• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
The people who run the game are not actually idiots.


The problem is, I have pointed it out many times, of all the things that could be changed to make the game more popular in Australia, only a minor proportion are within the power of the ARU to change them. Some others require all stakeholders to agree to work together. Why don't people get a bit agitated about this?

Maybe for that to happen we would all have to admit that our clubs are not as important as the Soup franchises, and the success of the national team is more important than the Soups. When will that start to happen?

But of course, and I do not care what any old or young fogeys say to the contrary, by far the two biggest problems are squarely within the remit of the World body. Namely, the Laws of the Game, and the lack of any system of transfer fees.

wamberal i don't always agree with your posts, but your point about the stakeholders is right on the mark. The NSWRU, QRU, ARU, SRU, etc are all equally to blame for the situation. Self serving and self centered to the extreme.
 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
wamberal i don't always agree with your posts, but your point about the stakeholders is right on the mark. The NSWRU, QRU, ARU, SRU, etc are all equally to blame for the situation. Self serving and self centered to the extreme.



Could not agree more

WE need someone from the AFL or soccer to establish a better structure. I would prefer AFL, however a soccer person would understand international matches.

We are at so many levels simply a joke when we compare ourselves to other codes.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Could not agree more

WE need someone from the AFL or soccer to establish a better structure. I would prefer AFL, however a soccer person would understand international matches.

We are at so many levels simply a joke when we compare ourselves to other codes.


Surely you need the smaller unions to give up the power they wield to improve the overall structure.

Due to rugby's small overall size in Australia those state unions and Sydney Rugby Union are too important to how rugby operates at a national level to be left to their own devices but it is also hard to see them giving up that power or falling in line with the ARU in terms of the strategic direction of rugby in Australia.

I think this is why so many think that a complete collapse of the ARU would help things going forward because there would be no choice but to completely re-organise things.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
Unfucking believable.

Although a good article and well-researched, the essential truth of it has been pointed out many times here by a number of us, and long before this type of analysis has caught on as important. (For a long time the ARU forelock tuggers posting here flatly refused to see it all for what it was and excused the ARU all manner of obvious delinquencies in the way it conducted its 'expansion strategy' in VIC.)

Namely, and I say this with no discourtesy to Rebels fans, the Rebels as an ARU expansion strategy and business and code investment has been an abject financial and commercial disaster of large proportion. More or less, the ARU has tried to cover up or deflect away this truth.

I do not blame the Rebels as such for this in the major case.

The ARU consistently picked numerous inadequate Rebels CEO's, poor local boards, and equally poor HCs and assistant HCs.

Then they compounded these serious errors with the type of mistake the Reds have been making for a number of seasons now: the thought that recruiting expensive 'prestige and elite' players - irrespective of local coaching quality - would do the trick and build playing success and a viable Super franchise out of Melbourne.

The ARU entered the VIC market with no serious, well-planned strategy to attain local rugby excellence. Instead it did what it typically always does - bumble onwards with insider mates, core policies lacking foresight, adequate research and any bias to execution planning and execution excellence.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Surely you need the smaller unions to give up the power they wield to improve the overall structure.

Due to rugby's small overall size in Australia those state unions and Sydney Rugby Union are too important to how rugby operates at a national level to be left to their own devices but it is also hard to see them giving up that power or falling in line with the ARU in terms of the strategic direction of rugby in Australia.

I think this is why so many think that a complete collapse of the ARU would help things going forward because there would be no choice but to completely re-organise things.

The hand that feeds them (well with the exception of the SRU). I'd be happy for the SRU to be given autonomy over the NSWRU and for the NSWRU to be collapsed. In return they will be given greater funding but greater responsibility and therefore accountability. I thought about if the situation was the other way around but the SRU would never allow the NSWRU to control their piece of the piece of the pie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
Surely you need the smaller unions to give up the power they wield to improve the overall structure.

Due to rugby's small overall size in Australia those state unions and Sydney Rugby Union are too important to how rugby operates at a national level to be left to their own devices but it is also hard to see them giving up that power or falling in line with the ARU in terms of the strategic direction of rugby in Australia.

I think this is why so many think that a complete collapse of the ARU would help things going forward because there would be no choice but to completely re-organise things.

Yes.

And the problem with asking local RUs to 'give up their power' to (presumably) the current ARU is that everybody knows that the 2017 ARU totally lacks the calibre of business executive and rugby specialists necessary to properly execute a centralised code development strategy a la the NZRU.

So we have a toxic stalemate in effect throughout the entire institution of Australian rugby whereby no serious code reform is possible.

Hence why IMO a complete collapse is the only likely and logical precursor to World Rugby temporarily taking over Aus rugby and rebuilding its entire institutional superstructure, from top to bottom.
 

blues recovery

Billy Sheehan (19)
Although a good article and well-researched, the essential truth of it has been pointed out many times here by a number of us, and long before this type of analysis has caught on as important. (For a long time the ARU forelock tuggers posting here flatly refused to see it all for what it was and excused the ARU all manner of obvious delinquencies in the way it conducted its 'expansion strategy' in VIC.)


Namely, and I say this with no discourtesy to Rebels fans, the Rebels as an ARU expansion strategy and business and code investment has been an abject financial and commercial disaster of large proportion. More or less, the ARU has tried to cover up or deflect away this truth.

I do not blame the Rebels as such for this in the major case.

The ARU consistently picked numerous inadequate Rebels CEO's, poor local boards, and equally poor HCs and assistant HCs.

Then they compounded these serious errors with the type of mistake the Reds have been making for a number of seasons now: the thought that recruiting expensive 'prestige and elite' players - irrespective of local coaching quality - would do the trick and build playing success and a viable Super franchise out of Melbourne.

The ARU entered the VIC market with no serious, well-planned strategy to attain local rugby excellence. Instead it did what it typically always does - bumble onwards with insider mates, core policies lacking foresight, adequate research and any bias to execution planning and execution excellence.

RH most of the time I find myself with violent agreement with your posts however this time I have to correct some of your assertions .I make these comments not as opinion or rumour but with first hand knowledge of what really went on .
1.The ARU played no part in the appointment of the first 4 Rebels CEOs .In fact when Oakley was appointed in July 2010 the three then ARU appointed Directors resigned from the Board en masse .
2. Likewise the played no role in the appointment of Rod Macqueen as HC in fact they vehemently opposed it due to the absolute hatred of JON for Rod and vice versa . Hill was appointed as HC after Rod via the absolute recommendation of Rod which was not questioned
3.A lot is always made of the in hindsight absolute failure of the Beale and JOC (James O'Connor) signings however from a cost perspective the playing group in 2012 with these two cost nearly two million less than in 2011.And certainly in the case of Beale he cost the Rebels would you believe no more than Frier , Weekes , Gerard and Mortlock and he was the reigning Eales medalist . Why wouldn't you sign him ??
4. In 2012 just before the licenece was relinquished by HM and Rob Clarke was pointed by the ARU the operating losses had been reduced from 7 million in 2011 to just over 3 million in 2012

The absolute culpability of the ARU and the Rebels start up was the acceptance of a ridiculously ambitious business plan that showed the organisation profitable by year 2 . This was never achievable and the ARU attitude of the time was to shrug the shoulders and say oh well it's Mitchell's money if he wants to blow it .
The numbers in the business post Clarke appointment then deteriorated as major sponsors were lost and not replaced and member numbers and crowds reduced significantly.
It is my opinion that there was never any way this organisation could succeed financially from day one and probably (and I hate to say this ) should never have kicked off despite the development to the game in the state that has come off their back
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I make these comments not as opinion or rumour but with first hand knowledge of what really went on .

No problem accepting all you have written and i don't doubt it.
But i think its physically impossible to have first hand knowledge of how Mcqueen feels about JON and how JON feels about Mcqueen.
That said, that mutual antipathy explains much of the timing of various moves in the past.
Always liked mcqueen!
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
RH most of the time I find myself with violent agreement with your posts however this time I have to correct some of your assertions .I make these comments not as opinion or rumour but with first hand knowledge of what really went on .
1.The ARU played no part in the appointment of the first 4 Rebels CEOs .In fact when Oakley was appointed in July 2010 the three then ARU appointed Directors resigned from the Board en masse .
2. Likewise the played no role in the appointment of Rod Macqueen as HC in fact they vehemently opposed it due to the absolute hatred of JON for Rod and vice versa . Hill was appointed as HC after Rod via the absolute recommendation of Rod which was not questioned
3.A lot is always made of the in hindsight absolute failure of the Beale and JOC (James O'Connor) signings however from a cost perspective the playing group in 2012 with these two cost nearly two million less than in 2011.And certainly in the case of Beale he cost the Rebels would you believe no more than Frier , Weekes , Gerard and Mortlock and he was the reigning Eales medalist . Why wouldn't you sign him ??
4. In 2012 just before the licenece was relinquished by HM and Rob Clarke was pointed by the ARU the operating losses had been reduced from 7 million in 2011 to just over 3 million in 2012

The absolute culpability of the ARU and the Rebels start up was the acceptance of a ridiculously ambitious business plan that showed the organisation profitable by year 2 . This was never achievable and the ARU attitude of the time was to shrug the shoulders and say oh well it's Mitchell's money if he wants to blow it .
The numbers in the business post Clarke appointment then deteriorated as major sponsors were lost and not replaced and member numbers and crowds reduced significantly.
It is my opinion that there was never any way this organisation could succeed financially from day one and probably (and I hate to say this ) should never have kicked off despite the development to the game in the state that has come off their back

Noted br, I respect your perspective.

Although I also note that various seemingly 'in the know' Rebels fans here have at times offered quite different accounts (to yours.....and perhaps to mine too!) of the CEO and HC appointing matters we are discussing. I just don't know how black and white this all is. (E.g. McGahan, the longest-serving Rebels HC, was clearly an ARU appointment.)

I will say this though - it doesn't matter either way. The central fact is that the ARU provided, over time, substantial funding and support for the Rebels as it was their very prominently endorsed new creation arising solely as a matter of major ARU policy - the 'national footprint we must have'.

If in that central truth the ultimate supervisory body - the ARU - either (a) does not effect adequate control over its franchises to ensure the right calibre of CEOs, boards HCs etc over-sighting their investment or core policy or (b) they do effect control and close involvement with all such matters but make a total hash of that direct involvement, the assessment of the outcomes of (a) and (b) has to be the same, namely, what were the ultimate results attained from either (a) irresponsible neglect and wildly unrealstic financial forecasting as you lament or (b) intrusive engagement with all matters of local governance and team management that ends in poor financial and on-field outcomes (as has occurred as at 2016-17).

If you are the national supervisory body of a major sporting code, you simply have to get either the (a) or (b) model as above right as to its ultimate consequences. That is the very kernel of that body's board's job when it comes to opening new rugby licensees in previously uncharted markets.

Saying 'oh, it's not our fault as we delegated everything to H Mitchell' or 'it's not our fault as our trusted appointed HC McGahan just did not work out' both are, as to consequences yielded up in the end, abrogations of the ultimate responsibility which must by definition rest with the supervisory body that chooses to licence its code rights to major new parties and market territories.

(I could add in here the truly extraordinary revelation from Clyne on April 10 that the ARU board had major concerns re the financial viability of 5 Aus Super teams from as early as 2010-11. This clearly puts into serious question the base wisdom of even commencing the Rebels in the first place and accordingly the policy competencies of the ARU board at that time. If that is your board's view as to risk, why on earth would you advance a Business Plan as you say that ridiculously has the Rebels in profit in Y2 and yet seemingly takes little interest in just how the new franchise will be coached and managed from Y1.)
 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
Surely you need the smaller unions to give up the power they wield to improve the overall structure.

Due to rugby's small overall size in Australia those state unions and Sydney Rugby Union are too important to how rugby operates at a national level to be left to their own devices but it is also hard to see them giving up that power or falling in line with the ARU in terms of the strategic direction of rugby in Australia.

I think this is why so many think that a complete collapse of the ARU would help things going forward because there would be no choice but to completely re-organise things.

I think your right however its our entire structure. We have lacked quality leadership for the most part and decision making has been well cough cough the kind would say "poor" the cruel would say "inept, incompetent and negligent"

So many examples its hardly worth starting a list, but would be interesting to see what the AFL & soccer have done to establish their competitions and they also have state based bodies and contrast to our state bodies.
 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
This is another example of being in charge of your own density. The revenue maybe smaller at the start but you have short term budgets, long term plans etc.

When FFA announced their media deal with Fox, they said they still had a commercial FTA bit to add, sale of overseas rights, and digital.

Recently they announced 10 .

Today they announce, their overseas part.

Football Federation Australia (FFA) has signed an international media rights deal with IMG.
The multimillion dollar deal gives IMG the right to market the Hyundai A-League, Westfield W-League and Westfield FFA Cup, as well as selected Caltex Socceroos and Westfield Matildas matches, to broadcasters around the world for six years from the 2017/18 season.

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au...ights-deal-with-img/n6yrc4o1u3yb1h8fl7399t7hh



 

half

Dick Tooth (41)
Richard Hinds does not hold back..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/australian-rugby-losing-appeal/8629202

Some bits taken from the article.

Those running the game sport a pair of size 32 clown shoes with which they constantly kick themselves in the shins. That is when they're not throwing pies in their own faces.

But it has become impossible to separate the plight of the Wallabies from the serially catastrophic management of the ARU, an organisation that could no longer be entrusted with running a local T-ball team.
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)

From the same article

In the meantime, perhaps the one thing the ARU has got right is to stage Wallabies games on Saturday afternoons, including next Saturday's encounter with Italy.
Not because that has attracted big crowds to watch the Wallabies, but because in prime-time there was a real danger more people would have seen them.

Ouch.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yes Redhappy - they will come to the EGM and bitch and moan, throw a few handbags but I think that is the problem I don't think there is anyone influential who cares enough to want to band together some heavyweights and instigate real change with solid action plan that is more than some temporary noise to hit the media for a month or so.


Oh wait we will get another rousing speech written on a napkin at some drunken do of rugby legends from past X years ago about how stuffed rugby is which translates into a public letter that does sweet bugger all...oh actually sorry they will hold another forum where they invite various stakeholders to discuss problems of the game in this country....

Rinse and repeat.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top