• 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

Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Adam84 said:
You literally cannot remove politics from this discussion, it’s a political issue at its core.

Most supporters are emotive about the Wallabies results, naturally they want him gone for that reason which is understandable. Emotive decisions aren’t necessarily good business though.

My biggest concern is the structure of Australian rugby and the outdated and antiquated federated model that gives states too much power and prevents effective alignment of rugby nationally. This entire issue is political. State unions and individuals at the state unions trying to protect their own (declining) sphere of influence and reach of power.

Clearly rugby is broken, and this parochial shit is only going to further perpetuate the issues of misalignment and structural inefficiencies.
Click to expand...
Adam, I understand and accept there are structural inefficiencies in having 5 separate administrative setups when one centrally run support group acting nationally could save costs and provide a single public face for Aus rugby to the world. Just how much of those savings would be realised is unknown especially given the RA proposal seems to be saying that no one will lose a job, just that some in the state organisations will be refocused towards local club rugby. But there should be savings and hopefully they will be substantial.

Outside of the back room functions, what are the main areas of misalignment that can be attributed to the federated model? Do not all five of the franchises strive to be successful in the Super Rugby Pacifica competition? Do they not all work to develop and provide players for national duty? Are the coaching systems so out of kilter that we have five different versions of rugby being played in this country? What specific instances have occurred where a state union has exercised power to deny a national initiative, other than the NSWRU/SRU continued objection to and undermining of a national third level semi-professional competition that quite clearly was in the best interests of rugby overall in this country? OTOH, was not the culling of the Western Force by the national body the most damning action ever undertaken by any body?

For those who are using NZ as a model in arguing for a comprehensive centralisation model, is it true that NZRU own the licences of each of their Super Rugby teams? Is it true that NZRU dictate where each and every player will play? Is it true that NZRU have stipulated a one size fits all approach to coaching and game style and impose that upon all of the NZ teams?

I think you are a little wide of the mark really in claiming the state unions are simply protecting their own diminishing sphere of influence. I think they and the others who supported them are much more concerned with how far backwards the Wallabies fell under McLennan's watch and the destruction that has occurred to the reputation of rugby in this country over the past two years or so.
 
stillmissit

stillmissit

Chilla Wilson (44)
Dctarget said:
Kelly Bayer Rosmarin is now available. Do it Rugby Australia, I dare you.
Click to expand...
So a CEO with major company threatening failures under her watch is the ideal person to run RA. I suggest if you want more of the same on steroids this might be just the move to make. Still, I guess your mums proud of you?
 
Lindommer

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
Brumby Runner said:
Is it true that NZRU dictate where each and every player will play?
Click to expand...
It's not black and white, BR. The five franchises get to list a core of 25 or so and then a supplementary wishlist. I gather the Super sides look in their local competitions first and then listen to others who'd like to play for them when compiling their core 25. That's how the Crusaders had five Whitelocks start their carrers in Christchurch and four Barretts first suited up in Wellington.

Those lists are submitted to the NZRU before the final team lists are announced, after a bit of moving around.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^ hasn't been done that way for several (ten?) years now. The last player(s) I can think of who went where NZR said were two CruSadist 5/8's not named Dan Carter ~2012.

It's true, however, that all the players are contracted to NZR then "loaned" back the franchises. It's also true, however, that NZR only contract the players the franchises ask them to contract which is where, for example, Beaugan's next contract could get interesting.
 
Last edited:
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
waiopehu oldboy said:
^ hasn't been done that way for several years now. The last player(s) I can think of who went where NZR said were two CruSadist 5/8's not named Dan Carter (Slade went to Clan, Brett to Loss Bleus & CruSadists were allowed to keep, from memory, Blyendaal as backup to DC).

It's true, however, that all the players are contracted to NZR then "loaned" back the franchises. It's also true, however, that NZR only contract the players the franchises ask them to contract which is where, for example, Beaugan's next contract could get interesting.
Click to expand...
Thank you WOB. So not in any way the sort of centralised control being lauded by proponents here.

Edit : The NZ way clearly still has an important role for the regional unions in recruitment and contracting. They are not just responsible for club rugby in their areas.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^ Ownership-wise NZR do hold the licenses but each franchise is a JV between NZR, the Provincial Unions (PU) within that franchise's nominal catchment & in most cases there's also a private equity component e.g. a group of former Clan players have just bought a stake & while Samoa & Tonga RU's are part-owners of Moana there are also prominent Pasifika who've put their own money into it.

The PU are focused on community & rep footy & have next to no involvement with the day-to-day operation of "their" franchise.

The pro/ community split has now been formalised as part of the SilverLake deal & NZR now has distinct Pro & Community arms.
 
Last edited:
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Brumby Runner said:
Thank you WOB. So not in any way the sort of centralised control being lauded by proponents here.

Edit : The NZ way clearly still has an important role for the regional unions in recruitment and contracting. They are not just responsible for club rugby in their areas.
Click to expand...
Never lauded NZs system.

I said the current federated system where unions are simply looking out for their own self interest and intent on protecting their own little declining sphere of influence is a model in terminal decline.

I also think recent events and actions by the Reds and Brumbies in particular will result in nothing more than tokenism towards any kind of alignment or centralisation model

however in regards to the kiwis; New Zealand’s model of contracting and managing coaches and support staff in particular is a vast improvement on what Australia does, this isn’t just about the players. It’s also about promoting a pathway and mechanism to develop coaches which currently does not exist in Australia
 
Last edited:
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Rugrat said:
So if the Waratahs are now owned by Rugby AU and Qld control Rugby AU board does that mean Qld now owns controls NSW Waratahs? Just shit stirring but actually???
Click to expand...

no, but it does now mean the QRU hold a disproportionate influence over the RA as their share of overall voting power increased as the only state with 3 votes now, and from 1 Jan a majority vote will only require 8 votes not 9.

Im a passionate Queenslander, and maybe the current QRU administration are saying all the right things. But I also recognise as a organisation they’ve been woefully managed the last 20 years from players, coaches and commercial operations, it’s never short of controversy at Ballymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top