Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
See previous posts about comparing anything to NZ in rugby terms.
How to fix the wallabies
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
See previous posts about comparing anything to NZ in rugby terms.
No one is comparing anything to the rugby culture NZ has or suggesting that anything we do will emulate that.
We have 5 Super Rugby teams like they do and are trying to improve the quality of our next level of competition that has a similar basis to theirs.
All the suggestions relating to the NZRU are about trying to emulate some of the administrative side of what they do.
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. You don't like the ARU or the state unions as they are but don't think we should be doing anything to change that structure.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
The hard facts re the financial state of Australian rugby are gradually sinking in and 'going mainstream' vs the many lone observations we have been making here - with grave concern - for some years whilst the traditional rugby media lived in a world of denial and thoughtless optimism.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-each-under-new-proposal-20160825-gr0tac.html
Excerpt:
"Less than a year after the new SANZAAR broadcast deal delivered the ARU a record $285 million cash injection over five years, the celebrations have come to an abrupt end. The ARU has informed the five Super Rugby franchises they can expect a $500,000 funding shortfall from head office next year, while the ARU searches for a new sponsor for Super Rugby and gets to grips with the true financial picture at the Western Force and the Brumbies.
Insurer Asteron Life ended their three-year agreement this year, and while the ARU are believed to be in early talks with an existing partner to beef up their involvement, the commercial landscape has been tough for some time. The ARU did not secure a naming rights sponsor for the June Test series against England, or this year's Rugby Championship.
At the same time, the governing body bailed out the Western Force, paying $800,000 for their licence and absorbing the Perth outpost into their business model under an alliance structure. In Canberra the Brumbies have stayed afloat despite ugly legal wranglings with former chief executive Michael Jones, but next week head back to court to defend a claim against them in the ACT Supreme Court.
That stoush, which centres on casino insider John Beagle's claim he is owed a finders fee for helping to broker an $8 million sponsorship deal with Hong Kong corporate Aquis for the Brumbies last year, threatens to break the club financially should the court find in Beagle's favour."
Uniquely, the franchisor has willfully left its principal franchisees to mismanage themselves yet continued to fund them despite their manifest poor leadership and internal governance over many years. There is simply no successful franchise system anywhere in this world that works in that way; the ones that tried it, are dead and buried.
That recklessly poor policing by the ARU, the lack of consistent demands for quality outcomes, no enforced KPIs to assure a 'good outcomes' vs 'good politics' focus, etc of the State RUs has also self-licensed the ARU to slowly degrade its own quality as it deluded itself that its Wallaby honeypot was not tied ultimately to what occurred way down the pyramid of rugby participation, with that all left to the State franchisees who mostly lost their sense of duty to the grassroots.
To 'fix the Wallabies' in a strategic and survival sense you have to fix this core institutional cancer, and a radical centralisation of cost and direction will soon be seen as the only viable answer in the emerging financial and commercial circumstances.
The essential problem though is that 'the future centralising body', namely the ARU, currently has insufficient quality of management and specialist capability (over, just for example, system-wide coaching quality development, core rugby skills re-building and grass roots regeneration) to make the centralising principle deliver something better than that existing today.
So, for the essential centralising direction to deliver anything other than cost management, the ARU itself has to be re-designed and re-built.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-each-under-new-proposal-20160825-gr0tac.html
Excerpt:
"Less than a year after the new SANZAAR broadcast deal delivered the ARU a record $285 million cash injection over five years, the celebrations have come to an abrupt end. The ARU has informed the five Super Rugby franchises they can expect a $500,000 funding shortfall from head office next year, while the ARU searches for a new sponsor for Super Rugby and gets to grips with the true financial picture at the Western Force and the Brumbies.
Insurer Asteron Life ended their three-year agreement this year, and while the ARU are believed to be in early talks with an existing partner to beef up their involvement, the commercial landscape has been tough for some time. The ARU did not secure a naming rights sponsor for the June Test series against England, or this year's Rugby Championship.
At the same time, the governing body bailed out the Western Force, paying $800,000 for their licence and absorbing the Perth outpost into their business model under an alliance structure. In Canberra the Brumbies have stayed afloat despite ugly legal wranglings with former chief executive Michael Jones, but next week head back to court to defend a claim against them in the ACT Supreme Court.
That stoush, which centres on casino insider John Beagle's claim he is owed a finders fee for helping to broker an $8 million sponsorship deal with Hong Kong corporate Aquis for the Brumbies last year, threatens to break the club financially should the court find in Beagle's favour."
Uniquely, the franchisor has willfully left its principal franchisees to mismanage themselves yet continued to fund them despite their manifest poor leadership and internal governance over many years. There is simply no successful franchise system anywhere in this world that works in that way; the ones that tried it, are dead and buried.
That recklessly poor policing by the ARU, the lack of consistent demands for quality outcomes, no enforced KPIs to assure a 'good outcomes' vs 'good politics' focus, etc of the State RUs has also self-licensed the ARU to slowly degrade its own quality as it deluded itself that its Wallaby honeypot was not tied ultimately to what occurred way down the pyramid of rugby participation, with that all left to the State franchisees who mostly lost their sense of duty to the grassroots.
To 'fix the Wallabies' in a strategic and survival sense you have to fix this core institutional cancer, and a radical centralisation of cost and direction will soon be seen as the only viable answer in the emerging financial and commercial circumstances.
The essential problem though is that 'the future centralising body', namely the ARU, currently has insufficient quality of management and specialist capability (over, just for example, system-wide coaching quality development, core rugby skills re-building and grass roots regeneration) to make the centralising principle deliver something better than that existing today.
So, for the essential centralising direction to deliver anything other than cost management, the ARU itself has to be re-designed and re-built.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
In 2015 Cheika did deserve it, considering his results in 2015 test rugby compared to years past.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Please don't misrepresent me because you fail to understand what I have said.
I don't think central control is the way to go and I don't believe that comparing what goes on in NZ and what could possibly happen here is a realistic comparison.
I made lengthy post back at #122 with suggestions. Pity you either haven't read or haven't understood that post before weighing in with snide comments.
Apologies but I also don't think my comments were snide. A little exasperated maybe.
I had read that post and I generally agree with it. It also begins with "(Predicated on the basis that anyone has enough money to implement these - which the ARU clearly don't)." Part of the problem is that there is clearly a big gap between able to implement the ideal solutions and what is viable given the financial and support situation of the game in Australia.
Your post was almost entirely about juniors. Your criticism of the ARU trying to emulate some of the aspects of the way the NZRU manages their Super Rugby teams seemed to relate more to rugby culture in the country rather than the administrative side of things which is what I was posting about.
So you disagree about the central control aspect. What do you think we should do to improve the situation we currently have?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Not with the current ARU in place and anybody even remotely associated with it. I am for a total restructure but that means throwing out everyone who had even the least involvement in getting the code into the management situation it is in.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It's mainly about juniors and the base because until and unless that is fixed nothing much is going to change at the top. While I've not been a huge fan of the ARU, I agree that it's performing better now that it has in the recent past. It's hamstrung by a lack of money, so that makes fixing the situation more difficult.
In terms of NZ, we should certainly be looking at the ways in which they develop players and coaches - their young players seem to have a much better skill set than ours. I'd like to know whether or not our players are over-coached or under-coached. I suspect the former as many of our teams seem quite regimented. I also think that there are some core skills in which we can improve - kicking being the most obvious. There's no logical reason why skilful footballers in Australia can't kick a ball, but players in almost every other country can - that comes down to coaching and development.
I'm just not sure that changing administration (i.e. who appoints coaches) is going to lead to better outcomes in terms of development of players and coaches. If people can provide reasons as to how and why it could, I'd like to see the reasoning, but people simply saying "this is what they do in NZ" doesn't seem to be a logical or convincing argument, unless we are in a similar context (which we aren't).
Short term, I honestly don't think that there is much that the ARU can do to improve the Wallabies without fixing what is going on below. NZ are good for a lot of reasons, one of which is that they have a significant part of the population playing the game as kids. We certainly have to be smarter at what we do, but until we have more kids playing at the bottom, we're going to be doing it tough.
Sorry that I haven't provided the magic bullet, but I don't believe it exists. If the solution was a simple as me writing a few lines on G&GR, I'd like to think that someone more influential would have come up with it by now. It's a bit like an onion, every layer you peel back the next layer needs fixing as well. How to fix the Wallabies - fix the super teams. How to fix the super teams - improve the 20s programme and the NRC. How to improve the 20s and the NRC - make club rugby at senior, junior and schools stronger. How to make the bottom stronger - get more kids playing and provide them with a well-structured player development programme.
What could/should the ARU do? Ensure that there are enough development officers and resources available to the grass roots. Make things as easy as possible to for junior and senior clubs to run. Promote the game in the state school systems. It all costs money - but it's the only way to secure the game long term.
T
TOCC
Guest
Consolidating certain parts of Super Rugby operations is certainly no magic bullet, but it should in the longer term save money, improve productivity and allow the relevant bodies to focus their energies on their specific task.
With ARU reducing funding to Super Rugby clubs next year by $500'000, that will inevitably lead to financial losses at Super Rugby club level.. It's clear that the current business model of Australian Rugby is broken, both off-field financial results and on field performances are dire. It's time to change.
Merge all Super Rugby and ARU marketing, media, membership, merchandising, finance and IT departments under the one roof.. Maintain Independent 'Rugby Departments' which covers all coaching, medical S&C staff and players.
Detach the state unions from the Super Rugby organisation, allow State Unios to refocus their energy on the much neglected grassroots and remove the financial liability of a Super Rugby club from their portfolio..
With ARU reducing funding to Super Rugby clubs next year by $500'000, that will inevitably lead to financial losses at Super Rugby club level.. It's clear that the current business model of Australian Rugby is broken, both off-field financial results and on field performances are dire. It's time to change.
Merge all Super Rugby and ARU marketing, media, membership, merchandising, finance and IT departments under the one roof.. Maintain Independent 'Rugby Departments' which covers all coaching, medical S&C staff and players.
Detach the state unions from the Super Rugby organisation, allow State Unios to refocus their energy on the much neglected grassroots and remove the financial liability of a Super Rugby club from their portfolio..
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Perhaps that is a system which could lead to some money savings. Subject to seeing the final details, there's nothing in that to which I would strongly object.
While we're doing it, we probably need to do a bit more restructing right down to the bottom.
While we're doing it, we probably need to do a bit more restructing right down to the bottom.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
That's a lot of people - remember we're in the revolving door that is the Australian rugby dick-measuring contest.
You only have to go to the Rams thread, or spend five minutes looking at the Schools forum in general, to understand the problem: there are a lot of people who think their own interests align with the greater good.
After several failed RWC campaigns in their national sport, the Kiwis decided enough was enough. In Australia, that is unlikely to happen because its a niche sport.
Despite all my online-persona-blathering-on, I do have the game's best interests at heart. We need to re-engineer a whole bunch of things from the bottom, like this bloke says:
Until everyone involved realises their place on the Dunning-Kruger* line, the self-interest will continue and improvement will only come by increments, followed by decrements.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
HighPlainsDrifter
Jimmy Flynn (14)
The game in New Zealand seems to operate on a bottom up top down basis , whilst we seem to be coming at it from a top down standpoint which has not served us well. Talk to a kiwi and you can sense the passion ... I just don't get that in Australia as we are not taken on the journey by the upper echelons of the game I think partially due to marketing and engagement to customers rather than as stakeholders . The ARU rabbits on about professionalism and branding which is fine is you are an ASX listed company . The powers that be have got to understand that Rugby is not a conventional business because it exists largely on a large grassroots contingent of unpaid devotees who devote countless hours giving practical support and logistics at the base levels of club junior and schools competitions. The trips by Chieka to Europe to coax players to return on a half baked promise is matter for another time . We need to grow the game's base but unless you give proper consideration to the existing base the erosion will continue. Oh and Wallabies do.Australia proud at the house of pain ....
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
The game is where it is in New Zealand now because it has always been the number one sport.
Rugby has never been the number one sport here, even before 1907.
It's a bit rough to blame the ARU for the realities of history. By the way, the ARU does share a number of characterstics of a conventional business, with boring requirements like good corporate governance, financial stability, the necessity to manage all types of commercial relationships, and so on.
It is not the job of the ARU to look after the grass-roots of the game. If there are no grass-roots, there is no game in the first place. No grass-roots, no clubs playing the game. If the horse does not exist, there is no point building a cart.
And a further point. If we want good quality elite rugby we have to pay for it, one way or the other. I was gobsmacked to observe posters on another forum discussing how to avoid paying to watch the NRC on Foxtel. Bugger me, if we don't pay, one way or the other, there will be no NRC. Do people think we have a magic pudding?
Rugby has never been the number one sport here, even before 1907.
It's a bit rough to blame the ARU for the realities of history. By the way, the ARU does share a number of characterstics of a conventional business, with boring requirements like good corporate governance, financial stability, the necessity to manage all types of commercial relationships, and so on.
It is not the job of the ARU to look after the grass-roots of the game. If there are no grass-roots, there is no game in the first place. No grass-roots, no clubs playing the game. If the horse does not exist, there is no point building a cart.
And a further point. If we want good quality elite rugby we have to pay for it, one way or the other. I was gobsmacked to observe posters on another forum discussing how to avoid paying to watch the NRC on Foxtel. Bugger me, if we don't pay, one way or the other, there will be no NRC. Do people think we have a magic pudding?
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
HighPlainsDrifter
Jimmy Flynn (14)
Wamberal , I believe your heart is in the right place ....the transition from amateur to professional has been a painful experience at times . I glad you agree with me that currently the ARU adopts a top down stance , do I understand you correctly that "It is not the job of the ARU to look after the grass-roots of the game" ? That's where we differ ...I believe that if you get a Rugby Fan / Participant at grass roots there is a reasonable expectation that you can convert that into a an interest from that person but also a chance to attract their families and wider circle of friends . So in my reading of the opportunity it would be naive not to view as a reasonable approach the top down / bottom up or visa versa approach as there can be meaningful engagement within both stances , hence my comment that the Top Down model has not worked in recent years .... I feel the seeds of the current environment were probably in motion around 10 years ago , it's no surprise the growing gap between the ARU and grassroots seems to correlate to my mind .
With regard to the corporate governance comment ... I would imagine transparency , is something you may also wish to highlight .the other 101's you mentioned are quite to my mind simply "You aim to act in business as you act in life"
Your comment "If there are no grass-roots, there is no game in the first place. No grass-roots, no clubs playing the game. If the horse does not exist, there is no point building a cart" - may need to be rewritten or I may be just too dumb to understand your point ...The only thing I can fathom is possibly you see the grass roots as a value proposition for the ARU which would follow my observation that to effectively build on the current infrastructure you need a holistic approach from both ends of the spectrum .... But you did say "it's not the ARU's job to look after the grassroots" I find that sad and you may well be right as I am not across the reporting lines ...Well there are 6 words ALL levels should heed and own "As a custodian of the game" and MOST DO ...the will is there and judging by the GAGR site and your post the desire is there also, we just have to spend more time and effort to join the dots. Finally I'm not in the blame game ....I am giving a view on what I see as the lay of the land and a possible different view of what may be a way forward ...no individuals were mentioned or vilified this sort of discussion is bigger than that . I would be delighted to be proved wrong as I would imagine there would be plenty of initiatives underway in which case they are an asset/goodwill ...but they only work if we actually hear about them. What Post was this ? oh , yes -"how to fix the Wallabies" well the benefits of addressing these issues would probably take say 3 to 5 years to reap decent benefits . Or for those who remember John Valentine Fitness in the 70's -80's "If you look good , we look good !" (Chuck Mavety)...There , I've just carbon dated myself .
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
I think people placing entire blame on the game's failure at the grass roots level is quite harsh - they provide funding (and levy fees, of course) but otherwise have very little control over what actually happens.
This is then compounded by the fact that there are several clearly anti-ARU bodies within the Australian Rugby Union landscape (Shute Shield I'm looking at you) who have no interest in the game's success or operations outside of their own little sphere of fabricated self importance.
Whenever the ARU tries to centralize the operation of Rugby within this country and asks for its member unions to sign over greater control, they receive harsh opposition and criticism. When the things they don't control directly don't go well they also get blamed.
Its a tough situation to be in for them. I don't envy Billy P.
This is then compounded by the fact that there are several clearly anti-ARU bodies within the Australian Rugby Union landscape (Shute Shield I'm looking at you) who have no interest in the game's success or operations outside of their own little sphere of fabricated self importance.
Whenever the ARU tries to centralize the operation of Rugby within this country and asks for its member unions to sign over greater control, they receive harsh opposition and criticism. When the things they don't control directly don't go well they also get blamed.
Its a tough situation to be in for them. I don't envy Billy P.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
They could have as much control as they wanted.
Tell me what, with their (for the most part) extremely limited resources, the Shute Shield clubs have done that hinders the ARU?
What centralisation of control do you speak of? The failure in 1995 to centralise contracts as NZ did?
louie
Desmond Connor (43)
Um where do we start with shute shields failures?
- Kicking Canberra out of the comp twice even though Canberra would front up the $$.
- Letting a whole region becoming a laughing stock (Parramatta and Penrith)
- Bad mouthing the ARU in the media any chance they get (this doesn't help anyone, least of all them)
- Doing little to engage anyone outside of the rugby community
- Having a crap business modals that don't even try get close to financial independence
- Being uncooperative with ARC and NRC even though every man and his dog can see it's what Australia rugby needs
The biggest failure of some Shute Shield clubs, and I'll call it a failure, is to consider their existence and success more important than the overall health of Australian rugby. To want to continue belting other clubs after raping their player lists just for their petty self-aggrandisement is almost immoral. For Papworth and others of his ilk to beat their chests and claim the Shute Shield clubs can contribute to a successful Wallaby side as they did in his day is laughable.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link: the entire rugby community in Sydney should be utterly committed to the development and progress of the game in Sydney's west. To see Penrith and Parramatta continue to struggle year after year is shameful. I don't have the time or inclination to draw up a list of players from these two clubs' regions who've been poached by the more established cubs but it'd be damning.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link: the entire rugby community in Sydney should be utterly committed to the development and progress of the game in Sydney's west. To see Penrith and Parramatta continue to struggle year after year is shameful. I don't have the time or inclination to draw up a list of players from these two clubs' regions who've been poached by the more established cubs but it'd be damning.
- Status