• 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.

Australian Rugby / RA

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)

Definitely a rant, not sure how "awesome" it is. Some classic Jones logic in there:
How are you going to keep our best schoolboys in the game instead of letting them defect to the NRL? If we don’t offer these players a fulltime rugby option, they’ll continue to vote with their feet and leave our game as they are doing now.

What are your plans for the NRC? Surely a waste of time and money. It takes away from the clubs, one of our breeding grounds, playing a longer season and that makes it difficult for them to survive. Yet by surviving they can provide better facilities for the juniors. The multiplier effects are obvious, or do you continue to waste money on the Titanic of rugby competitions.

We need a more opportunities for young players, so obviously we should get rid of the competition that is providing them and is our best opportunity to offer more.

And this from guy who apparently wants to challenge the status quo:
How do you ensure that we never again have rookie head coaches in charge of all four Super Rugby franchises? Surely we need world-class coaches for NSW and Queensland. And if we are going to blood a rookie coach, perhaps that can be done with the Melbourne Rebels and the Brumbies. And how do you cultivate Australian coaches? I could suggest you start by not ignoring outstanding proven Australian coaches who keep offering and being rejected by the unknowns who make the decisions to appoint coaches.

It's been said before but the best thing Jones could do for Australian Rugby is disappear.
 

charlesalan

Sydney Middleton (9)
and an interesting article from Senator Linda Reynolds

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/force-back-how-do-we-protect-other-sporting-teams-linda-reynolds/
If tonight’s much-anticipated Western Force game against the Fiji Warriors says anything, it’s that you can’t keep a good sporting team down, but it is a travesty that they have had to fight this hard to survive.

After being cruelly cut from the competition by Rugby Australia, formerly Australian Rugby Union, Western Force has returned to compete against international opponents. As the Senator who initiated a parliamentary inquiry last year into the future of Rugby Australia following their shock decision, I couldn’t be happier to see the Western Force back on the field.

But as happy as I am, I’m still bothered by the lack of answers to some big questions.

The purpose of the Senate inquiry was to search for answers for the utterly devastated Western Force players, members and grass-root supporters who felt betrayed by the custodians of their sport. While the inquiry helped provide supporters and taxpayers with some answers about the process of the decision, it never got to the truth of where the big money went.

It left me still wondering how a governing body could be allowed to operate with such little oversight and at such detriment to the very sport they were meant to be the custodians of.

Over the last few weeks, it has struck me that the mismanagement in rugby is awfully similar to the revelations coming out of the banking Royal Commission, and even the Australian Cricket cheating scandal. They all seem to involve a lot of money, big egos and very little transparency.

Today, governing bodies of major sporting codes are run as companies. Given the enormous sums of money involved, this is not inappropriate on the face of it. But with big sport run by boards drawn primarily from corporate Australia, including from our major banks, they are increasingly run first as businesses and corporate vanity plates and a poor second as long-term custodians and stewards of their sport.

During the Senate inquiry, I came to view the situation of modern sports administration through the prism of two competing sets of responsibilities and actions. The first is between what is financially good for the business versus integrity-based stewardship. The second is between what is legal under corporations law versus what is good custodianship.

It is therefore entirely possible to manage a professional sporting code so it is solvent and complies with corporations law, while slowly destroying the sport itself through bad stewardship. As the administration of Rugby Australia demonstrated, it is also possible to legally manage a sporting code while financially driving it towards insolvency.

The obvious problem is that sport is not just a money-making business – it’s also part of our culture. As Australians, we live and breathe sport, no matter what code we’re watching or how we define what ‘football’ is. Sport keeps young Australians active, healthy and engaged. Junior sport can even provide a great pathway for young Australians into professional leagues, both here and internationally.

Clearly, sports teams and their governing bodies need to remain profitable, but that need must be balanced with the need to protect the sport itself.

Beyond the sporting aspect, all businesses need to be accountable to their stakeholders.

Last year’s Senate inquiry found that despite lucrative broadcasting right contracts, Rugby Australia had been in deep financial and cultural trouble for many years. This was a fact not made clear to their financially neglected grassroots and almost impossible to discern from their glossy annual reports. Evidence uncovered during the inquiry was that this led to highly dysfunctional actions that were not in the best interests of the sport itself.

Enough is enough. While major sporting codes are businesses, administrators must no longer be able to hide behind corporate shields to avoid transparency and accountability to their grassroots.

Boards must become as equally accountable for their custodianship as for their legislated responsibilities. They must demonstrate that they and management are living up to the codes of conduct they should be enforcing on players. Financial sponsors also have a role in undertaking greater due diligence on the administration of the sport before they sign deals.

Constituent bodies of major sporting codes must be empowered to ask the hard questions of both management and of the board, and to have those questions answered.

A good governing body recognises all aspects of their role and may do this instinctually – there are certainly successful examples out there. But where goodwill and a shared commitment to transparency does not work, there has to be somewhere to go to for governance and stewardship concerns that are not within the remit of ASIC. The Australian Sporting Commission should have greater responsibility for encouraging and supporting more effective custodianship and working more closely with ASIC.

Not all major sporting codes have lost touch with their integrity and grass-root responsibilities, but clearly some have, and other may in the future. We can’t legislate for integrity and sportsmanship, but we can and must find ways of ensuring greater administrative transparency, stronger grassroots engagement and longer-term effective custodianship of our treasured sporting codes.

It is not just the regulation of our major banks that need a shakeup – so too does the administration and stewardship of our major sports.
 

Aurelius

Ted Thorn (20)
Good article by Sen. Reynolds.

Regarding this:

Over the last few weeks, it has struck me that the mismanagement in rugby is awfully similar to the revelations coming out of the banking Royal Commission, and even the Australian Cricket cheating scandal. They all seem to involve a lot of money, big egos and very little transparency.

Today, governing bodies of major sporting codes are run as companies. Given the enormous sums of money involved, this is not inappropriate on the face of it. But with big sport run by boards drawn primarily from corporate Australia, including from our major banks, they are increasingly run first as businesses and corporate vanity plates and a poor second as long-term custodians and stewards of their sport.


I would have to say that the big problem with the "rugby is a business" argument is that, at least in this country, it doesn't seem to be run by real businessmen. Businessmen, after all, are supposed to be risk-takers. They're supposed to create value and show a bit of entrepreneurial spirit. What we have in Rugby Australia is managers. They're professional directors who show up to the board meetings, vote however the chairman wants them too, collect their salaries and move on to their next board meetings. As a result, the product they're providing is increasingly stale. I went to plenty of Super Rugby games when the Force were still part of the competition, and as much as I loved the team, nothing ever changed. You would show up half an hour early, having paid your $80-odd bucks, for the privilege of watching the teams run through their warm-up drills and seeing a few juniors show off their skills at half-time. And if you stayed home and watched on TV, same story. The same interviews conducted by the same commentators with the same players.

Compare that with the approach we've seen demonstrated by WSR. A high-profile rock band to provide the pre-game and half-time entertainment. Cheaper tickets. A new free-to-air viewing platform (with frankly better commentary). Experimental rules to encourage an exciting product. Apparently, cheerleaders too, although I only watched the replay and can't say I particularly noticed them). The difference? Andrew Forrest. A real entrepreneur, a real businessman who, at this early stage at least, seems to know what fans want and is giving it to them. So, based on the evidence so far, which organisation seems to have a better grasp of the business of sport? Minderoo and World Series Rugby? Or Rugby Australia?

I think the answer's pretty obvious, and it also demonstrates why any merger between the two once the current broadcast deal ends is doomed to fail unless Rugby Australia is prepared to make big cultural changes. Frankly, unless they do it just isn't worth it to WSR to consider any such merger - and it certainly isn't worth it for the Force.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
A new free-to-air viewing platform (with frankly better commentary)..


Just to put it into context though - Channel Seven doesn't pay Twiggy for WSR, whereas Foxtel pay squillions for Super Rugby etc. which provides the funds to pay the players.

Hypothetically, Super Rugby could just as easily be on FTA but the money wouldn't be there.
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Foxtel pay squillions for Super Rugby etc. which provides the funds to pay the players.

Sqiubbed billions?

Yeah, but they really pay for the et cetera (i.e. Test matches) and the Soup kicks in a minority share.

It's low-value stocking filler that barely anyone watches but it pads out a few content slots on one of the sports channels.
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
Sorry, how is this her responsibility. It was the SRU that pulled the plug. And this has been an ongoing issue for a long time. Well before her tenure.

At least give her some time to fuck up.

Selected for the role in December, active January - according to Wiki.

That's enough time for certain things to prove to be a priority. Or not.

How much time has she spent in discussion with SRU? one of the greater disfunctions within the rugby world. That's not laying the blame necessarily at the feet of SRU, just noting clashes with NRC, open threats and lack of cohesion in an overarching structure. Etc etc.
How much time spent with the leaders of the SRU clubs seeking common ground?
How much time spent, second level now, at QLd Premier, ditto Act, Melbourne and for that matter subbies?
Time spent in WA, hell wouldn't that be a good idea? Reports from the Twigg calling RA "glacial" is a symptom should have attracted immediate discussion.

Penrith is a symptom that Raelene is not immediately and directly responsible for. The disease that causes it is, IMVHO, completely her remit.
 

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Compare that with the approach we've seen demonstrated by WSR. A high-profile rock band to provide the pre-game and half-time entertainment. Cheaper tickets. A new free-to-air viewing platform (with frankly better commentary). Experimental rules to encourage an exciting product. Apparently, cheerleaders too, although I only watched the replay and can't say I particularly noticed them). The difference? Andrew Forrest. A real entrepreneur, a real businessman who, at this early stage at least, seems to know what fans want and is giving it to them. So, based on the evidence so far, which organisation seems to have a better grasp of the business of sport? Minderoo and World Series Rugby? Or Rugby Australia?



With all that noted: do you think the P&L for the day got even close to breaking even?

Twiggy may be a great businessman, but he's up to his ears in government subsidies while doing it.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm fucking appalled that all these old school ties, who supposedly have the best educations money can buy, can't run something as simple as a rugby club.

But Twiggy isn't the saviour until he's proven otherwise; until he's able to address the problems at the lowest levels of rugby, rather than just putting on a flashy show for a disenfranchised and quite angry population.

After all: he doesn't get a government subsidy for the Hate Fuel powering WA rugby fans right now.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
With all that noted: do you think the P&L for the day got even close to breaking even?



Twiggy may be a great businessman, but he's up to his ears in government subsidies while doing it.



Now, don't get me wrong: I'm fucking appalled that all these old school ties, who supposedly have the best educations money can buy, can't run something as simple as a rugby club.



But Twiggy isn't the saviour until he's proven otherwise; until he's able to address the problems at the lowest levels of rugby, rather than just putting on a flashy show for a disenfranchised and quite angry population.



After all: he doesn't get a government subsidy for the Hate Fuel powering WA rugby fans right now.



Yes I think we might start thinking Twiggy Ball can solve world peace....but regardless someone super rich who is investing in rugby can't be a bad thing - as rich RA ain't.......amongst other things....
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Yes I think we might start thinking Twiggy Ball can solve world peace..but regardless someone super rich who is investing in rugby can't be a bad thing - as rich RA ain't...amongst other things..


It all depends, don't it? Investing in rugby can be a good thing, or it can be a much better thing. If Twiggy genuinely wants to game to prosper in our non-rugby loving country, he needs to listen to some dissenting voices, and (gasp) he does need to listen to those who are in positions of authority in the game, both here, and also at WR (World Rugby).

Brett Gosper, the CEO of World Rugby, is an Aussie. Surely there is the potential for some synergies, maybe some new ideas????
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
And from the outside Wamb, you are sure that "Twiggy needs to listen to some dissenting voices"? What do you base that observation on if not just from how it appears to you, as appearances are what I base my comments on as well.
 
Top