Michael Cheika

[Quick Hands]

I dont think Eddie has ever been driven purely by financial gain

He's driven by a desire to be successful and to be meticulously organised in order to do so. Concepts foreign to many in Australian rugby.

 

[Lost]

If true that Rennie appointed to Wallabies, why oh fucking why did RA not wait until the RWC was over, keep their powder dry and assess options then.

And pay whatever it took (yes, I mean that, the stakes for Aust rugby are simply massive) to get the very best possible HC from those available in late 2019.

Because that would be
A. Smart
B. Not delivering on the main objective when the decision was made 6-12 months ago, which was to put a buffer between Cheika & Castle and put Cheika in a position that regardless of outcome he would not be able to continue in a structure that he could not accept. Once Johnson was “found” his challenge was always how do I finger a coach desperate enough to take the top job somewhere that he would accept reporting to a guy with no established capability to match his results to his ambitions. At that time Rennie was 1000/1 to get the NZ job. Who knew Hansen and Co would shoot themselves in the foot. Even now he would be 50/1. If NZ go outside Foster , Schmidt or Robertson are the quinella.

Timing is everything

So in summary we have a Director of Rugby installed to run interference for a CEO who should not have got the job, has proven inept in doing the job and reports to an absolute plod of a Chairman who has to be on last legs. A coach has been installed with a good Super Rugby resume some years ago who has been barely competent in European competition. He will inherit the best generation of young players 18-22 we have had for 15 years. Our nemesis has been shown to have a glass jaw and are about to transition out half their players and likely an entire coaching staff.

The $64 question for me is who proposed Johnson got his job closely followed by how did Castle get hers, her incompetence was well known in the NRL.

 

[wamberal]

He's driven by a desire to be successful and to be meticulously organised in order to do so. Concepts foreign to many in Australian rugby.

He has also made it clear that he has an unlimited operating budget, thanks to the riches of the RFU, something that is also foreign to Australian rugby, and always has been, relatively speaking.

 

[formerflanker]

The $64 question for me is who proposed Johnson got his job closely followed by how did Castle get hers, her incompetence was well known in the NRL.

The board of RA had three women on it at the time of Castle's appointment IIRC. It's possible commitment to employing females is seen in the profiles of the women on the board. From The Guardian -
Castle is joined by other high-profile advocates for women in leadership and sport including board members Elizabeth Broderick (sex discrimination commissioner 2007-2015), Pip Marlow (member of Chief Executive Women, an organisation committed to supporting and growing women in executive positions) and Ann Sherry (who became the first female board member of the then Australian Rugby Union in 2012, and was the first assistant secretary of the Office of the Status of Women in Canberra, as well as Australia’s representative to the United Nations on women’s rights).
There may have been more than rugby as an imperative at the time of Castle's appointment.

 

[Quick Hands]

He has also made it clear that he has an unlimited operating budget, thanks to the riches of the RFU, something that is also foreign to Australian rugby, and always has been, relatively speaking.

Although at one point the then ARU had over $31 million in the bank. Nothing to show for it 16 years later.

 

[Quick Hands]

The $64 question for me is who proposed Johnson got his job closely followed by how did Castle get hers, her incompetence was well known in the NRL.

Alas, incompetence is a concept which isn't foreign to Australian rugby. One could even suggest that incompetence is almost a prerequisite for board appointments in Australian rugby. Such board members then appoint old mates and cronies to important roles within the organisation. Hence RA, far from having a limitless operating budget has a extremely constricted operating budget. 15-20 years of this level of incompetence is precisely why the game in Australia is in the condition that it is in.

 

[RedsHappy]

The board of RA had three women on it at the time of Castle's appointment IIRC. It's possible commitment to employing females is seen in the profiles of the women on the board. From The Guardian -
Castle is joined by other high-profile advocates for women in leadership and sport including board members Elizabeth Broderick (sex discrimination commissioner 2007-2015), Pip Marlow (member of Chief Executive Women, an organisation committed to supporting and growing women in executive positions) and Ann Sherry (who became the first female board member of the then Australian Rugby Union in 2012, and was the first assistant secretary of the Office of the Status of Women in Canberra, as well as Australia’s representative to the United Nations on women’s rights).
There may have been more than rugby as an imperative at the time of Castle's appointment.

This is a very astute observation and one of Australian rugby’s legacy and ongoing problems.

Nothing against these women or women on boards of all types and sizes (do I really have to say that, I suppose so).

These were principally Pulveresque appointments and the criteria were clear: PC gender balance, ‘prestige backgrounds’, ‘impressive resumes’. Lots of ARU board feel-good-about-ourselves-we-are-modern-types-and-our-virtue-is-duly-signalled.

Only problem was/is: these sorts of persons really know little or nothing about successful sports administration, the key issue of senior pro sports coaching selections, handling the sports-buying media organisations so crucial to profitability, structuring and restructuring of pro sport comps, the issues associated with global sporting federations, the particular politics thereof, or all such like.

These directors are also notable for being players in the Australian ‘board directors’ clubs’ that tend to keep tight rein on which who selects the other who and who stays in the charmed circle and who doesn’t. The Pulver was no fool in this regard, there was always the future to be kept in mind.

It’s clear these board members were not selected on carefully selected criteria associated with the competencies and backgrounds essential to revitalise Australian rugby. They were perhaps right for very different bullseyes in very different lands. Their competencies and backgrounds suited other worlds, farther away, and calmer places where drastic, focussed, very domain-specific change was not essential.

 

[Lost]

This is a very astute observation and one of Australian rugby’s legacy and ongoing problems.

Nothing against these women or women on boards of all types and sizes (do I really have to say that, I suppose so).

These were principally Pulveresque appointments and the criteria were clear: PC gender balance, ‘prestige backgrounds’, ‘impressive resumes’. Lots of ARU board feel-good-about-ourselves-we-are-modern-types-and-our-virtue-is-duly-signalled.

Only problem was/is: these sorts of persons really know little or nothing about successful sports administration, the key issue of senior pro sports coaching selections, handling the sports-buying media organisations so crucial to profitability, structuring and restructuring of pro sport comps, the issues associated with global sporting federations, the particular politics thereof, or all such like.

These directors are also notable for being players in the Australian ‘board directors’ clubs’ that tend to keep tight rein on which who selects the other who and who stays in the charmed circle and who doesn’t. The Pulver was no fool in this regard, there was always the future to be kept in mind.

It’s clear these board members were not selected on carefully selected criteria associated with the competencies and backgrounds essential to revitalise Australian rugby. They were perhaps right for very different bullseyes in very different lands. Their competencies and backgrounds suited other worlds, farther away, and calmer places where drastic, focussed, very domain-specific change was not essential.

Spot on.

The virtue signalling rampant in corporate Australia is now of plague proportion.

 

[Ignoto]

Jessssssssssssussss fucking christ. Truly straw clutching shit you lot are doing. The attitude you're displaying is quite pathetic.

Have a read up on their Bios rather than think their lifes work can be summarized in less than a sentence.

Ann

Ann Sherry is a leader in Australian business and the current CEO ofCarnival Australia and has led the industry’s extraordinary growth since 2007.

Prior to Carnival Australia, Ann spent 12 years with Westpac including roles as Chief Executive Officer, Westpac New Zealand, the CEO of the Bank of Melbourne and Group Executive, People & Performance. Ann was a driver of cultural change, community engagement and customer focus in commercial and retail banking.

Pip

Salesforce has appointed Pip Marlow as the first CEO of Salesforce Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), to lead the company’s ANZ business into its next phase of growth.

Marlow, who will begin her role in October 2019, joins from Suncorp where she was chief executive officer customer marketplace.

Prior to Suncorp, she spent more than 20 years at Microsoft where she held various positions in Australia and the USA before being appointed managing director for Australia in January 2011

Elizabeth

A former head of legal technology at law firm Blake Dawson Waldron (now Ashurst), where she practised for nearly two decades, she became the firm's first part-time partner and later served as a member of its board. In 2001 she was named Telstra NSW Business Woman of the Year; she also received the Centenary Medal.

All three have demonstrated decades worth of experience at the highest level of management. All three have had management positions at the biggest companies in Australia and some having C-Suite jobs in global giants.

Its absolute crock of shit that you think they';re not good enough.

 

[RedsHappy]

Jessssssssssssussss fucking christ. Truly straw clutching shit you lot are doing. The attitude you're displaying is quite pathetic.

Have a read up on their Bios rather than think their lifes work can be summarized in less than a sentence.

Ann


Pip



Elizabeth


All three have demonstrated decades worth of experience at the highest level of management. All three have had management positions at the biggest companies in Australia and some having C-Suite jobs in global giants.

Its absolute crock of shit that you think they';re not good enough.

Oh dear. I think you have missed the point entirely in a flurry of frenzied upsetedness.

The point is not one regarding 'not good enough' - by some abstract and absolutist criteria of innate worthiness as a directors - and this point was not even debated. I for one never argued 'not good enough' in the way you suggest above in order to neutralise the entire argument being advanced (in fact I said that in other contexts they all could be well suited).

The point was 'are these directors, of these general corporate backgrounds and clear selection criteria, the right choice to guide the turnaround required in a pro sporting code that is obviously in real difficulty, do they/did they have the most desirable and requisite expertise to aid in doing that and were they selected with that expertise as a central consideration or, instead, some other much less relevant expertise?'

I argue, no, they don't especially given the urgency of the changes essential to the survival of pro Australian rugby.

Moreover, and more critically still, if we judge by results obtained and the true state of our Super Rugby teams, the level and trend line of Super and Wallaby fan attendance, the fate of the Wallabies right today, do we think all this points in the direction of a qualified, well-selected RA board demonstrably possessing the skills needed to run the code well?

 

[Lost]

Jessssssssssssussss fucking christ. Truly straw clutching shit you lot are doing. The attitude you're displaying is quite pathetic.

Have a read up on their Bios rather than think their lifes work can be summarized in less than a sentence.

Ann


Pip



Elizabeth


All three have demonstrated decades worth of experience at the highest level of management. All three have had management positions at the biggest companies in Australia and some having C-Suite jobs in global giants.

Its absolute crock of shit that you think they';re not good enough.

The financial services industry is littered with directors of such general experience, it is the lack of specific industry experience knowledge that has enabled the proliferation of issues it is dealing with. Your view holds that general experience is sufficient. It has not proven to be the case. If you do not know where to enquire the only insight you get is from senior execs who present the picture that best protects their interests and outcomes.

What knowledge of Rugby do those directors you highlight posses?

 

[RedsHappy]

The financial services industry is littered with directors of such general experience, it is the lack of specific industry experience knowledge that has enabled the proliferation of issues it is dealing with. Your view holds that general experience is sufficient. It has not proven to be the case. If you do not know where to enquire the only insight you get is from senior execs who present the picture that best protects their interests and outcomes.

What knowledge of Rugby do those directors you highlight posses?

'The financial services industry' of which C Clyne, R Davis and the immediate past Chair of the QRU are all stalwarts. Let me just say, in terms of ethics, competencies, good governance, this is not an industry that has recently covered itself in glory.

 

[Lost]

Correct, the insurance industry is awash with directors representing every badge of diversity and inclusion at the expense of actually understanding how the underlying business operates. Unscrupulous management had a free reign.

 

[Dctarget]

So, we crashed out of the quarter-finals because there are too many women on the board? Bizarre thinking. I think you need to turn your computers off, go outside and enjoy a bit of fresh air.

 

[dru]

Jessssssssssssussss fucking christ. Truly straw clutching shit you lot are doing. The attitude you're displaying is quite pathetic.

Generally I agree with you Ignoto. For me, I like Pip not so much the other two. None of it is close to the impact of Clyne. Note however that whatever your thoughts of the board individuals, proof of concept is in the results that they have achieved. Contraction of the pro game, losing connection to the grass roots, as performance pushes a convincing down trend. If the ladies, and the rest of the board wish to suggest the board has been skewed (ie not their accountability as an individual) - then they need to start making the case. Leaving Clyne to mentor an incoming Chair leaves them tarred along with Clyne. IMHO.

I really do however, think that rugby has been stuffed by the Arbib report. For rugby at least, I dont agree with the push to independence of the board. I’d like people there with skin in the game.

Hopefully there is room for that without the boys for the job and old school tie. IE not Kearns.

 

[RedsHappy]

So, we crashed out of the quarter-finals because there are too many women on the board? Bizarre thinking. I think you need to turn your computers off, go outside and enjoy a bit of fresh air.

Utter rubbish, if objectively addressing the points raised in any way matters here. Needless to say - that is absolutely not what either myself or Lost said.

Distort and obfuscate as much as you want, but over time, actual results obtained highlight any board’s appropriateness to the task and its challenges.

 

[formerflanker]

So, we crashed out of the quarter-finals because there are too many women on the board? Bizarre thinking. I think you need to turn your computers off, go outside and enjoy a bit of fresh air.

Thanks for the gratuitous advice.
As Jordan Peterson said so well to Cathy Newman, "No, that's not what I am saying."
My point is that in the selection process for a new CEO, three women of undoubted ability and each with a demonstrated passion for the advancement of women at senior levels of Australian organisation, used more than Rugby administration criteria in their search and choice of a new CEO.
That's quite a logical inference.
However the total fog of inscrutability that pervades RA would make this hypothesis impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

He's driven by a desire to be successful and to be meticulously organised in order to do so. Concepts foreign to many in Australian rugby.

No doubt. He and Cheika are quite similar in a lot of ways (very single minded, my way or the highway), EJ (Eddie Jones) has just proven himself to have the ability to be more adaptable and perhaps a bit more intelligent if I were to be unkind to Cheik.

 

[Joe Blow]

Cheika never pretended to be anything that he was not. He was completely invested in his game plan and gave it 100%. You could not ask for more from any coach.
The problem with his tenure was that RA were unable to recognise when he became ineffective and/or they didn’t have the balls to sack him..............literally.
He can walk away with his head held high.

 

[Dctarget]

Thanks for the gratuitous advice.
As Jordan Peterson said so well to Cathy Newman, "No, that's not what I am saying."
My point is that in the selection process for a new CEO, three women of undoubted ability and each with a demonstrated passion for the advancement of women at senior levels of Australian organisation, used more than Rugby administration criteria in their search and choice of a new CEO.
That's quite a logical inference.
However the total fog of inscrutability that pervades RA would make this hypothesis impossible to prove or disprove.

No problem JP.
What's your point then? Please finish your argument. Your point so far is that Raelene Castle was not appointed completely for her ability, rather her gender was taken into account and therefore...? What? She's not up to the task? Why does it matter?