• 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

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
^ Okay, barbarian, fair enough.

I do agree that the corporate model is somewhat of a mismatch as it is now being applied to sport (if that indeed was one of your points).

I mean, talking about watching the problems that all major sports are experiencing, and learning from the mistakes … Corporate sports are likely to cock that up as well.

Look at the FFA's sacking of the women's coach based on some HR survey of players finding the training methods tough.

That's two coaches in a row for this team now ousted after a player revolt (the previous coach was a woman) and it's divided the team, with many players still in support of the coach.

No suggestion of "Me too" behaviour or any unlawful misconduct and Alen Stajcic gets his contract paid out.

There's no issue punting failed coaches; it happens every week. This was the all-time most successful coach.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
CA suffers many of the same problems that RA seems to - a focus on the professional game has alienated the grassroots, a domestic competition structure that works against high performance goals, a lack of transparency, a loss of trust and good will, amongst other things.

It makes me wonder if the best practice model for sports administration that has been accepted over the last decade or so is flawed. That being - independent board of directors, a separation of the professional and participatory arms of the game, an increasing professionalisation of 'the pathway' for young players, a decreased reliance on traditional clubs, and a focus on revenue (particularly TV revenue) to drive performance outcomes across all levels.


I can only agree with this. The RA structure is a problem, independence and not having "people with skin in the game" is an issue for me. It is compounded by NSW and Qld effectively dictating whether RA can be held to account, and they have not always been well in control of themselves let alone being able to call in RA.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I can only agree with this. The RA structure is a problem, independence and not having "people with skin in the game" is an issue for me. It is compounded by NSW and Qld effectively dictating whether RA can be held to account, and they have not always been well in control of themselves let alone being able to call in RA.


True. While we can point to individual failings (and there are no doubt plenty) it may be the structure more broadly is the real problem.

The answer isn't going back to the way things were, as that had its problems too. And there is no perfect solution.

You'd think there has to be a middle ground between 'wholly independent Board with no skin in the game' and 'representative board with way too much skin in the game'.
.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
I've been reading a few cricket books over Christmas, the best of which is 'Crossing the Line' by Gideon Haigh. Thoroughly recommend it if you are a cricket fan.

...

It makes me wonder if the best practice model for sports administration that has been accepted over the last decade or so is flawed. That being - independent board of directors, a separation of the professional and participatory arms of the game, an increasing professionalisation of 'the pathway' for young players, a decreased reliance on traditional clubs, and a focus on revenue (particularly TV revenue) to drive performance outcomes across all levels.

...
.


Same here Hugh. Read the same book and came up with the same thoughts.

This model was largely pushed by the Australian Sports Commission to the threat of withdrawn funding. Stunning.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Speaking of reviews. Looks like the Arbib review as well as all of the pre-2015 annual reports have been taken down off the RA website.

Unless it's been moved somewhere new?
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Speaking of reviews. Looks like the Arbib review as well as all of the pre-2015 annual reports have been taken down off the RA website.

Unless it's been moved somewhere new?


So it appears they have been taken down. No idea why this was necessary. Just another example of things being behind closed doors for no discernable reason.

Annual report.PNG
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Until pretty recently, the ARU were pretty tansperant as far as these things go. Lots of docs available on the website, they split their budgets out in the finance section far more than the NZRU as an example. You could get even more off the https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/ website.

Unfortunate that seems to be changing now. Bad sign
 

Jimmy_Crouch

Ken Catchpole (46)
Until pretty recently, the ARU were pretty tansperant as far as these things go. Lots of docs available on the website, they split their budgets out in the finance section far more than the NZRU as an example. You could get even more off the https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/ website.

Unfortunate that seems to be changing now. Bad sign


Look the main reason NFP keep old financials on their website is because they are too lazy to take them down. Also if you looked at the number of people that downloaded a copy of four year old and greater financials it would be bugger all. If you are really interested you can ask for a copy or get one from ASIC (it'll just cost you $17).
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Until pretty recently, the ARU were pretty tansperant as far as these things go. Lots of docs available on the website, they split their budgets out in the finance section far more than the NZRU as an example. You could get even more off the https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/ website.

Unfortunate that seems to be changing now. Bad sign

More recently, the financials provided in the web version reports became the watered down variants for the plebs, anyway - able to be perused two pages at a time.

Other ARU and Rugby Australia Annual Reports via request only.

I admire this method. Add on a $17 to $45 fee and the effectiveness is really great.

It's true that the older the annual reports become, the less interesting the financials are. But the other stuff actually becomes more interesting.

For quickly accessible open information generally, the period from the early nineties to early noughties goes a through mini "dark age". Rugby is included in this. The number of resources commercially locked up increase and the interwebs haven't really kicked in at that stage.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I admire this method. Add on a $17 to $45 fee and the effectiveness is really great.
.


It goes to my earlier point about transparency, and the increasing reluctance of sporting codes to show the wider public what they are doing and why.

Yet another example comes this week with the FFA and the saga around the coach of the Matildas. They've sacked him, but won't tell anybody why. You've got FFA Board members briefing journalists, unsubstantiated allegations floating around, and at the centre of it all a number of players and a coach who appear to have no clue why this has all happened.

I restate my point - the model is broken. I don't think we need to livestream board meetings, or allow members of the public to have full access to all financial records, but there needs to be a bias towards disclosing this information rather than against it, as seems to be the case at the moment.
.
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
It goes to my earlier point about transparency, and the increasing reluctance of sporting codes to show the wider public what they are doing and why.

Yet another example comes this week with the FFA and the saga around the coach of the Matildas. They've sacked him, but won't tell anybody why. You've got FFA Board members briefing journalists, unsubstantiated allegations floating around, and at the centre of it all a number of players and a coach who appear to have no clue why this has all happened.

I restate my point - the model is broken. I don't think we need to livestream board meetings, or allow members of the public to have full access to all financial records, but there needs to be a bias towards disclosing this information rather than against it, as seems to be the case at the moment.
.

Indeed.

The Matildas coaching caper got a brief mention up the thread, but something that really focuses the mind is the Banking inquiry. That's the corporate blueprint now rolled out onto Australian sports.

It's the Hubcap Model - gleaming chrome on top, layers and layers of shit underneath.

To get that pristine shine? Obfuscate, deny and hide … cover the arse, and lie while you can. Ultimately the mug punters –shareholders, customers, dot dot dot – get to pay the tab.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Indeed.
It's the Hubcap Model - gleaming chrome on top, layers and layers of shit underneath.
.


I disagree, because really there isn't much shit at all. The annual report thing is a case in point - it's not like they are hiding dirty laundry. They are old annual reports, which if anything are too bland.

There is no discernible reason to take these down, and it's secrecy for it's own sake.

I think comparisons to the banking sector are a bit unfair, as IMO there isn't anything nefarious going on within these organisations. No corruption or million dollar bonuses. Yes they might do things we don't agree with, but that's different to what the banks were doing. It makes the secrecy even harder to understand.
.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
I disagree, because really there isn't much shit at all. The annual report thing is a case in point - it's not like they are hiding dirty laundry. They are old annual reports, which if anything are too bland.

There is no discernible reason to take these down, and it's secrecy for it's own sake.

I think comparisons to the banking sector are a bit unfair, as IMO there isn't anything nefarious going on within these organisations. No corruption or million dollar bonuses. Yes they might do things we don't agree with, but that's different to what the banks were doing. It makes the secrecy even harder to understand.
.
I wonder if they didn't take to kindly to the research us mug punters were able to do into the historical finances during the Senate inquiry.

I agree with you though, the finances are the least interesting bit of the old annual reports. They're historical documents which could and should be made easily available to anyone who wants a look. They should publish as many old ones as they have in the archive (I know there's digital versions into the 80s at least - they were on the clearing house for sport website)
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
IMO there isn't anything nefarious going on within these organisations.

Righto. Let's go though some of these …
  • A $7.5 million tax concession from the ACT government goes to the benefit of a private property developer instead of ACT Brumbies Rugby.
It's all a misunderstanding and you're giving this a clean bill of health.
 
Top