Australian Rugby / RA

[Sully]

Board or mediation?

Board, but no Hammer.

 

[Brumby Runner]

For me we need centralised control over player rosters, contract decisions, talent ID, coaching staffs & a national age-group development set-up. That means the national director of rugby has final say over who plays where, who coaches the super teams. A High Performance Unit run out of Rugby Australia takes much more responsibility for identifying age-group talent, ensuring they are retained in the game from a young age and brings them into the national fold earlier on.

The 'lack of detail' line is clever spin from the states IMO. The whole point of entering negotiations is to work out the detail collaboratively. I think they are just setting the stage to say 'well we weren't given any detail' and walk away from it all/only commit to the bare minimum (i.e. S&C programs). Forgive me for being cynical but at no point in their history have the states demonstrated any desire to put the interests of the national game over their own interests.

Again, very very happy to be proven wrong on this.

Personally, I have reservations about RA control of rosters. That implies direction for players to move to whichever franchise RA deems needed. I can't see that working for established Super Rugby players and will more likely encourage more to look for overseas contracts. Contracts should be able to be handled centrally, but only with consultation with franchises and agreement with players. I have doubt that a centralised entity would or could identify talent as successfully as the state bodies who are closer to the coal face, so to speak. Coaching appointments should also be a primary responsibility of the franchise licensee. I just cannot see any benefit in RA owning each of the franchises and it gives too much power to them to take any action they have a bee in their bonnet about with perhaps little or no thought for the interests of rugby in the local area.

I do see benefit in the central body taking more interest and responsibility for pathways, but again with a proviso that local interests are fully involved.

I think you might be alone in attributing the lack of detail argument to spin by the states. It is very clear that there is a spectrum of activities that could come under the banner of the term centralisation. No one in their right mind would sign such a blank cheque without a good degree of agreement around the detail, and certainly not with RA who have shown their callous side before in shafting the Western Force immediately they got their grubby fingers on the licence.

 

[Members Section]

Board, but no Hammer.

Raelene all over again

 

[Derpus]

Raelene all over again

Not really. She was hounded out by a pack of Sydney based blazer boys and broadly did nothing wrong - though was unlucky with the Folau saga. I certainly don't remember a vote of no confidence.

Speaking of which - i wonder how those dickheads feel about that shit now. Where has Phil Kearns been in this whole saga? Wasn't he the righteous old fella leading the charge against the mismanagement of RA? What a fucking cockhead.

Doesnt seem the same at all.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not really. She was hounded out by a pack of Sydney based blazer boys and broadly did nothing wrong - though was unlucky with the Folau saga. I certainly don't remember a vote of no confidence.

Speaking of which - i wonder how those dickheads feel about that shit now. Where has Phil Kearns been in this whole saga? Wasn't he the righteous old fella leading the charge against the mismanagement of Rugby Australia? What a fucking cockhead.

Doesnt seem the same at all.

Are they one and the same as McLennan's only supporters currently?

 

[Derpus]

Are they one and the same as McLennan's only supporters currently?

He has supporters?

 

[The Great Dissenter]

Board, but no Hammer.

Chair not involved in the Board meeting? Slightly unusual, but nothing surprises me with RA.

 

[noscrumnolife]

Interesting thoughts BR. I disagree a fair bit, but respect what you are saying so hope that is clear if it doesn't come across.

Personally, I have reservations about Rugby Australia control of rosters. That implies direction for players to move to whichever franchise Rugby Australia deems needed. I can't see that working for established Super Rugby players and will more likely encourage more to look for overseas contracts.

The way I think about it is this: the vast majority of successful national teams have 1-2 clubs they are really linked to. Great recent ABs teams are linked to the Crusaders. England to Saracens, Leicester in the past. Ireland to Leinster. France to Toulouse. Australia and the Brumbies in the Super Rugby era. South Africa are the really prominent exception atm. I don't want us to go full Leinster and stack the Tahs or the Reds. I find it pretty uninteresting. But I think a hand on the tiller to bring our main 2,9,10,15 together is a good thing. I don't really care which team it is either. FWIW If it had to choose one it would be the Brumbies because they have demonstrated over time competency on the rugby side of things.

Coaching appointments should also be a primary responsibility of the franchise licensee.

Should it though? If we were singing from the same song-sheet, hiring coaches with similarish principles, methodologies and practices I think it would be of great benefit. Brumbies aside there have been some frankly shocking coaching appointments by the franchises over Super Rugby history. That does need to be balanced amongst the need for diversity across the Super teams though, I'll concede.

I just cannot see any benefit in Rugby Australia owning each of the franchises and it gives too much power to them to take any action they have a bee in their bonnet about with perhaps little or no thought for the interests of rugby in the local area.

Agreed they don't need to 'own' the franchises, and I am indifferent somewhat to the commercial side of things (whole other story I don't think centralisation can solve). But I think we need to abstract Super Rugby from the interests of the local area. The Super teams are professional organisations. Their existence is intended to 1) generate revenue and 2) develop talent for the Wallabies. All decisions about them should be designed to achieve those ambitions.

I think you might be alone in attributing the lack of detail argument to spin by the states...No one in their right mind would sign such a blank cheque without a good degree of agreement around the detail.

I agree they should have agreement around the detail. My issue has been the way the conversation has been framed by the Brumbies and QRU in particular (but especially the Brumbies if I'm honest). As this dramatic 'hostile takeover' clearly designed to offside the fanbase with the concept of centralisation. They are just as blameful as the hammer for their inability to act like adults and hash it out in a room. I find the whole discourse around it from professional executives incredibly childish.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Fox News reporting that Harrison and the players union backing Hammer, also IOC heavyweight John Coates has backed him to remain.

I think he will go as it’s untenable but there is so much more to this, I genuinely believe there is parties outside those pushing for change, saying hey you are equally as incompetent and not going to get off that lightly to avoid the necessary change required.

As far as I’m concerned everything needs to be centralized.

 

[Members Section]

Not really. She was hounded out by a pack of Sydney based blazer boys and broadly did nothing wrong - though was unlucky with the Folau saga. I certainly don't remember a vote of no confidence.

Speaking of which - i wonder how those dickheads feel about that shit now. Where has Phil Kearns been in this whole saga? Wasn't he the righteous old fella leading the charge against the mismanagement of Rugby Australia? What a fucking cockhead.

Doesnt seem the same at all.

in the sense of they had a board meeting without her just before she quit

 

[hoggy]

While I don't disagree that there are financial issues, I would almost contend that the two go hand in hand for Rugby Australia. The federated model likely makes Rugby Australia a less attractive investment option for private equity than other sporting organisations/operations out there. Hence the centralisation contains a element of not only desired benefits in alignment/economies of scale/operational efficiencies etc..etc.. but also, likely provides a better product to bring to market in search of external investment.

The issue in much of the discussion being had are all the vagaries around the scope and meaning of that word centralisation, so yes, without clarity and clear dimensions it really does read like a buzz word, but it's also hard to argue that structurally the setup of Rugby in this country isn't somewhat broken and increasingly looking dwarfed by those sports it's competing with in the marketplace for both athletes and the fans.

That's because all we ever do is come up with some issue without ever dealing with the real issue.

Centralization, Broadcast Deal, Coaching, Pathways, Grassroots, Global Market, ffs its a bloody merry go round.

Its like sitting on a couch and never mentioning the Elephant sitting next to you and its been sitting there for 20 bloody years.

Until you address Super Rugby, this is all just another waste of time, go ahead and get another Chairman or CEO or whatever he is, Centralize your little heart away. It just a big fuc___g waste of time.

The business model is fuc___d, have you ever wondered why all these code saving changes never quite happen, but every year we're told just do this and things will get better.

Go ahead and get rid of McLennan and Centralize away, that way we can move onto the next great thing to fix Australian rugby.

 

[stillmissit]

He must go. The whole mess is of his making and hoping that Eddie would turn the whole ship around and save his arse was nonsense, the end result is on him so walk or pushed he must go.
The song remains the same regarding the Wallabies and sacking McLennan won't change that but it opens the door for a 'real' chairman with rugby nouse to step in and let the CEO do his thing with support from the board. I would start from the bottom of how to improve the numbers of players in our sport, then improve training and coaching and onwards and upwards to fixing the Wallabies.

 

[Sully]

The full letter the 6 state unions have written for Hamish McLennan to resign by Sat 5pm, if not an EGM will be held to hold a vote of no confidence within 60 days.​

Wallabies
We, the undersigned Member Unions of Rugby Australia, are calling for the Chair, Hamish McLennan, to immediately resign as Chair and Director of Rugby Australia.
We do not believe Mr McLennan has been acting in the best interests of our game.
We no longer have any trust or faith in his leadership, or the direction in which he is taking rugby in Australia.
Additionally, we believe Mr McLennan has been acting outside his role as a director, exerting an undue influence on the operations and executives of Rugby Australia.
This is not the best practice governance that we expect from leaders in our game.
Should Mr McLennan not resign, this letter serves as notice for Directors to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting at the earliest possible opportunity, as per clause 4.1c of the Rugby Australia Constitution.
This request is not about opposition to Rugby Australia’s centralisation proposals– we remain committed to supporting high-performance alignment.
This is instead a deep concern about the performance of Mr McLennan as Chair, and the damage done to the game by his performance.
We have not made this decision lightly.
After deliberation and discussion, we decided we must take action in order to protect the reputation and future of our game.
Governance and high-performance sport are about judgement – good judgement.
During the past 12 months Mr McLennan has made a series of calls that have harmed the standing and reputation of our game and led us to question his judgement and his understanding of high-performance sport.
His decisions and “captain’s picks” have directly led to an historic failure at the men’s Rugby World Cup and a Wallabies international ranking at an historic low, with all of the regrettable and public fallout that came with it.
In addition to this, Mr McLennan’s use of player poaching to threaten other sports and boost our own stocks and performance alienates us from having collaborative conversations with the other major sports to improve participation across the Australian community.
It also disenfranchises our budding professional female and community rugby participants, by only focusing on elite men’s participation, which is a small component of our national game.
There has been much discussion about required changes within rugby to improve the overall performance of our national teams.
The member unions are not shying away from this change and can see the long-term benefits that national high-performance alignment can bring.
But this will only happen if we have trust and faith in the leadership at Rugby Australia, and there is a clear strategy that outlines the process to achieve this.
To date, despite months of media speculation and commentary from Rugby Australia, the Board and executive have brought us no substantive strategy or any outline of how centralisation would work.
Over coming years there are a range of opportunities off which our game can prosper, including the British and Irish Lions Tour in 2025, the Mens’ Rugby World Cup in 2027 and the Womens’ Rugby World Cup in 2029.
In order for us to seize these opportunities, our game must focus on growing our participation base in community, schools and women’s rugby.
This will require trust and collaboration across the game.
If we don’t make the necessary changes to the leadership of our game now, these opportunities will be lost and our game will continue to flounder for decades to come.
We are supportive of an independent recruitment process for a new Chair, one that involves consultation with all Constitutional Members

 

[Joe King]

HM’s final move should be, “Ok, I’ll sign a written agreement to resign after the centralisation model is agreed to and in place”.

Everybody’s happy.

 

[Tomthumb]

Wait, so they want him to resign because of the Wallabies performance at the World Cup, yet are also complaining about the Sua’alii signing as the Wallabies “are only a small component of our national game”

was this written by a teenager?

 

[Lorenzo]

The got the big guns on board: Tasmania NT SA lol

 

[RugbyReg]

The got the big guns on board: Tasmania NT SA lol

You don’t think these members deserve a vote?

 

[RugbyReg]

Wait, so they want him to resign because of the Wallabies performance at the World Cup, yet are also complaining about the Sua’alii signing as the Wallabies “are only a small component of our national game”

was this written by a teenager?

You should try reading the release again. They don’t want him to resign because of the performance of the Wallabies. But because of his hand in making it happen.

they don’t single out Sua’Ali. They are angry at the pissing match he got into with league and his player hit list.

During the past 12 months Mr McLennan has made a series of calls that have harmed the standing and reputation of our game and led us to question his judgement and his understanding of high-performance sport.

His decisions and “captain’s picks” have directly led to an historic failure at the men’s Rugby World Cup and a Wallabies international ranking at an historic low, with all of the regrettable and public fallout that came with it.

In addition to this, Mr McLennan’s use of player poaching to threaten other sports and boost our own stocks and performance alienates us from having collaborative conversations with the other major sports to improve participation across the Australian community.

It also disenfranchises our budding professional female and community rugby participants, by only focusing on elite men’s participation, which is a small component of our national game.

 

[cyclopath]

Fox News reporting that Harrison and the players union backing Hammer, also IOC heavyweight John Coates has backed him to remain.

I think he will go as it’s untenable but there is so much more to this, I genuinely believe there is parties outside those pushing for change, saying hey you are equally as incompetent and not going to get off that lightly to avoid the necessary change required.

As far as I’m concerned everything needs to be centralized.

Seriously, who gives a fuck what John Coates thinks? I mean, if you ever want a worse example of the Emperor Syndrome than him, I'd love to see it.

 

[Tomthumb]

You should try reading the release again. They don’t want him to resign because of the performance of the Wallabies. But because of his hand in making it happen.

they don’t single out Sua’Ali. They are angry at the pissing match he got into with league and his player hit list.

They undermine their whole argument by saying that on one hand elite mens rugby isn’t that important but at the same time his involvement in their failure is the only tangible reason that they want him to resign

And they are singling out Sua’ilii, as he’s the only player that has been poached. And when has league ever been up for “collaborative discussions”?