Australian Rugby / RA

[I like to watch]

at last someone being held to account.
Hope this is a sign of things to come.

 

[wamberal]

at last someone being held to account.
Hope this is a sign of things to come.

I do not know the ins and outs of Friend's situation. But I can understand that a change might be a good thing, when success has been uneven.

If the next Sevens coach is to be "held to account", as you put it, what should he be expected to achieve? And how much freedom will have to achieve his goals. Will he be allowed to pick his own Sevens squad, for example, from the whole player cadre?


Or will he be limited to the (forgive the expression) leftovers? Would you like to be "held to account", if you have relatively little control over the assets that you are responsible for getting the required results from?

 

[I like to watch]

He was given substantially more resources than his predecessor, and improvement has been marginal,if at all.

If you are suggesting that he wasn't allowed to pick his own squad, that's down to weakness on his behalf.
7s squads are filled by leftovers by all the major player.Its a proving ground for those on the way up,and a safety net for a few on the way down.if we need to fill our squad with super standard players,to compete with aspiring super standard players, then our program is deficient.

 

[Braveheart81]

He's overseen a pretty substantial changing of the guard in the 7s programme and won our first title in 6 years.

This is the end of his contract and he wasn't successful getting the job going forward which presumably means the new coach will be a strong candidate.

It's hard to think they will replace him with someone other than a well credentialed 7s coach given the improvement in the team over what has presumably been the period they have been interviewing Friend and other candidates for the role going forward.

We can hope so at least. All to be revealed on Monday.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[RugbyReg]

It’s gotta be Walsh you’d think.

 

[Wilson]

It’s gotta be Walsh you’d think.

That's what news.com.au are reporting: http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...n/news-story/417a53663c347d64b87d8a504a54f3e3

 

[TOCC]

BH it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, you've jumped to the conclusion that my comments are suggesting the RA shouldn't have any managers at all. No, thats not the case, however I still think RA is a bloated beast full of people with little effective output and people filling roles with duplication of efforts.

ARU have given just cause for people to question their ability and effectiveness, and for a long time people have questioned and will continue to question the bloated corporate and administration costs of Rugby Australia.

In 2016 the ARU spent $15million on 'corporate expenses' and a further $4million on 'commissioning' expenses, this is against revenue of $128million. Conversely, NZRU who posted annual revenue of $161million spent $10million on Administration.

NRL, with annual revenue almost 300% greater then the ARU, spent a similar amount of Operations and Administration as the ARU in 2017. $19million for RA vs $21million for the NRL.

 

[wamberal]

You might have a point, but it is facile to draw major conclusions from simple data sets like these without a forensic audit.

 

[dru]

You might have a point, but it is facile to draw major conclusions from simple data sets like these without a forensic audit.

Your language is OTT. It was an accurate generalisation. We don't need an audit to comment on disproportionate spending at the ARU.

 

[cyclopath]

NRL, with annual revenue almost 300% greater then the ARU, spent a similar amount of Operations and Administration as the ARU in 2017. $19million for RA vs $21million for the NRL.

Foie gras and Shiraz cost more than McNuggets and a thick shake.

 

[wamberal]

Foie gras and Shiraz cost more than McNuggets and a thick shake.

I can barely be bothered responding, mainly because it is incredibly easy to make easy points, without necessarily doing any real analysis.

But, who looks after the big sponsors in league? Basically it is the clubs. Who looks after them in our game?

Fair dinkum, could we use our brains, not our prejudices? This should be a forum for serious thinkers about the game.

 

[dru]

But, who looks after the big sponsors in league? Basically it is the clubs. Who looks after them in our game?

You seem to suggest that this is the ARU.

 

[cyclopath]

I can barely be bothered responding, mainly because it is incredibly easy to make easy points, without necessarily doing any real analysis.

But, who looks after the big sponsors in league? Basically it is the clubs. Who looks after them in our game?

Fair dinkum, could we use our brains, not our prejudices? This should be a forum for serious thinkers about the game.

It was just a joke. FFS.

 

[dru]

It was just a joke.

Must be me - I thought it was a good one.

 

[I like to watch]

Any chance they are going to appoint Friend as the Girls HC?

 

[RugbyReg]

Nup. Wouldn’t think so. I think it will be John Manetti (spelling?) or Scott Bowen.

 

[TOCC]

I can barely be bothered responding, mainly because it is incredibly easy to make easy points, without necessarily doing any real analysis.

But, who looks after the big sponsors in league? Basically it is the clubs. Who looks after them in our game?

Fair dinkum, could we use our brains, not our prejudices? This should be a forum for serious thinkers about the game.

Yeah... hate to be a pedant but the NRL as an organisation have annual sponsorship income of $57million, the ARU with all their big sponsors have $26million...

 

[wamberal]

Yeah. hate to be a pedant but the NRL as an organisation have annual sponsorship income of $57million, the ARU with all their big sponsors have $26million.

I am simply making the point that it is incredibly easy to make sweeping statements, to know the truth about issues like this takes a bit of expertise and full access to all the numbers.


I will say it again, it is facile to make cheap points based on a superficial set of information. It is facile, and it is boring.

 

[TOCC]

I am simply making the point that it is incredibly easy to make sweeping statements, to know the truth about issues like this takes a bit of expertise and full access to all the numbers.


I will say it again, it is facile to make cheap points based on a superficial set of information. It is facile, and it is boring.

Yeah you were trying to use sponsorship revenue as justification to RA’s seemingly proportionately larger administrative costs.. which clearly isn’t the case since NRL pulls in double RA.

So I guess a case of heed ones own advice on when you said “incredibly easy to make easy points, without necessarily doing any real analysis”

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you need twice as many staff to have twice as much sponsorship revenue?

One of the problems rugby has in Australia is that it isn't a massive sport but I don't think that translates into requiring far less people to run it.

I'd be interested to see how much the difference between RA and NZRU Corporate costs can be attributed to the difference in market salaries between the two countries.

The ARU was a massively bloated organisation during the John O'Neill days but there was significant cost and head count cutting in the first couple of years of Pulver.

I have no real idea whether there are a whole bunch more positions that could go but I'd also be concerned that there is a real loss whether it is financial or in the development of the game if they culled more staff.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk