Senate enquiry into Australian Rugby
- Thread starter jimmydubs
- Start date
- Status
Well, I've said it before, and this goes back to before the whole Force axing debacle. The admin of, and approach to, Super Rugby, for starters, needed to be more centrally based with respect to all contracting, coaching, skills and S&C approach very much in the NZ mould. I feared it could not happen, largely due to the inertia of the most vested interests (and we all know who they are), and I haven't been pleasantly surprised! I think, had they sorted that out, the financial health / crowds / general interest in Aus rugby would be better, because the product would have been better. In the current shambles, I want the central body to be overhauled completely. The whole lot. The residual of the ARU or whatever is untenable. Financially, Aus rugby will always be a top down model, given where nearly all the cash comes from, but it needs to be better distributed; for example to capitalise on some of the growth in "lower" levels (clubs / juniors) in places like WA, for example. But, at the end of the day, a lot of the focus has to remain on Test / Super-level rugby (and that would include another comp that might succeed Super Rugby) as the cash cows (potentially). Problem is, Super Rugby is lurching towards a very dead end with the comp structure as it is has become. If the IPRC is the kernel that leads to something like that, great. BUT, the admin pool in Aus rugby is relatively small. People talk about Rugby being made to change, but by whom? Half talks about World Rugby doing it. How? By what authority? It won't happen. Will the Government force it? I think it's unlikely. In any event, any power vacuum will, unfortunately, most likely be filled by more self-interest and cliques. So, while I want to see large scale change, I am cynical enough to doubt it will really happen. It does not mean I'm happy about it. I'm sure someone will interpret this as me being an ARU / RA / EARU or whatever apologist. Which is another sad part of the discussion.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Your opinion. My opinion is - complete and utter horse shit that is to the detraction of rugby in Australia.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Thanks for the reply, and a pretty well-reasoned one from a well-reasoned poster. It gets a like even if I'm not fully aligned with every point.
And, you're right, some of the fallout is sad.
I can be Snarky Snark and the Sarky Bunch very easily by flicking that cynical switch.
My first choice is to target that at the individuals in power and their organisations mismanaging and damaging the game.
The opposite of that goes to the everyday rugby punters and others trying to make it change.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
The ARU should make public the record of the details of these assurances.
It must exist.
A bit like the "assurance" that the future of the Western Force was assured.
The other thing that's died from all this is the prospect of centralisation with the ARU. Who could trust them?
It must exist.
A bit like the "assurance" that the future of the Western Force was assured.
The other thing that's died from all this is the prospect of centralisation with the ARU. Who could trust them?
Indeed. But to get centralisation over the line, it not only requires RA to be reformed, but also the Member unions, obviously 2 in particular, who were apparently the biggest / ? only opponents to previous ARU attempts to move towards it.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
Nah I predicted he'd predict nothing would happen. I didn't predict he'd want it.
For me it just adds nothing to the discussion to predict nothing will happen. And if you feel something should happen being defeatist about is about the best way to ensure nothing does happen.
I reckon it'll take more than positive vibes on an internet forum to make the ARU change. But it's nice that you think we could have such influence!
brokendown
Vay Wilson (31)
I thought that the former ARU was well represented on these forums
silly me
silly me
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
You are spot on but i would actually say its 3 not just 2. Ironically they also helped create this situation by voting for it. In addition to the death of centralisation, private investment / owners ship is another casualty. Would you trust any of these parties enough to invest let alone after seeing the way they do business?
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Payten does seem to like that White horse RA bought him. Always arrives right on time with RA's convenient alibis.
T
TOCC
Guest
Australian Rugby is too small for journalists too alienate their sources or limit their access through provoking articles.
It sure is a detraction, but I don't think we should have ever expanded, I maintain we don't have enough quality players But SANZAR (& the ARU) expanded it and Super Rugby became a un-followable mess, the Aus teams are all horrible, they are all running near broke, something had be done. Sometimes consolidation is needed
dru
Tim Horan (67)
BH
Expansion to 15 was unwise, but just as relevant is that it was done poorly and many issues that were clumsy did not need to be. The conference system and the draw are two obvious items. And much more that was ARU/Australia specific.
More relevant on the time scale is things being utterly obvious that major change was going to be required to Super and SANZAR with the next broadcast deal. This at the same time that the horses were getting restless domestically, it was completely obvious that Aus rugby needed:
a) a B Plan, probably several
b) serious engagement with the East Coast premier comp clubs
c) in a way that also held together the non premier clubs in grass roots engagement
d) in a way that sheeted home engagement with the non East Coast clubs and grass roots
e) maintained our bargaining power to the max possible for that next broadcast deal (better with five!)
f) got serious about fiscal responsibility waaay before they did - IE stop squandering funds much earlier
I am not in anyway being retrospectively clever here. All of this was discussed in depth here at G&GR. At the time.
Now we have not just a disenfranchised (in every sense of the word) major rugby preparation state, but a RU that the ARU has intentionally put into administration. Work that out.
Yes something had to be done. To get out of the rut the ARU could pretty much have changed anything, just anything, to find an improvement. They chose to steadfastly hold their aloof beligerance to single handedly take Australia from a bad place, hit rock bottom, then start tunnelling at the bottom of the pit they created.
We could hardly be in a worse position going forward. Not simply predictable, but predicted. Yes something had to happen, very clearly not this.
Expansion to 15 was unwise, but just as relevant is that it was done poorly and many issues that were clumsy did not need to be. The conference system and the draw are two obvious items. And much more that was ARU/Australia specific.
More relevant on the time scale is things being utterly obvious that major change was going to be required to Super and SANZAR with the next broadcast deal. This at the same time that the horses were getting restless domestically, it was completely obvious that Aus rugby needed:
a) a B Plan, probably several
b) serious engagement with the East Coast premier comp clubs
c) in a way that also held together the non premier clubs in grass roots engagement
d) in a way that sheeted home engagement with the non East Coast clubs and grass roots
e) maintained our bargaining power to the max possible for that next broadcast deal (better with five!)
f) got serious about fiscal responsibility waaay before they did - IE stop squandering funds much earlier
I am not in anyway being retrospectively clever here. All of this was discussed in depth here at G&GR. At the time.
Now we have not just a disenfranchised (in every sense of the word) major rugby preparation state, but a RU that the ARU has intentionally put into administration. Work that out.
Yes something had to be done. To get out of the rut the ARU could pretty much have changed anything, just anything, to find an improvement. They chose to steadfastly hold their aloof beligerance to single handedly take Australia from a bad place, hit rock bottom, then start tunnelling at the bottom of the pit they created.
We could hardly be in a worse position going forward. Not simply predictable, but predicted. Yes something had to happen, very clearly not this.
T
TOCC
Guest
Conducting due diligence on deals before they sign them would be a nice start. The new structure had only been in effect 18months before the rumours started, they clearly failed to survey what the market wanted or budget forecast realistically.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
FP, I’ve been cogitating on the logical fallacies that are inherent in the current pro ARU narrative. (You are not the only one, FP, but your thrust will do for the discussion.) It’s pretty impressive.
Appeal to authority: The ARU are professional experienced people who are there for a purpose, something had to be done, you cant advise better.
Appeal to ignorance: There is no evidence that taking any other action would have been better, so the ARU must have been right.
False dichotomy: On one hand there are the actions of the ARU, on the other choose Twiggy/crazy fan view/ some other.
Affirming the consequent (and this one changes depending how far back in the recent history you want to start from): The ARU warned something had to be done, it was a shit sandwich, something had to be done (hence the ARU were right)
A couple of ARU apologists have been dropping predictions recently. On the basis that in 2018 the Rebels perform better, here is another fallacy to come:
Not a cause for a cause: hey look at how the Rebels are doing! Aus rugby is much better now, so the ARU obviously took the right actions!
I could add base rate neglect to that issue, but probably leave it until we get there.
- Status