• 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

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
That may be true and fair about the boys

Doesn't seem like a particularly good or sensible way to run a pathway though.

If each state had similar size structures of clubs /schools and juniors, (numbers of players) it would be a lot easier . Victoria is a basket case, WA and ACT way too small to compete, so you need to allow the smaller franchises to poach in order to distribute talent.

Most players I know in NSW including my bloke would have have their hearts set on a gig with the Tahs.

Reality is, contracts are very scarce. Each year a new batch of schoolboys sensations are released onto the market.

So if you want to play professional rugby at provincial level then you may not get your first choice.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Unhappy with the current CEO and think she should be sacked but that we should pay less than 20% of her salary to the replacement and they will be better because they are more passionate about it?

Seems reasonable. o_O

Who would actually take that? i would not take on a high pressure gig where my every decisions will be shouted down for $150k a year. Not a chance.

You're basically just saying - here Kearnsey have a go lad.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Kearns wouldn’t do it for $150k.

To put into perspective Plumbers, Electricians, Store managers and people that run individual departments in businesses earn $150k. Don’t get me wrong it’s a good wage but it’s not near enough for a CEO role.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Has anyone actually read the report or just reading whatever press releases/journos are telling us? I've had a look on both RA's website + pressers and can't find the actual report itself.

Good question.
It's not available on the RA web site; only the 2015 to 2018 reports can be downloaded.
RA issued a press release only.
Alan Jones (today's Australian) may be right - no annual report released because they didn't have financial reports to prove they were solvent as at December 2019.
RA were able to present the 2018 annual report in April 2019: the coronavirus didn't impact the 2019 revenue or costs so financial reports should have been audited and released by now.
 

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Kearns wouldn’t do it for $150k.

To put into perspective Plumbers, Electricians, Store managers and people that run individual departments in businesses earn $150k. Don’t get me wrong it’s a good wage but it’s not near enough for a CEO role.

It's a great wage, no denying that BUT I know a number of friends earn >$150k at 25 - and some have done for a few years.

These are predominantly made up of tradies, but include friends in Finance, Sales, Marketing, Law and Real Estate.

A friend is a fucking crane driver and was earning $115k+ at 19 years old, and its continued to grow since then.

$150k would get some bloke from the local Shute Shield club who loves the game. That's great. But is it sufficiently commercial? Would he/she understand -- strategically -- the ins and outs of a broadcast agreement? Negotiating with RUPA? Properly allocating the resources of RA? Sourcing and negotiating sponsorships? Would he/she be sufficiently house-trained to schmooze the likes of Alan Joyce?

Suggesting a salary of $150k for the CEO of a company with $50+ mil in revenue is completely out of touch to be honest, and speaks to your contributions to this thread.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
It's a great wage, no denying that BUT I know a number of friends earn >$150k at 25 - and some have done for a few years.

These are predominantly made up of tradies, but include friends in Finance, Sales, Marketing, Law and Real Estate.

A friend is a fucking crane driver and was earning $115k+ at 19 years old, and its continued to grow since then.

$150k would get some bloke from the local Shute Shield club who loves the game. That's great. But is it sufficiently commercial? Would he understand -- strategically -- the ins and outs of a broadcast agreement? Negotiating with RUPA? Properly allocating the resources of RA? Sourcing and negotiating sponsorships? Would he be sufficiently house-trained to schmooze the likes of Alan Joyce?

Suggesting a salary of $150k for the CEO of a company with $50+ mil in revenue is completely out of touch to be honest, and speaks to your contributions to this thread.

The $150,000 suggestion is designed to weed out all those who chase the job for monetary gain.
Yes its too low for a CEO looking to get the "going rate"- deliberately. Just enough to cover expenses and keep the wolf from the door. We need a rugby person not a well paid administrator.
To have an $840,000 administrator plus 15 executives was overkill by RA.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
It's a great wage, no denying that BUT I know a number of friends earn >$150k at 25 - and some have done for a few years.

These are predominantly made up of tradies, but include friends in Finance, Sales, Marketing, Law and Real Estate.

A friend is a fucking crane driver and was earning $115k+ at 19 years old, and its continued to grow since then.

$150k would get some bloke from the local Shute Shield club who loves the game. That's great. But is it sufficiently commercial? Would he/she understand -- strategically -- the ins and outs of a broadcast agreement? Negotiating with RUPA? Properly allocating the resources of RA? Sourcing and negotiating sponsorships? Would he/she be sufficiently house-trained to schmooze the likes of Alan Joyce?

Suggesting a salary of $150k for the CEO of a company with $50+ mil in revenue is completely out of touch to be honest, and speaks to your contributions to this thread.
I presume this wasn’t directed at me ;) lol
 

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
Personally I think some are struggling to seperate the performance of the code with the performance of Castle.

The reality is the code as a professional organisation and a marketable product was a shit sandwich before she started her tenure and there have been a whole raft of issues either which stem back to prior to then. Add to that that, despite the clear issues surrounding the code, internal factions see this only as an opportunity to push their own agendas, not as a need to come together (possibly at some expense to their own little fiefdom).

This is not to say Castle isn’t to be held to account, but her performance (and RAs) need to be considered in context.

For what it is worth I am broadly supportive. I think she has done a great job with the revamp of the coaching structures. I do think she is rolling the dice with the broadcast deal and it may we’ll blow up spectacularly - it almost certainly will now with COVID-19 - but if we just continued down the same tired path with Fox which is widely acknowledged as failing then we were really just, at best, prolonging the decline. Some sort of circuit breaker was needed and Castle was prepared to try and find one. It will probably cost her dearly.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
why cant people just use a bit of maturity and discretion and say "I think she handled it well/I think she handled it poorly, but acknowledge that others have a different opinion on here",

there is absolutely no need to incite arguments with comments like 'woke sponsors'

How about you have a red hot go.
 

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The $150,000 suggestion is designed to weed out all those who chase the job for monetary gain.
Yes its too low for a CEO looking to get the "going rate"- deliberately. Just enough to cover expenses and keep the wolf from the door. We need a rugby person not a well paid administrator.
To have an $840,000 administrator plus 15 executives was overkill by RA.


The problem is - the people you want will need the job for monetary gain.

I'm going to make a few assumptions about your ideal individual, so bear with me. Let's assume he/she is:

(a) incredibly passionate about Rugby and has been involved / surrounded by the game for most of their life.
(b) a great operator -- commercial, intelligent, well-spoken, personable, resourceful, well-connected, passionate, driven.
(c) not in the job for the money.

Let's unpack these assumptions.

Let's assume that (b) is of age to take the CEO position, e.g. 40-60 years old. What kind of life would that person have lived?

They would've had a very successful career, and have had previously had experience running a company / in several executive positions. They would likely have been earning in the ball-park of at least $300k/pa for at least a decade.

What does that come with? Lifestyle creep is a real thing. They'll likely have a lovely, big, expensive-as-fuck house in one of Sydney's more prestigious suburbs. This carries a heavy mortgage and a pretty substantial monthly repayment. They might have a holiday house, or they could be supporting their parents. More payments.

They have 1-4 children, potentially in private schools. That's another huge annual cost (private school or not). They'll have 2 nice cars (let's imagine a BMW), and these might not be paid off. Two more monthly payments. You don't want your CEO getting around in a Toyota Yaris do you?

They work incredibly hard, and as a result they build up a lot of latent stress. They don't see their kids much but when they do, they want it to be an incredible experience for the whole family. Something their kids will look back on fondly in 40 years time. They probably holiday once or twice a year, and don't want to penny-pinch on this holiday. They're wealthy, so maybe they want to do something wanky and bougie like ski in Aspen. That's a huge annual expense.

But you only want to pay them $150k/pa. You don't want them in it for the money, as per (c).

Can imaginary CEO take that paycut? Can they keep up with all of the above if they're on the same wage earned by 22 year old investment bankers and 24 year old crane drivers? The foundations of the life they've built would collapse if they took that much of a salary cut.

So you have to choose between (c) and (b). Which one are you gonna pick? Hell, my friend who earns $150k/pa driving cranes couldn't take a pay-cut down to my salary level. He's got a mortgage and I don't.

If I ever got a raise to $150k/pa, I'd probably have a mortgage too. I could afford one.

What I'm trying to say is -- the people who don't chase the job for monetary gain are either:
  • The uber wealthy (Cameron Clyne, Twiggy Forrest) who have earned money in non-Rugby careers (Rugby doesn't pay that well), and therefore aren't qualified.
  • Not in the pool of individuals that satisfy assumption (b), who also aren't qualified.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The $150,000 suggestion is designed to weed out all those who chase the job for monetary gain.
Yes its too low for a CEO looking to get the "going rate"- deliberately. Just enough to cover expenses and keep the wolf from the door. We need a rugby person not a well paid administrator.
To have an $840,000 administrator plus 15 executives was overkill by RA.


It a business with revenue of $120m+ operating in a challenging market.

Thinking that it's not a whole lot different to running a rugby club and that's who we need seems a million miles off the mark to me.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
The problem is - the people you want will need the job for monetary gain.

I'm going to make a few assumptions about your ideal individual, so bear with me. Let's assume he/she is:

(a) incredibly passionate about Rugby and has been involved / surrounded by the game for most of their life.
(b) a great operator -- commercial, intelligent, well-spoken, personable, resourceful, well-connected, passionate, driven.
(c) not in the job for the money.

Let's unpack these assumptions.

Let's assume that (b) is of age to take the CEO position, e.g. 40-60 years old. What kind of life would that person have lived?

They would've had a very successful career, and have had previously had experience running a company / in several executive positions. They would likely have been earning in the ball-park of at least $300k/pa for at least a decade.

What does that come with? Lifestyle creep is a real thing. They'll likely have a lovely, big, expensive-as-fuck house in one of Sydney's more prestigious suburbs. This carries a heavy mortgage and a pretty substantial monthly repayment. They might have a holiday house, or they could be supporting their parents. More payments.

They have 1-4 children, potentially in private schools. That's another huge annual cost (private school or not). They'll have 2 nice cars (let's imagine a BMW), and these might not be paid off. Two more monthly payments. You don't want your CEO getting around in a Toyota Yaris do you?

They work incredibly hard, and as a result they build up a lot of latent stress. They don't see their kids much but when they do, they want it to be an incredible experience for the whole family. Something their kids will look back on fondly in 40 years time. They probably holiday once or twice a year, and don't want to penny-pinch on this holiday. They're wealthy, so maybe they want to do something wanky and bougie like ski in Aspen. That's a huge annual expense.

But you only want to pay them $150k/pa. You don't want them in it for the money, as per (c).

Can imaginary CEO take that paycut? Can they keep up with all of the above if they're on the same wage earned by 22 year old investment bankers and 24 year old crane drivers? The foundations of the life they've built would collapse if they took that much of a salary cut.

So you have to choose between (c) and (b). Which one are you gonna pick? Hell, my friend who earns $150k/pa driving cranes couldn't take a pay-cut down to my salary level. He's got a mortgage and I don't.

If I ever got a raise to $150k/pa, I'd probably have a mortgage too. I could afford one.

What I'm trying to say is -- the people who don't chase the job for monetary gain are either:
  • The uber wealthy (Cameron Clyne, Twiggy Forrest) who have earned money in non-Rugby careers (Rugby doesn't pay that well), and therefore aren't qualified.
  • Not in the pool of individuals that satisfy assumption (b), who also aren't qualified.
That's a wonderful narrative but we can look further afield, although we still focus on rugby people.
Sticking with the big end of town person doesn't have to continue.
Alternatives are: former big end of towner who wants to downsize lifestyle; retired guru in his/her own field; armed forces leader of note coming to the end of their service; a former commentator or player; or a former politician.
To further expand our horizons, what about a person exactly as you describe who will also do the RA job part time? There's no rule that says the job has to be full time. For example, Raelene was using consultants to advise her on broadcast options technology and negotiations. a part time CEO could simply use that model without too much financial stress.
There must be some fat in the 15 execs and 100 staff at RA HQ.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
That's a wonderful narrative but we can look further afield, although we still focus on rugby people.
Sticking with the big end of town person doesn't have to continue.
Alternatives are: former big end of towner who wants to downsize lifestyle; retired guru in his/her own field; armed forces leader of note coming to the end of their service; a former commentator or player; or a former politician.
To further expand our horizons, what about a person exactly as you describe who will also do the RA job part time? There's no rule that says the job has to be full time. For example, Raelene was using consultants to advise her on broadcast options technology and negotiations. a part time CEO could simply use that model without too much financial stress.
There must be some fat in the 15 execs and 100 staff at RA HQ.


Wait. Now you're suggesting that the CEO of Rugby Australia could be a part time role for someone who is mostly retired.

This is getting ridiculous.
 

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
To be honest BH, I am concerned that is exactly what our next CEO will be. It won’t be a good thing
 

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Wait. Now you're suggesting that the CEO of Rugby Australia could be a part time role for someone who is mostly retired.

This is getting ridiculous.

Bingo, bango, bongo. Cameron Clyne for the next RA CEO. Fits the criteria to a tee. Who knew it was so simple?
 
Top