• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
You are missing the point.The Force are short. The Tahs are top heavy. And there’s this thing called CENTRALISATION…where the talent is supposed to be spread out… and Pietsch isn’t being told… he actually wants to go. Got it?
How are the Tahs top heavy?
 

Tomthumb

Peter Fenwicke (45)
That assumes that if McLennan was not there, and somebody else was in the role, that we would have received much less in the deal. Speculation is easy.
True, but can anyone actually point out anything positive Waugh, Herbert or Horne have dove?

they seem to be just as incompetent as McClennan but seem to be Teflon
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
True, but can anyone actually point out anything positive Waugh, Herbert or Horne have dove?

they seem to be just as incompetent as McClennan but seem to be Teflon
Horne chaired the committee that included Waugh and Herbert, that found and then appointed Joe Schmidt.

Waugh signed off on it all

It was, at least, a better decision than the previous one.
 

Tomthumb

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Horne chaired the committee that included Waugh and Herbert, that found and then appointed Joe Schmidt.

Waugh signed off on it all

It was, at least, a better decision than the previous one.
Well done for unearthing the unknown Joe Schmidt. I wonder how they found such an under the radar coach. You’d have to be Sherlock Holmes
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
Can anybody clarify the roles of RA and the two franchises now in the centralised structure, Tahs and Brumbies, for recruitment and contract negotiation and administration. I thought both recruitment and contracting were RA responsibilities, but maybe only contracting? In any case, if RA have a big say, perhaps veto, over contracts then in practice don't they also control recruitment in these two franchises?

Whatever, I think they've done about the best job in the circumstances in the contracting field with essentially the ex-Rebels contracted players having one year tenures where they've landed (though not for the Reds obviously). It's the recruitment area that looks to be very one-sided atm. Is there an aura of favouritism being shown to one team over the other(s) for 2025?
 

Tomthumb

Peter Fenwicke (45)
I would say navigating the collapse of the Rebels without it bringing down Rugby Australia is probably the key item.

Mostly it's the absence of drama emanating from head office. The disasters have all been on-field.
Yeah but it’s also an assumption that he would have handled it worse

Seems there is still a fair amount of drama, just that the current leaders are a bit cozier with journos
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
Can anybody clarify the roles of RA and the two franchises now in the centralised structure, Tahs and Brumbies, for recruitment and contract negotiation and administration. I thought both recruitment and contracting were RA responsibilities, but maybe only contracting? In any case, if RA have a big say, perhaps veto, over contracts then in practice don't they also control recruitment in these two franchises?
RA are responsible for the playing roster at both teams, which would include recruitment.

The Brumbies and Waratahs pro teams aren't really separate independent franchises anymore. They both report up through Peter Horne now.
 

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
RA are responsible for the playing roster at both teams, which would include recruitment.

The Brumbies and Waratahs pro teams aren't really separate independent franchises anymore. They both report up through Peter Horne now.

Dont think this is entirely accurate, both ownership structures are different but the Brumbies are now governed by a new entity with ACT&SNSWRU, RA and RUPA representation on the board. It’s still a board decision for governance of the club with existing staff and ‘rugby operations’ transferred into the new entity.

Waratahs from what i understand, handed over the entire operation to RA And sits directly within RA now.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
Dont think this is entirely accurate, both ownership structures are different but the Brumbies are now governed by a new entity with ACT&SNSWRU, RA and RUPA representation on the board. It’s still a board decision for governance of the club with existing staff and ‘rugby operations’ transferred into the new entity.

Waratahs from what i understand, handed over the entire operation to RA And sits directly within RA now.
Both teams/entities are now owned and controlled by RA though right? Even if there's a board on top of Brumbies (is the chair RA appointed?)
 

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
Both teams are now owned and controlled by RA though right? Even if there's a board on top of Brumbies (is the chair RA appointed?)
Owned yes, doesn’t mean they’ve taken control of all decision making and roles though, exsisting high performance roles and staff were transferred into a new Brumbies entity with board representation from those 3 groups mentioned above.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
Owned yes, doesn’t mean they’ve taken control of all decision making and roles though,

For what it's worth, this is what the Brumbies press release said about it


As part of the strategic reset and financial stabilisation of Australian Rugby, the ACT&SNSWRU has agreed to transfer ownership of the ACT Brumbies professional rugby operations and related business assets to a newly established entity which is owned and controlled by Rugby Australia.

This transition will fully integrate and align the Brumbies’ professional Rugby operations across high-performance (players, coaches, support staff) and commercial operations (sponsorship, marketing, membership, ticketing) with RA’s high-performance and commercial operations, effective from 1 August 2024
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
I don't think the current board would be categorised as outstanding, but I don't think they have been disastrous either. Australian Rugby is in a shambles and borderline broke, and consequently some tough decisions have/had to be made. Obviously the toughest of these so far was the Rebels, but I don't think you could definitively say other adminstrators would have done anything different, given the $20m black hole that came with it.

It seems that the criteria of a successful administration to some here is to fix Australian Rugby within 3 months, otherwise they have failed and need to be moved on. The current lot are at least making some broad decisions in the right direction e.g. centralisation, but the main game is going to take time and money. The money will come from the BIL tour and then the home World Cups, it's what they then do with it that will then define them, but barring some outrageous carry-ons in between now and then we just need a bit of stability and leadership.
 

hoggy

Nev Cottrell (35)
I don't think the current board would be categorised as outstanding, but I don't think they have been disastrous either. Australian Rugby is in a shambles and borderline broke, and consequently some tough decisions have/had to be made. Obviously the toughest of these so far was the Rebels, but I don't think you could definitively say other adminstrators would have done anything different, given the $20m black hole that came with it.

It seems that the criteria of a successful administration to some here is to fix Australian Rugby within 3 months, otherwise they have failed and need to be moved on. The current lot are at least making some broad decisions in the right direction e.g. centralisation, but the main game is going to take time and money. The money will come from the BIL tour and then the home World Cups, it's what they then do with it that will then define them, but barring some outrageous carry-ons in between now and then we just need a bit of stability and leadership.
And even the best scenario gives them a small surplus come the beginning of 2028. So if they don't then replace Super Rugby and use that capital and whatever they can scrape up with private money to start a domestic competition, then the game deserves to completely disappear down a big fucking black hole in this country.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
And even the best scenario gives them a small surplus come the beginning of 2028. So if they don't then replace Super Rugby and use that capital and whatever they can scrape up with private money to start a domestic competition, then the game deserves to completely disappear down a big fucking black hole in this country.
I don't disagree with that, it should be more than a small surplus though, it should be substantial. I sense there are things going on behind the scenes along these lines but they need the money to commit to whatever the plans are, notwithstanding honouring current contractual obligations as well.
 
Top