Where to for Super Rugby?

[RedsHappy]

and from the SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/r...a-blow-for-embattled-aru-20170504-gvyvkk.html
"Rob Clarke is one of the outstanding sports administrators in the country and has given wonderful service to the game through the ARU, the Brumbies and Melbourne Rebels over the course of a decade," Pulver said. That is utter crap - he was the architect who lost $8 m in the ARC , lost money with the Brumbies - even though they won a premiership, he lost $8.5 m as CEO of Rebels and left them coming last in the ladder, he put forward the proposal to cut an Aussie rugby team and now at least two teams have threatened to sue the ARU if they are cut, and SANZAAR is threatening to sue ARU if they don't cut a team - have I missed anything here Mr Pulver???

And then there is this from Pulver, in the same article as above:

"His resignation was difficult to accept but Rob has decided the time is right to pursue a different course along with his family and he deserves to be incredibly proud of his career in the game. When I look at the values of our game it is hard to imagine someone who embodies those values both in a professional and personal sense more than what Rob does. He is a tremendous loss for the organisation. I am ever-grateful to Rob for his contribution to the ARU and I wish him the very best for his future."

Did anyone see the 4 Golden Rules of the Australian Rugby Management System as I listed above, especially No 1 where no one in authority is ever really held properly accountable, or takes responsibility, for anything?

Pulver's words re Clarke's departure are a master class in the Rules current incarnation and consistent application.

 

[RedsHappy]

An EGM or special resolutions require 75% to pass(12 votes), I suspected the ARU were quick to exclude the Brumbies from the chopping block because it bought the ARU a voting block.

Let's say theirs two corners, by my calculation these votes will definetly be against the ARU currently:

RUPA: 1
WA: 2
Rebels: 2

These states will likely be aligned with the ARU, if you have to ask why just examine debtors and balance sheets for the past few years:
NT: 1
SA: 1
Tas: 1

Sideline:
QLD: 3 votes
NSW: 3 Votes
ACT: 2 Votes

One thing is for certain, if there is to be any shakeup, it requires support of both QLD and NSW.

........and in doing so they have to bite the hand that feeds them and keeps them alive.

 

[dru]

....and in doing so they have to bite the hand that feeds them and keeps them alive.

Honest RH. Really?

Yes under the current system which you know better than I do, is at best death by 1,000 cuts and at worst, well worse.

I hope that we've reached a point that NSW and Qld are thinking about their votes.

The real question is "what next?"

 

[kickedmyheight]

Pulver's words re Clarke's departure are a master class in the Rules current incarnation and consistent application.

I do wonder if this is scapegoating by implication. Their good mate takes one for the team and every ARU man says the right things about him. Also no doubt doing all they can to ensure he parachutes into something comfortable.

Meanwhile they count on the fact that no-one believes the bullshit they say anyway and automatically assumes that Clarke was the root of all the problems and was forced into his "gracious resignation" instead of being dumped. The media and pundits are then partly satisfied that they have had their pound of flesh and will leave the rest of the ARU alone for a while.

I don't think it will work if this is their intention as it would require the public to have faith in the leaders again, which is not going to happen while Pulver and Clyne remain. They have dug themselves too deep.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[kiap]

it would require the public to have faith in the leaders again, which is not going to happen while Pulver and Clyne remain.

Suspect their time might be up soon.

Not everything that Pulver did was wrong but the current cluster***k means his days are surely numbered.

However, there is so little faith in the muppets who feed on Australian Rugby generally while proclaiming their support for the game, that I fear their replacements at the ARU may be even worse.

The old issues and battles haven't disappeared and will rise again.

 

[stoff]

An EGM or special resolutions require 75% to pass(12 votes), I suspected the ARU were quick to exclude the Brumbies from the chopping block because it bought the ARU a voting block.

Let's say theirs two corners, by my calculation these votes will definetly be against the ARU currently:

RUPA: 1
WA: 2
Rebels: 2

These states will likely be aligned with the ARU, if you have to ask why just examine debtors and balance sheets for the past few years:
NT: 1
SA: 1
Tas: 1

Sideline:
QLD: 3 votes
NSW: 3 Votes
ACT: 2 Votes

One thing is for certain, if there is to be any shakeup, it requires support of both QLD and NSW.

I thought WA's super franchise vote sat with the ARU. My read on getting to 75% was you need everyone except NSW or QLD, or everyone bar NT/SA/Tas/ARU(Force), or everyone bar ACT. If their is a coup, the non-Super Rugby unions don't have to worry about backing the current board as long as the numbers are there. I can't see the ACT sitting as the lone hold out because if they did they may become rapidly unsafe. NSW probably have the most to lose, but given some of the sentiment coming out of there, they could equally be on board. It could be very close to unanimous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I've thought about the WA vote, and legally the ARU would be unable to hold a member vote for their own board, that has to sit with WA still and would have been terms within the takeover.

The non super rugby states arguably have more to lose, what limited budgets they do have is often made up with grants from the ARU which have no contractural obligations to continue for set periods, NT and SA both have debts and loans held by the ARU. Tasmania now has the AON Sevens tournament and NT Rugbys largest event is the Hottest Sevens, which all have ARU support.

It's not simply a case of sacking the board and placing a new board in charge who is in line with what the supporting unions want, the new board still needs to meet the ASC governance requirements stipulating independent board member appointees. Which I suspect is why this hasn't occurred already.

The whole governance review was designed to make the ARU independent of the members unions, and so that it can't be held to ransom by NSW/QLD.. which in theory is positive, but watered down their accountability to the unions.

 

[wamberal]

Who in his or her right mind would be interested in a gig with the ARU?



Mission impossible. Very little upside, and huge downside risks. A game in decline, with no apparent silver lining anywhere.



Back-biting and in-fighting everywhere. A total evaporation of good will and trust.



Don't forget to turn the lights out and return the keys on your way out, please.

 

[Brumbieman]

Merci beaucoup

Nice. But yeah, apparently impending and has the numbers to defeat the cartel...........

 

[Omar Comin']

Who in his or her right mind would be interested in a gig with the ARU?

Mission impossible. Very little upside, and huge downside risks. A game in decline, with no apparent silver lining anywhere.

Back-biting and in-fighting everywhere. A total evaporation of good will and trust.

Don't forget to turn the lights out and return the keys on your way out, please.

Depends how you look at it. Expectations are so low and things are already so bad there's potentially a lot of upside. Do a good job turning things around for rugby and it'll stand out. If it continues to decline or stay at the same level, then no one's going to think it was your fault, the writing was on the wall years before.

 

[Braveheart81]

Nice. But yeah, apparently impending and has the numbers to defeat the cartel.....

If they reach a vote of 75%, that has to include some or all of the cartel you're referring to.

Any 'coup' needs at least one out of NSW and Qld to make it happen with their three votes.

 

[KOB1987]

Depends how you look at it. Expectations are so low and things are already so bad there's potentially a lot of upside. Do a good job turning things around for rugby and it'll stand out. If it continues to decline or stay at the same level, then no one's going to think it was your fault, the writing was on the wall years before.

Precisely. Draw a line in the sand, get all the bad news out of the way as publicly as possible and then it's all uphill from there with the right people behind it.

 

[wamberal]

I admire the optimism.


The simple fact is this. The challenges of saving the game as a viable and sustainable major professional sport in Australia are huge. Any candidate who understands the game as it is, will also understand that at least one huge factor that will impact of his or her performance is totally outside his or her control.


The Laws of the Game.


We can have different opinions about the rulebook, but surely we would all accept that the rules are the bedrock of the game. And that bedrock is totally outside the remit of local management.



Historically, certainly post-war, rugby here has overtly or covertly tried to make the rules more acceptable to the Australian sporting mentality.


I have mentioned the so-called "Australian dispensation" before. This was the local variation that we played domestic rugby under, in which kicking out on the full was only allowed from within the 25 yard line.


The "Stellenbosch Project" was an Australian initiative.


The NRC runs under some local variations.


That tells us a lot about the game here. I know what it tells me, that one hand is tied behind the back of any CEO. Certainly when the two major competitors can do whatever they like.


To personalise this a bit. At one stage in my career I might have been somewhere in the mix for consideration for a job like this.


But I would not take it on, and I would not advise anybody else to take to take it on. It is undoable.

 

[Omar Comin']

I admire the optimism.

The simple fact is this. The challenges of saving the game as a viable and sustainable major professional sport in Australia are huge. Any candidate who understands the game as it is, will also understand that at least one huge factor that will impact of his or her performance is totally outside his or her control.

The Laws of the Game.

We can have different opinions about the rulebook, but surely we would all accept that the rules are the bedrock of the game. And that bedrock is totally outside the remit of local management.

That tells us a lot about the game here. I know what it tells me, that one hand is tied behind the back of any CEO. Certainly when the two major competitors can do whatever they like.

To personalise this a bit. At one stage in my career I might have been somewhere in the mix for consideration for a job like this.

But I would not take it on, and I would not advise anybody else to take to take it on. It is undoable.

If the laws of the game were as big an impediment here as you think then rugby would never have had such a successful 2003 world cup, it wouldn't hold the Fox Sports TV ratings record, the Wallabies wouldn't have been so popular when they were at the top of the world, and the Brumbies, Waratahs and Reds wouldn't have been so popular at various points in their history.

There's a formula for rugby being popular in Australia. Successful teams playing entertaining rugby. It's happened before and it will happen again.

But what makes it difficult to compete with other codes is that all professional rugby in Australia is within international competitions, against the best teams in the world. So outside of the odd year, 1 in 4 or 5, people are just used to our teams losing. This is the big advantage the AFL, NRL and A League have - an Australian team always wins, and multiple Australian teams always have good seasons. And there is so much more tribalism.

 

[wamberal]

So you believe that the success of the NRL and the AFL has nothing to do with their rulebooks?


If that is the case, why do they keep modifying their rules? In some cases, during the season?

 

[Omar Comin']

So you believe that the success of the NRL and the AFL has nothing to do with their rulebooks?

If that is the case, why do they keep modifying their rules? In some cases, during the season?

No, I think it definitely has something to do with the rulebook. But it's not the biggest factor especially at the moment, and I don't think Australian tastes are completely unique. The rugby played at the 2007 world cup for example wasn't liked by the majority of rugby fans all over the world, and the laws were subsequently tweaked for the better. In that time the laws were making it too easy for the defensive team to win the ball or penalties at the breakdown. A few years before, when we were the best team it was too easy to maintain possession for long periods. This didn't make for the most dynamic rugby either, though it was a lot better than in 2007. I think there's a better balance now, and you can see that by how spectacular the NZ teams are when playing well. Our teams just can't compete with them.

If we had a more domestic focused competition we could have a bit more control over how the game is played, at least in that tournament. Either with small law variations just for our local competition (as we see in the current NRC) or if not that, then through incentives or even just conventional agreements within the competition around how the game should be played.

Soccer is the biggest football code in the world and it's barely changed it's rules in over a century. Yet different competitions have different styles of play.

 

[kickedmyheight]

So you believe that the success of the NRL and the AFL has nothing to do with their rulebooks?


If that is the case, why do they keep modifying their rules? In some cases, during the season?

The rules have a part to play, but is nowhere near the major factor in either the NRL or AFL having the popularity that they currently have. The major factor is that they have good quality product in front of people more often and more visibly than other sports. They do better at advertising, they do better at creating supporter rivalries. They do better at engaging kids growing up while they are choosing which sport to play. There are other things as well, there is no one factor but a myriad that combine together.

There are many factors, such as the ones I have mentioned above, that rugby can focus on to make improvements in its popularity without ever having to worry about the rulebook. In many cases I feel that the rule changes touted by the AFL and NRL are manufactured to keep the sports in the public eye during the news cycle as much as they are to actually improve the gameplay of the sport.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

Who in his or her right mind would be interested in a gig with the ARU?
Mission impossible. Very little upside, and huge downside risks. A game in decline, with no apparent silver lining anywhere.
Back-biting and in-fighting everywhere. A total evaporation of good will and trust.
Don't forget to turn the lights out and return the keys on your way out, please.

My work is principally in corporate strategy and restructuring and I sit on a range of boards. I've been a CEO of billion $s per annum businesses.

+ I love rugby.

It will never happen, but if ever I was invited to join the ARU board, I would do it in a heartbeat. I know at least a dozen other well-qualified competent persons who would immediately do the same.

Fixing the code here would be a privileged challenge, and an exiting and motivating one.

The right team in the ARU board and senior management could get the code back on its feet as a thriving, niche sport in Australia.

Your deep, deep pessimism Wamberal re rugby in Australia contrasts oddly with the regularity of your positing here. Perhaps you hold a buried scintilla of sentimental hope that it's actually worth saving.

 

[RedsHappy]

If they reach a vote of 75%, that has to include some or all of the cartel you're referring to.

Any 'coup' needs at least one out of NSW and Qld to make it happen with their three votes.

Yep. And the 'coup' notion probably neglects to appreciate the subtle but powerful layers of mutual back-scratching and patronage that exists at the core of most Australian rugby board and management elites. It's their MO and one of the principal reasons the code's in the serious mess it is.

Just take the case - documented above somewhere in this thread - of the close business relationship between Roger Davis (NSWRU) and Brett Robinson (ARU). And then the latter's deep-seated relationships with the QRU board.

And so on.

The so-called ASC ARU governance review - conducted by that renown prince of good, ethical operating principles M Arbib - was/is a joke (designed mostly to secure taxpayer funds) as it did nothing to fix the system of complex, interdependent patronage processes that dominate much of the way boards and management groups are constructed within Australian rugby.

 

[Micheal]

What is such a coup aiming to achieve?