Gregan v JON

[rugbyisfun]

Nothing will change. GG brings nothing to the table aside from playing experience. We need serious industry leaders on the board who have serious business acumen. People who understand how to nurture something from the ground up....not the current top heavy status quo approach..

 

[RedsHappy]

rugbyisfun: hey, go you good thing.

JO'N yesterday told Bret Harris of The Aus:

"I'm not giving anyone a lesson in corporate governance 101. We have been extremely fortunate to have an outstanding board, whose ability to act in the best interests of the company has been evident."

Apparently the next step in this process is the retention of a top notch PR firm to help the communication of what has 'been evident', as I am reliably informed that not everyone has as yet accumulated the perception that the ARU board's actual achievement level since 2003 quite complies with this heartening declaration from its CEO.

 

[Linebacker_41]

This and the comments about ' GG and his agenda ' highlight what is intrinsically wrong with rugby in Australia. Politics and pushing agendas.

It was a good move from RUPA but doesnt mean I like it nor do I agree that it is in the best interests of the game.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Nothing will change. GG brings nothing to the table aside from playing experience. We need serious industry leaders on the board who have serious business acumen. People who understand how to nurture something from the ground up....not the current top heavy status quo approach..

I'm having problems with your juxtapositioning of three distinct concepts, rif. I'm trying to think of examples of "serious industry leaders" who have displayed "serious business acumen". Keen insight doesn't necessarily preclude you from getting to the top but it is certainly a hindrance.

And an even rara avis would be a "serious business leader" who has had anything to do with "nurtur[ing] something from the ground up". Business leaders, whether serious or simpleton, rarely emerge from the ranks of start-up entrepreneurs. Typically they slide into companies at the fast track level and manoeuvre their way up from there.

 

[Rob42]

In the unlikely event of Gregan successfully getting one over JON in a boardroom battle, I'm imagining him getting up to leave with a quiet "four more years, John...". Or however long his term is.

 

[p.Tah]

It was a good move from RUPA but doesnt mean I like it nor do I agree that it is in the best interests of the game.

Sorry Linebacker, that criticism wasn't aimed at you just the fact that you feel RUPA chose GG just to pissoff JON. Mind you what sporting organization isn't filled with politicking.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

rugbyisfun: hey, go you good thing.

JO'N yesterday told Bret Harris of The Aus:

"I'm not giving anyone a lesson in corporate governance 101. We have been extremely fortunate to have an outstanding board, whose ability to act in the best interests of the company has been evident."

Apparently the next step in this process is the retention of a top notch PR firm to help the communication of what has 'been evident', as I am reliably informed that not everyone has as yet accumulated the perception that the ARU board's actual achievement level since 2003 quite complies with this heartening declaration from its CEO.

RH - its the company.... note he did not say "in the best interests of the game".
In fact this might be the most telling slip of JON's time. Ive suspected from some time that the game we know and love and have played and have our kids play is of no interest to the ARU Gods and he's confirmed it.

 

[RedsHappy]

RH - its the company.... note he did not say "in the best interests of the game".
In fact this might be the most telling slip of JON's time. Ive suspected from some time that the game we know and love and have played and have our kids play is of no interest to the ARU Gods and he's confirmed it.

Brilliant pick up IS. Understand, know precisely what you mean.

 

[daz]

Business leaders, whether serious or simpleton, rarely emerge from the ranks of start-up entrepreneurs. Typically they slide into companies at the fast track level and manoeuvre their way up from there.

Hey, I resemble that remark. And in business, Bruce, we say "seeking to gain significant personal opportunity", which of course, means "manoeuvre", which also means "slimy weaseling and back stabbing at the expense of others, and body count be damned".

Well, ok, we don't say it, but we sure mean it....

 

[Roundawhile]

My largest problem with JON since his first stint at the ARU is his "running a business" euphemism. This is NOT a business!
Yes there is considerable business acumen required, yes finances are extremely important, but what JON fails to comprehend is that it is OUR game.

I will give you the most telling decision he has made to demonstrate my point - HIS decision to give exclusive rights to Foxtel over FTA after the wrc 03. This was a business decision, and yes it made lots of money, but what did it do for our sport?

It excluded a large percentage of followers

It meant that the game became even more elitist

It meant that if you did not have fox, your family could not watch the games

Please do not say "you can go to a pub or club", I will not take my kids there

If the kids can't watch the games our game will shrink!

Overall a wonderful BUSINESS decision to the absolute detriment of the wider game.

End of rant....

 

[wamberal]

No Foxtel money, no SupeRugby, it is a pretty simple situation for most of us to understand.


FTA would just not be interested in putting up biggish money to do what Fox Sports does, and probably never will. Channel Nine will not even televise the Wallabies Test live throughout Australia. FTA might be willing to televise a handful of Super games every season, and that would be great for the game and its development, but don't forget that Australian FTA is used to televising locally based sports over whose scheduling they have some control, or whose governing body will consult with. FTA would have absolutely no interest in, for example, showing any games at all that do not include Australian teams, they would have little interest in showing games at strange times that impact on their normal schedules, particularly in prime times, and Saturday night is pretty prime, I imagine.

SANZAR is a whole different ball of wax from the NRL, or the AFL, or even the FFA.

 

[Paradox]

Nothing will change. GG brings nothing to the table aside from playing experience.

Well you clearly know nothing about the man. You might want to read about the GG Foundation and GG Expresso. Gregan is an incredibly successful businesman (owns 19 cafes) and also likes to help sick kids.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

No Foxtel money, no SupeRugby, it is a pretty simple situation for most of us to understand.


FTA would just not be interested in putting up biggish money to do what Fox Sports does, and probably never will. Channel Nine will not even televise the Wallabies Test live throughout Australia. FTA might be willing to televise a handful of Super games every season, and that would be great for the game and its development, but don't forget that Australian FTA is used to televising locally based sports over whose scheduling they have some control, or whose governing body will consult with. FTA would have absolutely no interest in, for example, showing any games at all that do not include Australian teams, they would have little interest in showing games at strange times that impact on their normal schedules, particularly in prime times, and Saturday night is pretty prime, I imagine.

SANZAR is a whole different ball of wax from the NRL, or the AFL, or even the FFA.

You miss the point. A slightly smaller deal with some room for a little fta would have been good for the game as a game, which for most us is all it is and will ever be.
A number of people in the last 2 weeks have said to me they won't have foxtel and so they never watch rugby and they have kids who might be interested in the game given a chance to watch it.
There was more super rugby on fta in the 80s.


---
- Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[p.Tah]

It's not just the games on FTA it's the cross promotion. The morning shows: channel 7s sunrise discusses the AFL games during the week. The Today show does the same thing for NRL games. In the evening news channel 9 leads with NRL coverage, channel 7 with AFL coverage. Neither of these channels have commercial advantage to discuss super rugby so they barely mention it in their bulletins. They push the games with ads, the hype up the games to bring in ratings. It is counter productive for them to promote a product shown on Foxtel, so they don't in any possible way. In fact they actually mock the other codes.

 

[MrMouse]

Gregan is joining a board not entering a UFC ring

You raise an interesting point... ARU board cage fighting. I vote it goes to the death. Anyone with me?

 

[rugbyisfun]

I hear Dave Mortimer from Sydney Uni is climbing the ranks. Could be a interesting ascension from someone amongst the grassroots ranks...albeit from Uni who aren't a reflection of how real rugby clubs operate

 

[wamberal]

You miss the point. A slightly smaller deal with some room for a little fta would have been good for the game as a game, which for most us is all it is and will ever be.
A number of people in the last 2 weeks have said to me they won't have foxtel and so they never watch rugby and they have kids who might be interested in the game given a chance to watch it.
There was more super rugby on fta in the 80s.


---
- Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I do not miss the point at all. Do you really think that a "slightly smaller deal" would have been doable? Of course it would not. Even if it had been, which games could be shown on FTA? Only games from the eastern seaboard? Only Saturday nights? Be specific, that is the only way to grapple with the complexities.


As somebody a lot wiser than me once said, for every complex problem there is a simple, easy to understand solution, which is just plain wrong.



We should start from the presumption that the ARU actually does know what it is doing, that the constraints are real, that the possibilities of picking and choosing which games should go on FTA before the season starts (every season of the tv contract, incidentally - how would that work?) and then adjusting the costs to the two different broadcasters are just fantasyland stuff.


By the way, the ARU had to pay to get the ARC onto FTA, remember?


The game is now professional, the only way it will survive at the elite level is to get optimal funding from television rights, and the only way to do that is to sell the whole competition as a package. The ARU has managed to get a highlights package onto FTA, that is one step forward.

 

[suckerforred]

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/wo.../13066380/arus-oneill-appointed-to-rwc-board/

And this one slipped through didn't it....

"Australian Rugby Union Managing Director and CEO, John O'Neill AO, has earned a prized appointment to the Board of Directors of Rugby World Cup Ltd."

 

[wamberal]

Perhaps it is time for a separate thread about the ins and outs of getting the game onto FTA. If anybody has some bright ideas, I am sure that the ARU would be interested. Solve this, then move onto world peace, and a guaranteed Nobel Prize.

 

[suckerforred]

OK, so on the board is :

Peter McGrath
John O'Neil
John Eales
Micheal Hawker
Brett Robinson
George Gregan
Peter Cosgrove (???)

Who are the other two?