Where to for Super Rugby?

[amirite]

If you diagnose private school attendance as the issue with board members, it's a misdiagnosis.

Newsflash, the AFL is run largely by ex-Victorian APS schoolboys, much like rugby is run largely by ex-Sydney GPS schoolboys.

Why? Their privileged life at school leads to a good university, leads to a good career, leads to a position on the board (in all fairness, with some hard work by them along the way). That's not to say that everyone does or should have gone through this path, but to wave people off because of it would be waving away talented individuals.

Their experience in rugby and business is far more nuanced than that, everyone is an individual.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yes qh we need to review governance processes for aru board selection and key management positions in aru as the problems lay at the top. State unions though equally are not blameless. I.e. we need a review and restructure of Australian rugby structures as clearly fractured and not working with any strategic cohesion. What a bloody mess is Australian rugby.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

You'd know I'd agree with much of that.

Btw: the notion that 'lots of high-prestige directors from 'big' corporate careers' sort of automatically equals good governance practice and superior strategic oversight is bunk.

Many spectacular corporate or institutional failures have had just these types of boards.

For example: Google PlayUp. Have a look at what happened there and some of the directors (and investors btw) historically involved with it.

The critical question for the right analysis always is: does the competence and qualifications of a board marry up optimally with the nature of the enterprise (and its inherent risks and qualitative attributes) concerned?

The ARU has zero directors that have deep, direct, proven expertise in the management and strategic development of a professional sporting code in a competitive sporting marketplace. This absence _of the most critical competency relative to what is required of the ARU_ is absolutely one of the many reasons Australian rugby is in the diabolical mess that it is.

 

[I like to watch]

If you diagnose private school attendance as the issue with board members, it's a misdiagnosis.

Newsflash, the AFL is run largely by ex-Victorian APS schoolboys, much like rugby is run largely by ex-Sydney GPS schoolboys.

Why? Their privileged life at school leads to a good university, leads to a good career, leads to a position on the board (in all fairness, with some hard work by them along the way). That's not to say that everyone does or should have gone through this path, but to wave people off because of it would be waving away talented individuals.

Their experience in rugby and business is far more nuanced than that, everyone is an individual.

Then I would suggest that APS Schools are churning out brighter boys than the GPS system.
They are running rings around our fellas.

 

[TOCC]

its easy to confuse alumni and nepotism

 

[NTT]

amirite must be a ARU board member,surely?

No, just a passionate Melbourne fan doing his best lawyer impersonation who's only basis for winning an argument is how many rants one can have on a forum of hypothesis.
Seeing as Own the Force passed ASIC scrutiny then the iniative has merit. If the most stringent evaluation process in the country has given it the green light then it must be, by definition of Australian corporate law, a viable proposition. At least as much merit as private ownership.
Amirite is looking for specific examples to suit his take on proceedings. An "i told you so moment" if you will.
We can also look for specific examples of how privately owning the Melbourne Rebels has played out. It was a disaster for the previous private owner Harold Mitchell. Mitchell lost $8 million and got out of the ownership. All current indications are that it is also a financial disaster for Andrew Cox as it has been reported he is losing $2 million this year after the Rebels lost $3.6 million last year. This is despite the ARU using supplementary funding to offset losses, forecasted losses i may add, accrued by the new owner. This is after the ARU has already spent $15 million just keeping the doors open since 2011. The ARU for some reason after complaining about unbudgeted funding and financial sustainability, still want to fund this financial disaster.
Where is the merit to that decision?
Thats the choice the ARU needs not rush.
Choice A : A club that has proven itself to be a huge financial liability with a private owner who may not even be there in 2 years time and was forecast to be a financial disaster before it was even opened and has contributed little to player depth, or
Choice B : A club that has a track record of self sustainability, made a huge investment off its own fundraising to establish an academy, had never been in debt until 2016, has added to player depth, has restructured the business to operate on a budget of $4.7 million compared to Melbournes $8.3 million (Aru report figures) and has 5000 new owners keen to underwrite the club for as long as necessary.

I expect, once again, that our good friend the trainee lawyer will look to bust this apart. Im happy he or she takes the time to do so. Arguing over semantics will only get us so far as will the practice of "whoever posts the most wins", even though this can be likened to desperation or insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is that definition afterall.

Regards NTT.

 

[NTT]

Also, if we want examples of syndicated ownership vs private ownership, we need look no further than horse racing.
Winx, our champion mare, is owned through syndication.
Global Glamour, owned by a syndicate.
So you Think, owned by a syndicate.
Protectionist, owned by a syndicate.
Black Caviar, owned by a syndicate.
Reward for Effort, owned by a syndicate.

All group one winning horses. There are thousands of other horses who are syndicated.

Syndicated ownership has many success stories. Barcelona FC, Greenbay Packers are the biggest examples yes but not the only examples. Narrow minds only see a narrow argument.

 

[Melchior]

Choice A : A club that has proven itself to be a huge financial liability with a private owner who may not even be there in 2 years time and was forecast to be a financial disaster before it was even opened and has contributed little to player depth, and the ARU now admit should have never been allowed into super rugby in the first place.

last on, first off etc.

 

[amirite]

Then I would suggest that APS Schools are churning out brighter boys than the GPS system.
They are running rings around our fellas.

Haha, maybe. I also think it's easier to run a AFL organisation than a rugby one. They're starting with a far stronger base.

 

[KOB1987]

Also, if we want examples of syndicated ownership vs private ownership, we need look no further than horse racing.
Winx, our champion mare, is owned through syndication.
Global Glamour, owned by a syndicate.
So you Think, owned by a syndicate.
Protectionist, owned by a syndicate.
Black Caviar, owned by a syndicate.
Reward for Effort, owned by a syndicate.

All group one winning horses. There are thousands of other horses who are syndicated.

Syndicated ownership has many success stories. Barcelona FC, Greenbay Packers are the biggest examples yes but not the only examples. Narrow minds only see a narrow argument.

Do you want me to give you a list of syndicated horses that were either slow or didn't even race?

Syndicates can work in any business venture I am not disputing that. But the racehorse is a poor example, its more to do with luck than good management.

BTW, So You Think was owned outright by a Malaysian businessman.

 

[swingpass]

seriously you two should just let it go. enough of the "he said, she said", the ARU will make a decision, one group of fans will be pissed off, some never to return to rugby. there will be NO victors in this debacle.

 

[NTT]

Do you want me to give you a list of syndicated horses that were either slow or didn't even race?

Syndicates can work in any business venture I am not disputing that. But the racehorse is a poor example, its more to do with luck than good management.

BTW, So You Think was owned outright by a Malaysian businessman.

Success on the track may be a poor example but thats looking for one outcome. Has syndication of racehorces not meant that these racehorces have a high quality of life, access to the best veterinary care, daily care by dedicated employees, horses that cost $5000 going on to earn $100 000 and the same quality of care post racing?

So you think is now owned by the Coolmore breeding syndicate. Previously he was majority owned by a Malaysian business man.

 

[KOB1987]

Success on the track may be a poor example but thats looking for one outcome. Has syndication of racehorces not meant that these racehorces have a high quality of life, access to the best veterinary care, daily care by dedicated employees, horses that cost $5000 going on to earn $100 000 and the same quality of care post racing?

So you think is now owned by the Coolmore breeding syndicate. Previously he was majority owned by a Malaysian business man.

All those things can be provided by a sole owner. Registered syndicates merely provides a means for a middleman to extract fees for doing things that a group of friends / friends of friends used to be able to do amicably for free!

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes qh we need to review governance processes for aru board selection and key management positions in aru as the problems lay at the top. State unions though equally are not blameless. I.e. we need a review and restructure of Australian rugby structures as clearly fractured and not working with any strategic cohesion. What a bloody mess is Australian rugby.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

That's right. I think the organisational culture of the ARU and at least some of the state unions (NSW & Qld) is a bigger problem that the individuals who from time to time may occupy the roles.

There have been a string of errors and omissions over a number of years, projects undertaken when they were known to be unsustainable, continual piecemeal bailouts with little likelihood of turning the financials around, and on it goes. I'd suggest that if the organisation had a culture of decision making based on cost benefit analyses, and within a long-term strategic framework that very few of these decisions would have been taken.

My take on it is that Clyne has got in there (barely a year ago) and worked out what a slipshod outfit it is and is doing his best to set the organistion on the right path.

 

[Quick Hands]

How many of the current board who are having to make these unpopular decisions were on the board when we expanded to 5 teams? Not many by my count.

See post 3097.

 

[wamberal]

QH,

A strategic framework that was developed on an honest and unbiassed SWOT analysis would be very, very depressing indeed.


The simple fact is that the most important of the factors that affect the future of our game are outside the ability of the ARU to do anything at all about.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Frankly, a bit of the old school tie and/or university connection is actually good for the image of our game.

It was - but as the mire deepens and the connections between all of the powerbroker in the game become more and more based on birth it becomes a significant drawback in two respects:

• It deters those not born into the rugby world from entering it;
• It compromises the DNA of the governing structures just as in-breeding does.

 

[NTT]

All those things can be provided by a sole owner. Registered syndicates merely provides a means for a middleman to extract fees for doing things that a group of friends / friends of friends used to be able to do amicably for free!

Yes they can be provided by a sole owner. The point to take out of what im saying is that whether solely owned or syndicated, the financial obligations and liabilities are underwritten either way. Neither method is more meritorious than the other but they do provide the same basic platform for future success and failure, financial sustainability.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The simple fact is that the most important of the factors that affect the future of our game are outside the ability of the ARU to do anything at all about.

No one can argue with that.
Thats why we need people with more ability.

 

[wamberal]

It was - but as the mire deepens and the connections between all of the powerbroker in the game become more and more based on birth it becomes a significant drawback in two respects:

• It deters those not born into the rugby world from entering it;
• It compromises the DNA of the governing structures just as in-breeding does.

Mmmm. Doesn't seem the affect the game in England, for example. But my point was that our perceived pedigree is actually one of the few distinguishing comparative advantages we have.


The game they play at Oxbridge. That means a lot, could mean a lot more.


The only distinguishing thing about our game (except the ephemeral advantage of the internationalism) is that it is a "luxury brand". Doesn't seem to hurt BMW, Benz, Lexus, Range Rover, Land Rover. Some of whom are serious supporters of our code.

 

[wamberal]

No one can argue with that.
Thats why we need people with more ability.

It's Easter. Maybe Messiah will come soon. (Apologies to anybody who takes offence. But after all, we are the game they allegedly play in heaven).