• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Exactly. I thought it was a pretty interesting interview. Particularly the stuff about Izzy. This was an interview that sought to elicit information, rather than go on the attack. Perhaps our lives would be better if we had more interviews like this.


I'm actually interested to see what burning questions FP had on his mind.

But at the same time: does anyone here want a return to Greg Growden attack dog and/or dickhead journalism? Look at the state of the game.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Most of these questions are stupid. Some of them would do well to get a run in the facebook comments on a daily telegraph article.

2. We were 47% with Folau in the side. Yes, that's right, as bad as we see Cheika's 50% tenure, Folau's was worse. We also won 1 from 7 against England with him in the side. His absence could only be seen to have caused our poor showing if you have a cognitive impairment.

3. Who cares? Folau is gone and the next coach and the Super Rugby coaches will do well to send packing anyone else that doesn't want to be on board.

4. Becuase it's a review of the wallabies? Why would a review panel selected to review the wallabies have the expertise to analyse grassroots rugby?

5. Scott has been in the job 6 months and was hired to run the post Cheika era, which would have started a year earlier if we had the money and a replacement. Why would he be under review at this point?

6. Why would even consider standing down? She was hired by the board and serves at their pleasure, subject to whatever contract she has. How on earth can she speak for the board???

Whilst the weight of readership opinion appears to run against my point of view, I'm still keen for a root-and-branch review of Australian rugby.
Just analysing the elite level is not going to be of any use if the structure holding up the Wallabies is not investigated. That means grassroots rugby and the current administrators must be included in a re-start of our current parlous situation.
The Folau imbroglio may have had a happier ending - we won't know unless a transparent analysis is put before us mug punters. Soft interviews from Fitzy don't fit that criteria.
That's my rationale for a whole-of-sport review and an opportunity to sweep out the current board (which includes the CEO). If they are doing such a great job, they'd win their positions back.
Rugby in Australia is swimming in treacle and only looking at the Wallabies won't fix anything fundamental.
Our woeful results and declining followership demand a major intervention.
 

Kenny Powers

Ron Walden (29)
I’m sure there would be plenty of NRL clubs or the NRL itself with offers on table for Raylene Castle should anything not work out at the ARU.

The reference from the Bulldogs would be a ticket to any role in the NRL.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Given the opportunity, what would you have asked?


What could you have done better in the Folou saga?

What steps have you taken within the RUPA players agreement clarify this going forward

You have the policy of Rugby being an inclusive sport, does that inclusiveness include religiously conservative Christians and Muslims? Or are they now excluded if they extol their beliefs?

You have a large conservative Christian Islander player base, a number have already walked away from Super Rugby teams, what comfort can you give them that they can live their religious lives while being professional rugby players

It is now a just a don't ask, don't tell approach?

How much of the policy is driven by your current sponsors needs.

If a new sponsor was offering triple the amount, would you change your policy to meet their needs

What is your policy on non transitioned Trans players playing Women's rugby?

How are you working to get the various states to commit to a consistent style of a play and working together

How are you working to ensure warehousing of players is limited

You and the previous coach did not have a good relationship, what could you do in the future to ensure a good relationship with the new coach going forward
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
I'm going to split that into 2 sections

PART THE FIRST: FOLAU
(with the massive risk of digging up this mealy corpse to dance around it, yet again)

EDIT: Just had a thought about the Folau thing - with court action pending, maybe those questions were off limits?

What could you have done better in the Folou saga?

Loading the question with "better" is a sign of intent.

A key comment she made in the article along the lines of: if we did NOT re-sign him due to the first round of Instagram controversy, then we'd have got just as much criticism. Essentially he put RA in a no-win situation in the second round, and has shown no signs he'd do anything different.

I'd be keen to hear your opinion on what they could have done better, though. Enlighten us.


What steps have you taken within the RUPA players agreement clarify this going forward

It was covered via sources there was no specific clause in his contract and he refused to enter into anything of the sort. Castle and RA took him at his word - honesty being a very important thing to the religious, I am led to believe. Employment law experts have pointed out that the broader inclusion policies of RA cover the situation in any case.


You have the policy of Rugby being an inclusive sport, does that inclusiveness include religiously conservative Christians and Muslims? Or are they now excluded if they extol their beliefs?

Fact: you can't please everyone. If someone wants to be a professional rugby player in the public eye AND hold ultra-conservative views about homosexuality in the public eye, that won't work for their employer.

If they hold those beliefs and keep them within their religion - during their own times of worship and gathering away from rugby - then I don't see a problem. Separate those parts of your life that cause conflict. People do it every day.

None of this should matter to the deeply religious, of course, because their faith is what sustains them, not their multi-million dollar tax-free property portfolios, accumulated through the game they now choose to thumb their nose at. ;)


You have a large conservative Christian Islander player base, a number have already walked away from Super Rugby teams

Who, specifically? I don't follow the player lists that much so it would be interesting to see the sample size.


, what comfort can you give them that they can live their religious lives while being professional rugby players

See point above wrt holding dichotomous positions.

Tying off this part specifically: if I was an excellent employee at my place of work, and deeply religious, how long do you think I'd last if I started trying to "counsel" gay/trans/whatever people into seeing the error of their ways?


(The funniest part about the entire Christian/gay thing is the bible didn't actually mention homosexuality as a sin until some English translations in the 40s; pederasty was the actual problem. But like all good hater conservative ideas, once it got traction, it became yet another control mechanism.)
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
PART THE SECOND: Everything Else

How much of the policy is driven by your current sponsors needs.

If a new sponsor was offering triple the amount, would you change your policy to meet their needs

Well, there's a reason those kinds of questions aren't asked: they're asinine.

Only certain companies are going to have the kind of money RA would negotiate for sponsorship, and in all likelihood they've established modern, workable policies for inclusion and not being a dick to others.

Triple the money would be nice, but won't happen if the 2 organisations don't have aligned values.


What is your policy on non transitioned Trans players playing Women's rugby?

That is a good question - with the growth of women's rugby, and I imagine they're only just starting to think about it, given it is happening in the UK women's comp.

The policy for now is probably "case by case basis" because there is no policy for something that is such a tiny part of the game, statistically speaking.



How are you working to get the various states to commit to a consistent style of a play and working together

How are you working to ensure warehousing of players is limited

Good questions, though I'd put that more in the Scott Johnson box if he's going to be responsible for, well, anything at all.

We definitely need a more aligned structural approach to ensure we have the best players on the field as often as possible. I'm against warehousing talent in certain locations, and that includes Premier Rugby.

At the same time, we can't have everyone playing exactly the same style because rugby is about variety. Certainly at pro level we need to understand and execute the basics of winning better, but with a schools comp that is a shemozzle, we're going to need half a generation to get it right.



You and the previous coach did not have a good relationship, what could you do in the future to ensure a good relationship with the new coach going forward


Also a good question - though loaded with finger pointing, so probably could be asked another way.

I think in the case where she gets a say in hiring the coach, the relationship has a greater chance of working. Sometimes people in corporate life don't get on. Pulver was Mr Rollover and completely out of his depth, so he was a great fit for Cheika.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I haven't read the interview (don't read Fitz any more), so I don't know what exactly was said about Folau, but I'd think a pending court case would limit what Castle could say. Especially if that relates to 'what we did wrong'.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I'm going to split that into 2 sections

PART THE FIRST: FOLAU
(with the massive risk of digging up this mealy corpse to dance around it, yet again)

EDIT: Just had a thought about the Folau thing - with court action pending, maybe those questions were off limits?



Loading the question with "better" is a sign of intent.

A key comment she made in the article along the lines of: if we did NOT re-sign him due to the first round of Instagram controversy, then we'd have got just as much criticism. Essentially he put RA in a no-win situation in the second round, and has shown no signs he'd do anything different.

I'd be keen to hear your opinion on what they could have done better, though. Enlighten us.

After every f*ck up a decent CEO should have some self reflection on what they could have done better

It was covered via sources there was no specific clause in his contract and he refused to enter into anything of the sort. Castle and RA took him at his word - honesty being a very important thing to the religious, I am led to believe. Employment law experts have pointed out that the broader inclusion policies of RA cover the situation in any case.

We have a RUPA agreement that doesn't allow negative clauses from what I understand, so she was hamstrung in how clear she could have been.

I also write contracts all day, you don't sign multi million dollar deals with key employees and lead sticking points to hand shakes. He was at fault, but so were the contract negotiations. But we have no acceptance of that. We will see after the court case if there is change


Who, specifically? I don't follow the player lists that much so it would be interesting to see the sample size.

a couple of the Tahs squad left, the Newcastle based hooker was one of them



See point above wrt holding dichotomous positions.

Tying off this part specifically: if I was an excellent employee at my place of work, and deeply religious, how long do you think I'd last if I started trying to "counsel" gay/trans/whatever people into seeing the error of their ways?

We had one of those, a jehovah witness, and she wasn't an excellent employee but our lawyers said we couldn't sack her for it. We has to find another reason
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Were those bible passages telling a minority they’re wrong for been born the way they are and going to hell?


All kinds of fun stuff, at work, not on a social media account, not surreptitiously videoed performing a sermon.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
All kinds of fun stuff, at work, not on a social media account, not surreptitiously videoed performing a sermon.

Everyone to their own, I don’t consider the public condemnation and ostracising of minorities as “fun stuff”.

You’re Mormon would have no place in my workplace
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Gotta say, I'd have zero faith in a lawyer or HR person* who couldn't hit the ejector button on someone like that.

Written warning 1
Written warning 2
Written warning 3 & dismissal


*It should be noted I have zero time for HR people as a rule. Exceptions exist.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Gotta say, I'd have zero faith in a lawyer or HR person* who couldn't hit the ejector button on someone like that.

Written warning 1
Written warning 2
Written warning 3 & dismissal


*It should be noted I have zero time for HR people as a rule. Exceptions exist.


It was simpler to find issues that were not based around her religious beliefs
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
Gotta say, I'd have zero faith in a lawyer or HR person* who couldn't hit the ejector button on someone like that.

Written warning 1
Written warning 2
Written warning 3 & dismissal


*It should be noted I have zero time for HR people as a rule. Exceptions exist.
Written by someone who has never held a managing position in Australia.

I don't care if you now claim you have - you clearly haven't by the utter shit you just wrote right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
Top