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.)
