Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
He's also often credited with "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Status
I thought I said that!
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Perhaps in the present discussion Voltaire's Candide is more appropriate. Among our membership are more than a few who would echo Dr Pangloss's mantra that "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." Meanwhile John O'Neill, playing the principal role - what else - of Candide, eventually concludes, "We must cultivate our garden", or more precisely, "We must get a committee to spend three months cultivating our garden".
Robbie Deans of course plays the role of Mynheer Vanderdendur, the Dutch ship captain, who offered to take Candide from America to France for 30,000 gold coins, but then departed without him, stealing all his riches. In the modern version Robbie Vanderdendur offers to win the Rugby World Cup for Australia for truckloads of gold coins but when he finally departs not only is the ARU bereft of gold coins but their cupboards are also empty of silverware. Candide O'Neill sails away with him.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Have you got some people in mind for the various roles - its got a more realistic plot than that inside the tahs thing
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Lance, I cannot fathom why you'd find many of these thread comments 'disappointing'. What does that mean, that you disagree with them and they have no rational base of substance? Cynicism is wholly appropriate if justified by the underlying and continuing array of facts that underpin it.
Holding up the strawman of 'it's not so bad that we can't beat the ABs as we know how much better their rugby system is' is a deflection and misstates or avoids many of the serious objections to the ARU's culture and conduct that numerous of us here advance. And we only advance same as we love the game and are profoundly concerned over the impact of the current ARU's conduct and its link with what many of see as a manifestly sub-standard national coaching elite.
The core objections of a number of posters here have nothing whatsoever to do with a vision, or thwarted expectation, of beating the ABs at every turn as you imply. Rather, these objections hang on items such as (selecting a few examples from a much larger potential list):
- the manner in which since 2008 the ARU set explicit KPIs and goals for the Deans' Wallabies that were never met, then cynically 'disposed' of these KPIs and conveniently replaced them with new 'off in the future' ones - e.g., glories at the 2011 RWC - whilst holding no one to account in any way for the original KPIs not having been met;
- the reappointment of Deans prior to the seminal RWC event that, in recent times, he was meant to aim at to win as the central objective of Wallaby-land;
- the preservation of a national assistant coaching group under Deans that was/is manifestly inadequate and unevenly skilled;
- the chronic inconsistency of the Wallabies and their inability to only rarely overcome top quality opposition;
- linear (and recent) debacles such as v England 2010 where we won 1 match out of 5;
- an unarguably mediocre RWC where, inter alia, we had game-plan-deficiency-disorder, highly uneven setpiece performances, and inexcusable intensity lapses in key games such as v Ireland;
- wacky selection policies that seemed to continue inexcusably for months, and often over years;
- serious corporate governance delinquencies such as JON's/ARU's attempt to hide JON's and Deans' 2010 salary and benefits from public scrutiny;
- ditto, the 'announcement' of a 'major independent review of our RWC performance' etc that was to be headed by one of the very same RWC 2011 coaches that over-sighted much of the RWC strategy and tactics and to be solely assisted by ARU 'insiders' on the ARU board that had voted for Deans to be given a pre-RWC 2 year extension on the grounds that he may be poached elsewhere, he was so good, etc.
The core point is this: many of us 'cynics' passionately believe that national rugby in this country could be far better managed and coached than is the case in 2011. This debate is surely to the potential benefit of the code, and to the holding to account of the custodians of the code.
DPK
Peter Sullivan (51)
OK, RH. Then what. After you've sacked the coach for failing to meet your KPI's, who do you replace him with? And if his successor fails, who then?
And when the team fails, do you drop the captain? And who do you replace him with?
Where did this come from? Just curious if anyone seriously questioned these figures. Sounds like conspiracy theorising to me.
I'm not going to push you for that "larger list" you alluded to, as I think it would contain arguments like "Consistent irregular method of tying boot laces by players and staff" and "Lack of policy to make the Wallabies more environmentally friendly".
And when the team fails, do you drop the captain? And who do you replace him with?
Where did this come from? Just curious if anyone seriously questioned these figures. Sounds like conspiracy theorising to me.
I'm not going to push you for that "larger list" you alluded to, as I think it would contain arguments like "Consistent irregular method of tying boot laces by players and staff" and "Lack of policy to make the Wallabies more environmentally friendly".
Swat
Chilla Wilson (44)
I don't think we're on the same page here. RH and others (myself included) are of the belief that because the ARU is representative of the australian rugby following public then we the fans are essentially stakeholders in that business. As any high performing company knows that it must have a standard application of accountability from the board of directors down to the cleaners, if those at the top fail to uphold this standard it permeates throughout the company and breeds a culture of deceit and not integrity. It matters not if the KPIs were set too high or not, what matters is that no-one is being held accountable. I would not be looking at Robbie Deans in this instance but rather at JON, especially given the ridiculous review panel established for our RWC performance. It would have been better to have admitted the mistakes and move on, but this pass the buck rubbish that is going on only serves to further destroy the integrity of the ARU and reflects negatively on the game we love.
D
daz
Guest
Ok. I now give formal notice that my post-RWC sook is over. I have re-gathered my bat and ball, put the baby back in the bath-water and turned my frown upside-down.
Thanks RH, your post got me back on-track and reminded me why we disagree on many things Wallaby; your position is unchangable and glass-is-always-half-empty. Mine was a temporary sook tantrum but deep down I never wavered in my belief Deans and the current path is the way forward.
I just had a momentary lapse of reason. Normal service is restored.
Thanks RH, your post got me back on-track and reminded me why we disagree on many things Wallaby; your position is unchangable and glass-is-always-half-empty. Mine was a temporary sook tantrum but deep down I never wavered in my belief Deans and the current path is the way forward.
I just had a momentary lapse of reason. Normal service is restored.
I really don't believe we can claim to be stakeholders, any more than one could claim to be a stakeholder in a media enterprise, which relies on readership / viewers / ratings to prosper (unless we own shares). The ARU is a business, the Wallabies and other Aus representative teams are "programmes" or "editions". They answer to the board, not us. Sure, we can affect the business by withdrawing support from attending or subscribing to pay TV to watch games. They make their decisions based on how the whole viewing group behaves, so with time, we might affect it, but it will be slow. Sponsorship, TV rights deals are the key, and they're measured in several years, not reactions to one season or two.
I get, and respect, what you're saying, but I doubt the ARU see it your way, somehow.
That'd make a good signature!! I know what you mean.
redstragic
Alan Cameron (40)
Awesome metaphor.
redstragic
Alan Cameron (40)
Sorry, I meant agile metaphor.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
I think you mean agile simile?
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
You replace them with better people of course, or you reorganise the underlying structure(s). Just as - for example - Cricket Australia has done after a genuinely independent review of its senior structure (post too many Ashes losses), the Chairman of CA has been changed, the National Coach was sacked and changed, the entire constitution and format and membership of the national selection panel has been changed, etc.
Umm, just the tiniest amount of keyboard work would have quickly saved you the effort of a fruitless dispute (the following one of many articles on this subject at the time, even Growden, normally a slavish ARU follower, commented negatively on it, the final salary was only revealed after pressure from the State RUs and at the 2011 AGM):
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...outflanks-profit/story-e6frg7o6-1226047218928
Come on, you can do better than that.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Let me not split hairs with you Cyclo, but in fact the ARU is in no sense a traditional 'media' business as you infer.
Rather, its purpose is (quoting from the fine print of the 2010 ARU Annual Report):
To the best of my scrutiny to date, the ARU pays not tax, and has no traditional shareholders per se; rather its de facto constituent 'owners' are in effect the State RUs.
In all the above senses as we might derive the meaning and purpose of this organisation, it is in fact a corporate body whose objective is not 'shareholder return', but, simply yet crucially, a particular sporting code's development at an Australia-wide level.
Continuing on from this factual premise, it is no stretch at all to see that the ultimate revenue and thus viability generators of this national code are indeed we fans, through, as you say, gate purchases or pay TV purchases or free-to-air viewership or such like. In that capacity, I would strongly argue that we fans are de facto (if not de jure) stakeholders in this enterprise as without our contribution and repetitive loyalty to the various teams etc, the game/code would simply collapse. The ARU's obvious purpose and raison d'être is to see to it that that does not happen. And, moreover, a sport in essence is not like a business in another sense: it's more an act of affection and emotional commitment, an act of belief that the participation will be gratifying and uplifting in a manner like no other 'product'. So, the fans, or most of the ones that are there most of the time, truly do 'have a stake'.
- Status