snouts in the queue.

 

[formerflanker]

Kenny, I have been a volunteers at clubs for quite a few years (and sometimes a bit higher), and in many positions whether coaching, managing ,administration etc, both here and in NZ. I will say RA (or NZRU) never asked me my opinion, neither really did I expect them to, if I ever believed strongly enough about something I took it to club committee (or JAB,or provincial rugby union etc) and expressed my concerns and if the club or whatever agreed it would be taken up to next level. I truly think this is correct way for information/views to be forwarded to RA etc.

Well that traditional pathway to decision making is at stark contrast to the appointment of some "rugby fans" to the Board of the ARU and RA.
Specifically, Liz Broderick, Ann Sherry and Pip Marlow made their names elsewhere and then went straight to the top of Australian rugby administration.
As Liz said;
“When I looked at my involvement and particularly at the governance level it was about looking at a sport that was truly global and I think Rugby is,” she said.
“Also a sport that has the power to create change in the nation and that’s really what attracted me to Rugby.” (Rugby.com.au, 14/2/16)

Not a lot of grassroots focus there.

 

[Double Agent]

You have to admire Simon Poidevin's absolute chutzpah to co-sign a letter asking for the current RA management and board to resign due to '...poor administration and leadership...' considering his recent ban by ASIC. Glasshouses etc.

 

[PhilClinton]

What everyone's views on Moore's inclusion in this? He's only been removed from the Wallabies playing group for around 3 years which is significantly shorter than any of the other captains who have signed. I didn't have him as part of the larger anti-RA conspiracy group, his interview in the local rag today indicates he has some real problems with the board, but maybe because he was left off it?

 

[formerflanker]

FYI that is what pretty much all boards do. They have a nominations committee which are generally directors who aren't standing for re-election.

Yet shareholders can see a legitimate way of voting in their directors of choice.
Rugby fans cannot see a way of being involved in selecting the Board of RA.

 

[Braveheart81]

What everyone's views on Moore's inclusion in this? He's only been removed from the Wallabies playing group for around 3 years which is significantly shorter than any of the other captains who have signed. I didn't have him as part of the larger anti-RA conspiracy group, his interview in the local rag today indicates he has some real problems with the board, but maybe because he was left off it?

Outsourcing the interview process of prospective board members is good practice. It is designed to prevent the sort of cronyism that has been rife. Would it really be a good sign of the culture if you got called up by your mate to do the interview?

I'm not surprised Moore took issue with this, but in my view, he's completely wrong. His 15 seasons of being employed by the organisation is essentially his CV, not what should have granted him a cushy interview completed by a mate.

 

[formerflanker]

Good on those 11 former captains for going public with their disquiet.
To rise to the pinnacle of rugby in Australia takes a lot of serious personal effort and ability; it would be tempting to have a quiet life afterwards.
They have put their names out there for analysis knowing much will be harsh, yet did so anyway.
Let's see what they bring to the table.
You don't just write off the unanimous view of 11 greats of the game.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I don't think that anyone really expects that every registered participant would be asked by RA to provide an opinion on every decision. But, clubs need to be respected and listened to by RA - not dismissed as an annoyance because they won't go along with the latest brilliant scheme produced by RA.

The "Clubs" is a huge beast and dont seem to have any united voice (unlike the players)..

Not really sure what collective view of the clubs is about the administration.

But at least the SRU clubs (and I knowledge far removed from the subbies and country clubs) seem to be supportive of the current administration and were unanimous in support of the whole of rugby approach with the sale of the media rights.

 

[Quick Hands]

FYI that is what pretty much all boards do. They have a nominations committee which are generally directors who aren't standing for re-election.

Which might be perfectly appropriate for BHP, Westpac and large companies whose focus is on profit. I don't think it's the best model to run a sport though as sports also have community level activities which cost money to run. In a large company they would either sell that part of the business off or close it down. (Like banks do with local branches).

Trying to move the corporate model into the sporting world doesn't seem to be working. The leaguies are having similar problems.

 

[Quick Hands]

But at least the SRU clubs (and I knowledge far removed from the subbies and country clubs) seem to be supportive of the current administration and were unanimous in support of the whole of rugby approach with the sale of the media rights.

Perhaps misplaced, noting that there is no media rights deal to be part of.

 

[Braveheart81]

Which might be perfectly appropriate for BHP, Westpac and large companies whose focus is on profit. I don't think it's the best model to run a sport though as sports also have community level activities which cost money to run. In a large company they would either sell that part of the business off or close it down. (Like banks do with local branches).

Trying to move the corporate model into the sporting world doesn't seem to be working. The leaguies are having similar problems.

RA's perennial problem is that there isn't enough money to go around. I'm unsure how shifting focus away from what generates revenue would help provide more funding at the community level.

Your point would make sense if RA was achieving a surplus of millions of dollars every year and doing nothing with it.

 

[wamberal]

You don't just write off the unanimous view of 11 greats of the game.

There is a huge gap between writing them off, on the one hand, and swallowing their somewhat anodyne opinions, on the other.


Having been a (former) great of the game gets people's attention. That's all. They are not Princes of the game. Their opinion, frankly, is worth as much as yours. Or mine. In fact, I would go further and say that those of us who have not been part of the inner circle (and all these chaps have been, and to a very large extent still are), might actually have better insights. Some of us have stronger CVs than most of these fellows, when it comes to issues such as strategy development, general management, and even sports management.

 

[Quick Hands]

Unfortunately it’s not even complaining about your wife to your MIL.

I was never a fan of the Castle appointment.
but, if these guys think she is so poor that it requires her immediate dismissal, surely they would have a dozen examples of her incompetence that they could have listed in their letter.


the problem is the Board is responsible to the Board,and no one else.


if these guys want a revolution, I’ve got a pitchfork at the ready.
but before I could possibly support these guys, they need to at least identify what is wrong,and how they will address it.

its all a bit animal farm to me.
they say they are different, but I’m having trouble identifying how.

Hopefully, they'll be putting more detailed views to Paul McLean when they meet.

Identifying what's wrong is the relatively easy part, solutions will be more problematic.

It's entirely probable that saving the full-time professional version of the game here won't be possible. A domestic semi-pro competition is the long game solution as at least RA would then have a greater level of control of our destiny. It remains the only option to grow the game out of the wreckage. We were small and didn't have universal appeal before the last decade or more of the death spiral, but at least we had some presence in the mainstream non-rugby media. Now we've become almost invisible, unless there's a crisis. If we think back over the past few years, when has rugby made headlines in Australia - current crisis, Folau debacle, Cheika coaching dramas, Beale/Link incident. The list goes on.

Trans-Tasman seems to be the default position of many, but this fails to take into account the oft stated position to play SA teams at provincial and national level on a regular basis. As for the current SANZAAR model of a pan-continental league, I think almost everyone from the Deputy Chairman of WR (World Rugby) down sees it as financially unsustainable.

We've already seen that the top ranking players have a clause in the pay deal allowing them to play overseas for extra $$. I suspect that this will become the new normal for most of our top pick Wallabies, and only the youngsters and the journeymen will play professional rugby here. The Kiwis can expect something similar IMO.

 

[Quick Hands]

"A number of highly experienced rugby and business leaders are standing by to mentor and to lead".


Well, nothing is stopping them. Plenty of district clubs need some "mentoring and leadership". Or is that not glamorous enough for them?

Sadly fewer and fewer want to graft away at the bottom and work their way up.

 

[Quick Hands]

RA's perennial problem is that there isn't enough money to go around. I'm unsure how shifting focus away from what generates revenue would help provide more funding at the community level.

Your point would make sense if RA was achieving a surplus of millions of dollars every year and doing nothing with it.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm talking about how the corporate model isn't suited to the demands of sport with a community element. Nothing to do with shifting focus away from revenue generation.

 

[Quick Hands]

Having been a (former) great of the game gets people's attention. That's all. They are not Princes of the game. Their opinion, frankly, is worth as much as yours. Or mine. In fact, I would go further and say that those of us who have not been part of the inner circle (and all these chaps have been, and to a very large extent still are, might actually have better insights. Some of us have stronger CVs than most of these fellows, when it comes to issues such as strategy development, general management, and even sports management.

Your not suggesting that those of us outside the ruling elite might have better insights are you?

Welcome to the revolution Wamberal. I never thought we'd see you with the proletariat.

 

[Set piece magic]

Can I make the point that while I have backed the policy of the administration of taking the games rights to the market, and I have personally hated newscorps obvious campaign against it, Castle's inability to manage the politics of this has been weak and shows why she potentially isn't up to the job.

The administration had all the cards to play to put the pressure back on newscorp at any time.

They could have immediately backgrounded SMH/Nine journalists, ABC journalists or anyone who is not from newscorp at any time. They could have made the narrative all about newscorp and its attack on rugby for commercial reasons. They could have arranged for former captain Eales to come out and say it's a disgrace that a commercial entity like Newscorp is literally tearing up the cultural fabric of Australia for commercial gain.

Instead, for some reason they sat down and allowed themselves to be continuously attacked. There was the odd explanation piece but largely, the easily createable narrative RE newscorp has been confined to circles like this forum.

If Castle herself didn't want to be seen as a fighter in the fray, she could have easily deployed one of her lieutenants to hit back, or brief journalists without going on the record.

Now as a result of their inaction the Kearns cabal has gained ground and convinced some politically naive former Wallabies captains that a coup is the right way to go.

The administration has the right policy in mind (an open rights contest), but no idea how to play the hand politically, this has at the very least made the perception they are weak and allowed the Kearns operation to go wild.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm talking about how the corporate model isn't suited to the demands of sport with a community element. Nothing to do with shifting focus away from revenue generation.

Are you suggesting that an organisation with revenues of $120m can be run in the same way as a small community club?

The size of the entity is the driving factor behind how RA has to be run.

 

[Rebels3]

Can I make the point that while I have backed the policy of the administration of taking the games rights to the market, and I have personally hated newscorps obvious campaign against it, Castle's inability to manage the politics of this has been weak and shows why she potentially isn't up to the job.

The administration had all the cards to play to put the pressure back on newscorp at any time.

They could have immediately backgrounded SMH/Nine journalists, ABC journalists or anyone who is not from newscorp at any time. They could have made the narrative all about newscorp and its attack on rugby for commercial reasons. They could have arranged for former captain Eales to come out and say it's a disgrace that a commercial entity like Newscorp is literally tearing up the cultural fabric of Australia for commercial gain.

Instead, for some reason they sat down and allowed themselves to be continuously attacked. There was the odd explanation piece but largely, the easily createable narrative RE newscorp has been confined to circles like this forum.

If Castle herself didn't want to be seen as a fighter in the fray, she could have easily deployed one of her lieutenants to hit back, or brief journalists without going on the record.

Now as a result of their inaction the Kearns cabal has gained ground and convinced some politically naive former Wallabies captains that a coup is the right way to go.

The administration has the right policy in mind (an open rights contest), but no idea how to play the hand politically, this has at the very least made the perception they are weak and allowed the Kearns operation to go wild.

You are forgetting that they need Foxtel this year still. Currently they aren’t receiving a cent from them. When the season can get back up and running they will need some sort of relationship to recoup some of that money until years end. There is also the possibility they need them for the next broadcast deal. They are between a rock and a hard place.