Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
"At least the fucken fuel's cheap and I don't have to deal with that tool from Play School, with the feral gronk and his ginsu boomerang."Probably still making his way from Perth to NSFW HQ to protest the Force getting cut.
"Fucken GPS schools GPS. This doesn't look anything like Darwin."
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Poor old Link was not very resilient. Chubby was brittle, if I had to choose an adjective.
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
he didn't fuck around at the Chiefs. Didn't matter what your name was. If you didn't perform for a few games he'd show you to the pine and give the next bloke in line a look.
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
WOAH, WOAH, WOAH, hold your horses, you can't just wade in and review the latest review plan so abruptly. Need to send your review of the latest upcoming review upstairs for review first.
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
It's like JFK said, " the only thing we have to review, is the review itself."
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Points 3 and 2 should be linked but they are not and haven't been for some time. By that I mean the "grassroots you speak of are not watching or paying to attend the games that these "elite" business people are putting on. Hence they are not a business, they are a socialist enterprise existing off the shareholders continually tipping in their fees etc.
I always thought the guy running the cult looked more like he ought to be on Play School.
And, this kid.
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Gnostic, you are exactly correct, which is why I said this is what had to be accepted in a plan, not what is currently happening.
I mean, theoretically it wouldn't matter whether it was the grassroots (the shareholders as I referred to them) who were watching the game or someone else, just as long as there was enough of them to produce a profit to pay a dividend to the shareholders ie provide funding for the grassroots.
The reality, of course, is that the people already involved in rugby are the obvious market, and any plan has to entice them to come and support the professional product. To be truly successful, however, I think they have to attract a larger audience then just the rugby faithful. And this, of course can be done. There are thousands of people who follow AFL who don't, and haven't, played the game nor are they involved in a local club.
I mean, theoretically it wouldn't matter whether it was the grassroots (the shareholders as I referred to them) who were watching the game or someone else, just as long as there was enough of them to produce a profit to pay a dividend to the shareholders ie provide funding for the grassroots.
The reality, of course, is that the people already involved in rugby are the obvious market, and any plan has to entice them to come and support the professional product. To be truly successful, however, I think they have to attract a larger audience then just the rugby faithful. And this, of course can be done. There are thousands of people who follow AFL who don't, and haven't, played the game nor are they involved in a local club.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Unfortunately, they can't even attract the rugby faithful anymore. The rump who follow super rugby are the hard core rusted on. A good portion of those who still watch the Wallabies do so more out of habit or patriotic obligation than unbridled enthusiasm at what's on offer.
Professional sport of any code cannot succeed in Australia without buy in from the community level. The administrators have spent the best part of the past 20 years treating the community game as an annoyance to be tolerated rather than a necessary partner to success and the results on and off the field speak for themselves. It's not a coincidence that the best run, most popular, most resilient and wealthiest sport in Australia is the AFL. The most successful clubs such as Richmond and Collingwood have around 100,000 paid up members and every one of those members get a vote for the club committee and feel like they are part of the organisation - because they are. You only have to read this thread to see the fear that some rugby people have about giving ordinary people any say in how the game is run.
EDIT - all those AFL clubs are multi-million dollar businesses, just like professional rugby and yet they can be successfully run with input from ordinary people, with ordinary common sense who just want their team and their game to be successful.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
100% correct Gnostic.
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Again, QH, you are right. We all know the problem.
However, unless someone can solve this problem, we are destined for a long, slow decent into irrelevance. If we can't develop a successful professional game at the top, however, so will the grassroots shrink, and we finish up something like, say archery, undoubtedly a great sport for those involved, but with very few participants and zero international profile.
The important thing is to create a game people enjoy watching, with teams that they become attached to, developing the tribalism that AFL generates, and that is easy to follow, with FTA television, plenty of column inches in the papers, specialist tv shows and magazines etc. Then you develop heroes and personalities, which attract kids to play the game and adults to follow it, and the growth becomes self-fulfilling.
I know this seems pie-in-the-sky, but this has to be the long term goal of any plan. And I haven't seen any of that in a letter from ten past captains simply wanting the heads of the current administration.
However, unless someone can solve this problem, we are destined for a long, slow decent into irrelevance. If we can't develop a successful professional game at the top, however, so will the grassroots shrink, and we finish up something like, say archery, undoubtedly a great sport for those involved, but with very few participants and zero international profile.
The important thing is to create a game people enjoy watching, with teams that they become attached to, developing the tribalism that AFL generates, and that is easy to follow, with FTA television, plenty of column inches in the papers, specialist tv shows and magazines etc. Then you develop heroes and personalities, which attract kids to play the game and adults to follow it, and the growth becomes self-fulfilling.
I know this seems pie-in-the-sky, but this has to be the long term goal of any plan. And I haven't seen any of that in a letter from ten past captains simply wanting the heads of the current administration.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
Interesting interview by Grant Samuels on the quality of Directors in corporate Australia.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...ams-australian-directors-20190326-p517tf.html
Particularly critical of some Directors who are gender equality advocates and there is nothing wrong with that in advocating for equality. It just doesn’t mean (as a gender equality advocate) that you have the skill set appropriate to serve on a Board In this case Rugby Australia and by doing so you actually set back the cause of gender equality.
Unfortunately I think Rugby Australia has fallen into this trap with its Board composition coming on top of a conga line of ineffective ex players (male) taking a cushy Board role.
If you are a Director of an ASX listed company you have to publish the skill set you bring to the Board every Annual Report. Rugby Australia as a professional game should seriously look at this with the Board clean out.
Sorry being an ex player, gender equality advocate, real estate agent in Paul Maclean, orthopaedic surgeon in Brett Robinson, etc means you contribute sweet nothing to Rugby Australia.
Where is the Broadcast media expert on the Board over last couple of years and having a qualified lawyer may have been helpful in the whole Folau drama.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...ams-australian-directors-20190326-p517tf.html
Particularly critical of some Directors who are gender equality advocates and there is nothing wrong with that in advocating for equality. It just doesn’t mean (as a gender equality advocate) that you have the skill set appropriate to serve on a Board In this case Rugby Australia and by doing so you actually set back the cause of gender equality.
Unfortunately I think Rugby Australia has fallen into this trap with its Board composition coming on top of a conga line of ineffective ex players (male) taking a cushy Board role.
If you are a Director of an ASX listed company you have to publish the skill set you bring to the Board every Annual Report. Rugby Australia as a professional game should seriously look at this with the Board clean out.
Sorry being an ex player, gender equality advocate, real estate agent in Paul Maclean, orthopaedic surgeon in Brett Robinson, etc means you contribute sweet nothing to Rugby Australia.
Where is the Broadcast media expert on the Board over last couple of years and having a qualified lawyer may have been helpful in the whole Folau drama.
Scooter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I wouldn't touch Gallop with a ten foot pole. Remember when he was at the NRL he was effectively a News Ltd mouthpiece (remember that the NRL was owned by News Ltd then). So if he was appointed the TV deal with Fox would definitely get done.
(FYI, I am a Storm member as well as a Rebels member). The Storm clearly deserved penalties for salary cap breaches but Gallop announced the penalties without board approval and prior to an investigation. Surely that isn't the process that should be followed.
Gallop didn't visit Melbourne to meet with staff or players during 2010 to discuss staff or players welfare or why he imposed the penalties. His next visit to Melbourne was in September 2011 to award the minor premeirship and he was unsurprisingly booed. On the tenth anniversary of September 11 attacks he called Storm fans "terrorists" for booing him.
At the FFA, the best thing he did was introduced rhe FFA Cup, a brilliant concept. However, when he left the FFA the FFA and the A League were on their knees. For instance a number of years ago leading up to the Melbourne derby there was significant publicity and discussion amongst people I know about the derby. In recent years there had been minimal publicity and public awareness about the derby. Crowds and TV ratings are down.
When the Matildas were competing against the best in the world, just months before the World Cup Gallop sacked Alen Stajcic with little explanation. There was some mention of poor player survey results, there was even one board member who implied that there was inappropriate behaviour by Stajcic, all which led to significant innuendo. (The inappropriate behaviour was was later denied). All very cloak and dagger stuff.
The new coach of the Matildas was already on the FFA payroll and had never coached a women's team. The result was the Matildas performed below expectations at the World Cup.