Reds 2017

[RedsHappy]

Scott Robertson is very good mates with Dan Herbert too.

Why would anyone find that - inferentially or otherwise - encouraging?

The very appointment of Herbert as head of 'the QRU rugby department' when he possessed zero experience or track record in handling such an important task and further when it was wholly unclear why such a position was truly needed (other than as an emergency band-aiding foil between a failing HC and a failing CEO) was yet another symptom of a QRU board that had lost all grip on sound self-management and strategic judgement.

Nonetheless, Herbert was then a 'known good mate' of numerous QRU board members and, as a key selection criterion, was never going to threaten or confront a regime destined in any event for self-destruction as it took much of QLD rugby down with it.

 

[RugbyReg]

Oh good. You're back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scrubber2050]

Why would anyone find that - inferentially or otherwise - encouraging?

The very appointment of Herbert as head of 'the QRU rugby department' when he possessed zero experience or track record in handling such an important task and further when it was wholly unclear why such a position was truly needed (other than as an emergency band-aiding foil between a failing HC and a failing CEO) was yet another symptom of a QRU board that had lost all grip on sound self-management and strategic judgement.

Nonetheless, Herbert was then a 'known good mate' of numerous QRU board members and, as a key selection criterion, was never going to threaten or confront a regime destined in any event for self-destruction as it took much of QLD rugby down with it.

I've never seen a Board Appointment non-friendly to some or all the current board unless it is a hostile one or one determined ny numbers of shares held in the company

 

[dru]

I've never seen a Board Appointment non-friendly to some or all the current board unless it is a hostile one or one determined ny numbers of shares held in the company

Nup. This was the statement.

Scott Robertson is very good mates with Dan Herbert too.

The inference is clear.

[edit redaction]

 

[RugbyReg]

Nup. This was the statement.




The inference is clear.

Reg, I know, and respect, your closeness to things Reds. Its a real advantage to us Reds fans here. But in this occassion, and I get that there may be history, I do not think the statement by RH is in any way dispicable.

I dont necessarily agree with RH, but he has, I think, a valid point.

The Reds board, should really be trying to show that decissions are going beyond jobs for the boys. Not just that they are actually doing it, but to make sure the punters understand it.

not sure where anyone said what RH said was despicable?

 

[dru]

Re-read your response and consider the attitude. There was an intention to downgrade input with derision, and the statement made was valid.

Imvho.

 

[RugbyReg]

Look the inference around Scott Robertson was not that he would get the job because of who he knew. It was more the fact that someone said we should look at getting kiwi coaches (a valid point) and threw up the name of Robertson.

My statement regarding his connection to Dan was more in reference to it perhaps being more appealing a role for Scott (should we want him).

As RH and many continue to state, the QRU has a reputation in the marketplace that may make it difficult to secure the coach we want. It may come down to someone having this sort of confidence in a key individual - be it Dan Herbert, Brad Thorn, Sam Cordingly, whomever, that goes some way to securing the coach we want.

As for 'jobs for the boys' I am sure it is not a shock to people that rugby is not the only industry where this happens. In fact did you know people choose schools or school systems because of the network of people it will open them up to?

 

[RugbyReg]

Re-read your response and consider the attitude. There was an intention to downgrade input with derision, and the statement made was valid.

Imvho.

glad you are telling me what my intention is. I should get your number of speed dial to let me know some of the intent behind my other statements.

 

[Gnostic]

Oh good. You're back.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is good, the loss of engagement from good rugby people is a big issue. There are half a dozen GAGRites who you know were what could be termed foundation members who have lost that engagement, and in a few cases no longer follow much of the Super Rugby though we can rouse them for tests.

Your condescension is pretty clear and I wonder where it comes from. Just because RH says things you don't like? It might not be popular but he has been proved right more often than not as you well know.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it's more saying the same things over and over again.

In terms of board members being jobs for the boys, aren't they unpaid or at best lowly paid at state level? It's almost certain that involvement is going to be former players and associates who are essentially part of an 'old boys network'. Who else is there exactly?

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Lindommer]

And the QRU brains trust continue to do the same things over and over again, and are surprised when they yield the same results over and over again. For all his faults snagging Carmichael from AFL was, on balance, a good choice; he certainly took Queensland rugby down a new, successful path. This inability to look outside their comfort zone's essentially what RH is alluding to.

 

[Gnostic]

And the QRU brains trust continue to do the same things over and over again, and are surprised when they yield the same results over and over again. For all his faults snagging Carmichael from AFL was, on balance, a good choice; he certainly took Queensland rugby down a new, successful path. This inability to look outside their comfort zone's essentially what Rh is alluding to.

This is the point. If the same errors and failures are made with each new situation any comments will of course look similar or identical and should make reference to the precedent.

My point which may have been lost is that it is indeed good that Redshappy has posted again. Good because he is a passionate rugby man and the loss engagement of such people to Australian Rugby I can see has become very deep. The Tahs have not recovered from the Hickey/Foley years, even after winning the competition the crowds have not recovered and amongst my own group of friends and family I am the last person who has a pay subscription and watches the games, the others are still engaged with Test rugby and the Shute, but lost that engagement with the Super Rugby with the dire nature of the Tahs play during that period and have not come back. Loss of engagement is one of the biggest risk factors for the game moving forward and if rusted on Rugby people are switching off there is not much hope so everyone who stays engaged makes me happy.

 

[RedsHappy]

I've never seen a Board Appointment non-friendly to some or all the current board unless it is a hostile one or one determined ny numbers of shares held in the company

Of course, that was not my point.

My point is/was that, in recent QRU board-appointing and senior-management-appointing conduct, far too much weight has been placed upon 'known rugby mates' and 'QLD club rugby cliques' and 'blokes we like and feel comfortable with' vs seeking out independently minded, fresh thinkers who would tend to confront shibboleths and historical prejudices and search for the right new paths forward for the long-term benefit of QLD rugby. (A board can be composed of smart, diverse, self-confident members who confront issues but still be coherent and professional in its overall conduct.)

A wonderful case of this truth at work is how despite 'rigorous independent reviews' and 'thorough global searches' in 2015 re the ongoing Reds HC appointment, a truly and utterly obviously incompetent HC was reappointed principally because he was the Chairman's pet and more or less the then QRU board came out and supported this nonsense of a decision.

 

[Parse]

RedsHappy is 100% correct. The last time the QRU avoided 'known rugby mates' etc and instead went with "independently minded, fresh thinkers" was in 2008. They got some guy for CEO who only knew AFL and some coach who used to coach the Tah's (few heart attacks with Qld members there..) to take over in 2009 and then the board sacked themselves.

Was interesting seeing the result of those decisions in the following couple of years.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Parse that coach who used to coach the Tahs was closely linked with McCall, the Chairman, which was the reason he ended up there.

Criticize the Graham appointment and re-appointment all we want, but don't selectively ignore when the "jobs for the boys" does work out and say as a result nobody should ever have any relationship with the board members.

If I recall correctly McKenzie had been sacked from his last 2 jobs at the time as well.

As Reg said due to the small circle you're limited in the people available. Depending on reputation, those that you know may be the only people willing to consider the role too.

 

[Parse]

TWAS, McCall wasn't the chairman in 2008. Oops sorry, my mistake, got my years mixed up.

 

[TSR]

Didn't link only get appointed in 2010?

Edit: a quick internet search confirms McCall was appointed in 2009, and Link in 2010. There is at least one article which states Link was handpicked by McCall. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...m/news-story/74837128246b0e19b9efccaac7a35780

Having said that - I think the successes of the current mode of operation are far outweighed by the failings.

 

[Lindommer]

.....McKenzie had been sacked from his last 2 jobs at the time as well.

So what?

To quote Warren Ryan, "there are two sorts of coaches: those who've been sacked and those who're about to be sacked". EVERY coach gets sacked a coupla times in his career. Nothing to be ashamed of, occupational hazard.

 

[Train Without a Station]

So what?

Parse is saying Link was an outsider picked on merit not an old boys appointment.

What would you call a coach who had been sacked from his last 2 jobs who was a former team mate of the Chairman who hand picked him?

 

[RugbyReg]

So what?

Parse is saying Link was an outsider picked on merit not an old boys appointment.

What would you call a coach who had been sacked from his last 2 jobs who was a former team mate of the Chairman who hand picked him?

Link was a "job for the boy". His old team mate Rod McCall called him up to see if he was interested. He may have sat an 'interview' but it was hardly a 'world wide search'