Where to for Super Rugby?

[Show-n-go]

Having diversity for diversities sake on a board is such a cop out

Choose the best person for the job and carry on

 

[Braveheart81]

My concern is more than ever Super Rugby viewers in OZ are NZ's living in oz...as oz interest in Super Rugby for sure dropped to ridiculously low levels.

The game at all levels is held together by expat NZers and Pacific Islanders. From subbies up to the Wallabies, half these games wouldn't be happening if not for those communities who are committed to rugby.

Having diversity for diversities sake on a board is such a cop out

Choose the best person for the job and carry on

It provides a different perspective though. The WASP man who went to an exclusive private school, studied as Sydney Uni or similar and then went into a business career looks great on paper and realistically they are. What does the second and third with a similar background offer apart from groupthink?

Diversity for the sake of diversity is acknowledging that different backgrounds and life experiences give someone a different perspective that can add value to the equation. People in positions of power are also very likely to think that someone with a similar background to them is the most impressive. It's why changing that position through quotas etc. is the only way to make things happen at a faster than glacial pace.

 

[half]

The game at all levels is held together by expat NZers and Pacific Islanders. From subbies up to the Wallabies, half these games wouldn't be happening if not for those communities who are committed to rugby.




It provides a different perspective though. The WASP man who went to an exclusive private school, studied as Sydney Uni or similar and then went into a business career looks great on paper and realistically they are. What does the second and third with a similar background offer apart from groupthink?

Diversity for the sake of diversity is acknowledging that different backgrounds and life experiences give someone a different perspective that can add value to the equation. People in positions of power are also very likely to think that someone with a similar background to them is the most impressive. It's why changing that position through quotas etc. is the only way to make things happen at a faster than glacial pace.

Agree 100% .

Interesting also is the general lack of female representation on the various boards.

Rugby . no women but have a female CEO
AFL - 1 woman in a board of 9 with a male CEO
NRL - 1 woman in a board of 9 with a male CEO
Soccer - 2 women in a board of 6 with a male CEO

 

[Show-n-go]

It provides a different perspective though. The WASP man who went to an exclusive private school, studied as Sydney Uni or similar and then went into a business career looks great on paper and realistically they are. What does the second and third with a similar background offer apart from groupthink?

Diversity for the sake of diversity is acknowledging that different backgrounds and life experiences give someone a different perspective that can add value to the equation. People in positions of power are also very likely to think that someone with a similar background to them is the most impressive. It's why changing that position through quotas etc. is the only way to make things happen at a faster than glacial pace.

So you’re saying that people are incapable of empathising with a group of people outside of their own demographic and are incapable of critical thinking?

To you I would be considered a white priviledged male who attended a private school and does business who wouldn’t add anything as opposed to the next guy privledged white guy who went to a private school and does business when in actual fact I come from a very working class family, grew up playing in an almost exclusively Islander rugby team and spent most of my 20’s in greater western Sydney.

Am I to be considered different to a guy who went to shore and never left the north shore? Or am I just lumped in because of the colour is my skin, education and career choices?

 

[Adam84]

You’ve basically described diversity, by highlighting a different background to the stereotypical eastern suburbs/Sydney uni rugby union type who have historically made up a significant portion of RA board members.

 

[wamberal]

Diversity is good, but nobody without a pretty strong liking for, and understanding of, our game would be able to contribute very much, IMHO.

 

[Show-n-go]

You’ve basically described diversity, by highlighting a different background to the stereotypical eastern suburbs/Sydney uni rugby union type who have historically made up a significant portion of RA board members.

Yea nah, white and private school I’d be looked at exactly the same as everyone else that falls into my “stereotype” when looking for “diversity”

It’s just a PC business concept there for aesthetics and feel good factor rather than what is in the best interests of a board

 

[Highlander35]

I mean, for sure, there's a flat "elites" bias overall, I don't think anyone lacks the brain wrinkles to suggest that's not the biggest lack of diverse opinions.

But for example, given the significant impact and contribution of Pacific Islanders and those with Pacific Islander heritage to the game of Rugby as a whole in Australia, they are curiously absent from the highest levels except as players. I would be inclined to see if this is just optics, if there's simply a lack of interest amongst qualified individuals, or there's actually some bias or barrier preventing them from taking on these roles.

And I wouldn't imagine, that many would consider empathy is related to "in group" only. But having"the out group" around to contribute themselves seems to generally transform intentions and understanding into something actionable, which I think is pretty damn important.

 

[Show-n-go]

Yea I guess all I’m saying is the best people for the jobs are the ones who are able to think and act on behalf of all interest groups within rugby, regardless of their own experiences and if they can’t do that I’d argue they aren’t the right people for the job, but at the same time don’t chuck someone in just to fulfill some diversity quota if they aren’t the most qualified for the role

Hard work and knowing your shit should be rewarded not what colour you are, where you popped out of your mum or what special interest group you belong to

 

[Braveheart81]

So you’re saying that people are incapable of empathising with a group of people outside of their own demographic and are incapable of critical thinking?

To you I would be considered a white priviledged male who attended a private school and does business who wouldn’t add anything as opposed to the next guy privledged white guy who went to a private school and does business when in actual fact I come from a very working class family, grew up playing in an almost exclusively Islander rugby team and spent most of my 20’s in greater western Sydney.

Am I to be considered different to a guy who went to shore and never left the north shore? Or am I just lumped in because of the colour is my skin, education and career choices?

No, I am not saying that it is impossible to empathise, far from it. It's very different to living that experience though.

I am that white privileged male who attended private school and works in business. Most of the people I know personally from this website and in fact the majority of people I know from rugby are too.

I also know that there are a whole lot of people with a less impressive CV who have worked a lot harder than I have to achieve it and are probably smarter than me as well.

The latter part of that paragraph is a point of difference and probably does give you a greater ability to empathise and understand other perspectives but does it allow you to do that better than the person who has lived that experience?

I agree that "hard work and knowing your shit" is crucial for pretty much everything. Those aren't really the easiest things to judge when hiring people and making appointments etc.

No one is ever arguing that someone should be in a role purely because they fulfil a diversity quota. People have to have the right skills for the job. That said, I very much believe that a diverse group of people from different backgrounds and lived experiences are going to be in a better position to make decisions than one that largely reflects the same backgrounds and lived experiences.

 

[half]

Yea I guess all I’m saying is the best people for the jobs are the ones who are able to think and act on behalf of all interest groups within rugby, regardless of their own experiences and if they can’t do that I’d argue they aren’t the right people for the job, but at the same time don’t chuck someone in just to fulfill some diversity quota if they aren’t the most qualified for the role

Hard work and knowing your shit should be rewarded not what colour you are, where you popped out of your mum or what special interest group you belong to

Pick the best person for the job. An interesting concept and very subjective.

How do you decide on who is the best person for the job? Its a dilemma a real conundrum if you have a board all male, all say between 50 & 65, all from business, all successful business people, what chance of a say 25 year old Spanish kid who has never owned a business ever being considered.

IBM for yonks the biggest computer teck company in the world believed Bill Gates idea about developing software for personal computers was very very very small time. Newspaper world over where forced to move there classified from the paper to online and most still do not own the online platforms.

I would dare to say that the various boards who have governed Australian Rugby have been beyond appalling, and have failed almost every metric that can be used to measure a boards performance. Yet on paper they are all perfect for the job.

The real challenge is to select people from different backgrounds and genders who are capable and knowledge people, to much of the same leads to group think and in action.

 

[half]

WRC / Hoggy / Dru

I put this up mainly for you guys others please feel free to read and comment if you desire but I warn you its from the Australian explaining what the new ownership structure of the A-League and whats next. Many don't like looking at other codes so simply read no further if that is how you feel.

As we have debated a number of times my preference is for private investors to be given the right to run a rugby competition in Australia under license from RA. Further it be modelled on USA systems with the MLS being the most suitable and much like Major League Rugby in the USA who have also copied the MLS model.

WCR, Hoggy, Dru you have often put up models of changes to the existing structures which from where I sit change at best some time zones but the structure itself is mostly controlled by RA and RA in turn look to existing systems and structures. I simply don't see how this can possibly provide the capital and management skills to restore rugby.

The following article from the OZ I have copied as it sits behind a paywall and I post it to highlight when you provide a group of business folk with control of their own density it somehow works better.

Please read but only if you want to... otherwise simply move to the next post.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/owners-to-take-control-of-aleague/news-story/7f41967c2c45ecc1b3d4f90f0fce003a

A-League owners are expected to pour in $10 million a year to promote the league and sign marquee players and could sell a chunk of the league to outside investors after clinching a deal with Football Federation Australia to privatise the competition.
The deal will result in a much diminished FFA and is set to cause exits of executives such as chief executive David Gallop, who may leave the governing body before his contract ends in November next year.
A-League owners will establish a new body to run professional soccer in Australia under new management while FFA will look after the national teams and development pathways, though it will maintain a 20 per cent share of the A-League and receive annual payments of at least $4.5m from the independent league.
But those payments will not kick in until 2023, under recommendations of an in-principle agreement between the clubs and FFA released yesterday, which also includes the W-League and the youth Y-League.
The deal means the 12 clubs, including expansion teams Western United FC and Macarthur FC, gain majority control of an asset valued at $80-100m for no upfront payment. But club owners, who have accumulated losses of $350m since the A-League was formed in 2005, say they will deliver strategic plans for the three leagues that will ensure more investment in an effort to arrest sliding attendances and broadcast viewership numbers.
“These recommendations are the foundations for a critically needed evolution and vitalisation,” the billionaire chairman of the Western Sydney Wanderers and the clubs’ association Paul Lederer said.
“Once executed they will create the environment for investment and associated opportunities that we all want to see.”
In a statement, FFA said “the recommendations will precipitate the injection by the clubs of significant capital in the leagues to enhance the on-field product and bolster their commercial and marketing appeal”.
FFA will emerge after a transition period as a smaller organisation with annual revenue of about $50m, according to sources, compared to $130m last year.
Agreements still have to be struck as to how the league and FFA will split the proceeds of the existing six-year $346m broadcast deal it has with Fox Sports and A-League major sponsor Hyundai, with figures between 82-90 per cent of all commercial deals understood to be demanded by clubs.
The Hyundai deal expires at the end of the upcoming season and FFA is likely to have already commenced negotiations with the car manufacturer on a new deal, as it is with other sponsors.
Otherwise, FFA will receive the annual $4.5m payment from 2023 onwards, plus 10 per cent of the sale of any new club licences or the net profit of the sale of existing clubs.
FFA will also receive 10 per cent of transfer fees any clubs receive from selling players abroad, as part of an assurance from the clubs it will not be worse off from the reorganisation.
It will also maintain a 20 per cent non-diluting but non-voting shareholding in the new league and receive 20 per cent of any funds received should the owners sell some of the league to outside investors to bring in much-need money to invest in marketing, new players and other initiatives.
While some A-League owners, such as Melbourne City’s Abu Dhabi and Chinese-owned parent body City Football Group have considerable funds, others may not have the capacity to inject new funds into the league. That could see owners explore selling some of the league to private equity or a global sports management firm, a strategy believed to have been considered by the owners and FFA.
The in-principle agreement will be finalised by August 1 ahead of a transition period before and potentially during the season, which begins in October.

 

[Show-n-go]

Pick the best person for the job. An interesting concept and very subjective.

How do you decide on who is the best person for the job?

An interesting concept to choose the best person for the job?? deary me..........

Not super subjective, boards have a job description. Usually pretty easy to marry it up to a persons CV and make a decision

The real challenge is to select people from different backgrounds and genders who are capable and knowledge people, to much of the same leads to group think and in action.

So you're happy to miss out on a job purely because someone is the opposite gender to you or had parents that were born in a different country to yours?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Agree 100% .

Interesting also is the general lack of female representation on the various boards.

Rugby . no women but have a female CEO
AFL - 1 woman in a board of 9 with a male CEO
NRL - 1 woman in a board of 9 with a male CEO
Soccer - 2 women in a board of 6 with a male CEO

Pip Marlow?

 

[Braveheart81]

Pip Marlow?

Yes, Pip Marlow is still on the board. Ann Sherry was also until some time last year.

Raelene Castle sits on the board as CEO.

 

[half]

Pip Marlow?

Yes, Pip Marlow is still on the board. Ann Sherry was also until some time last year.

Raelene Castle sits on the board as CEO.

My bad on Pip got carried away ..

An interesting concept to choose the best person for the job?? deary me....

Not super subjective, boards have a job description. Usually pretty easy to marry it up to a persons CV and make a decision




So you're happy to miss out on a job purely because someone is the opposite gender to you or had parents that were born in a different country to yours?

Why do you make it sooooooooooooooo esayyyyyyyyyyyyyy do you want me to start framing the questions to suit my agenda .

Like have you stopped beating your wife yet?????

Maybe have you stopped shop lifting ??????

Then there is but HE is so suited to the job.

If you have to ask the question why diversity is not right then no answer I give will survive.

Thank the lord above we have mods that mostly keep us on topic.

 

[dru]

WRC / Hoggy / Dru

I put this up mainly for you guys others please feel free to read and comment if you desire but I warn you its from the Australian explaining what the new ownership structure of the A-League and whats next. Many don't like looking at other codes so simply read no further if that is how you feel.

As we have debated a number of times my preference is for private investors to be given the right to run a rugby competition in Australia under license from RA. Further it be modelled on USA systems with the MLS being the most suitable and much like Major League Rugby in the USA who have also copied the MLS model.

WCR, Hoggy, Dru you have often put up models of changes to the existing structures which from where I sit change at best some time zones but the structure itself is mostly controlled by RA and RA in turn look to existing systems and structures. I simply don't see how this can possibly provide the capital and management skills to restore rugby.

The following article from the OZ I have copied as it sits behind a paywall and I post it to highlight when you provide a group of business folk with control of their own density it somehow works better.

Please read but only if you want to. otherwise simply move to the next post.

9, I'm quite happy with the concept of private funding and think it could work well in the NSW franchise model - where NSWRU sell a license to Waratah Ltd who return a fee back to the union. OTOH I dont know that all unions are going to be happy with the lack of control and for instance the strong development link through QRU and Premier rugby may be less clear following private funding and independence of direction.

But, as long as the funders could be found, I would have no issue with it. I don't think pro rugby will generate the same commercial interest as football.

More fundamentally, we should have funds available from the RA from the international scene to ease in a new pro comp that is fundamentally domestic. However that is arranged I'm likely to like it.

We need to keep open the opportunity for trans Tasman, though a deal breaker would be anything that works against a roughly level playing field. So AB selection would need a policy that was consistent with the pro rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

WRC / Hoggy / Dru

I put this up mainly for you guys others please feel free to read and comment if you desire but I warn you its from the Australian explaining what the new ownership structure of the A-League and whats next. Many don't like looking at other codes so simply read no further if that is how you feel.

As we have debated a number of times my preference is for private investors to be given the right to run a rugby competition in Australia under license from RA. Further it be modelled on USA systems with the MLS being the most suitable and much like Major League Rugby in the USA who have also copied the MLS model.

WCR, Hoggy, Dru you have often put up models of changes to the existing structures which from where I sit change at best some time zones but the structure itself is mostly controlled by RA and RA in turn look to existing systems and structures. I simply don't see how this can possibly provide the capital and management skills to restore rugby.

The following article from the OZ I have copied as it sits behind a paywall and I post it to highlight when you provide a group of business folk with control of their own density it somehow works better.

Please read but only if you want to. otherwise simply move to the next post.

If the interest is there then I certainly think it should be explored. My worry is that it doesn't exist or at least not to the level that it would be needed. I guess if RA were able to find a investor/buyer for the Reds and Tahs that could have benefits for both the Brumbies and Rebels but we've all seen how completely cactus RA have been at those arrangements in the past.

One of the biggest roadblocks here is the lack of certainty or direction around things like Super Rugby and TRC. More so Super Rugby. Which would stifle interest. I do like the idea of PE being brought in. Something akin to the InFront deal. It wouldn't need to be £6.2b or $11.1b AUD. Ten per cent would do me. But for that to even be remotely possible we'd need or SANZAAR partners to be willing to seed control of at least Super Rugby and most probably TRC for a period of time or at least be forced to answer to an investing partner. Which I cannot see them liking.

I think realistically at this point would be to look to centralise operations beyond everything but HP centres in the respective locales if we wish to maintain the 4 squads. Rugby in this country is structured completely at the professional level with each Union running their own show when everything should be run centrally to streamline ops, provide the game with more agility and to eliminate duplication. Which I suspect is rampant.

 

[half]

^^^^^^^^^^6
WCR

Thanks for your response, I do respect both your knowledge and experience, further understand where you’re coming from.

My reading of the Tea Leaf’s and Tarro Cards, is we are past the tipping point where we can control our density. No team, no union has either the capital or intellect to dig us out of the whole we are in.

Professional rugby is in very very very deep poo.

We simply cannot ignore what other codes are doing around us, Netball is flying along about to have their own world cup.

Australia’s The National Basketball League has experienced a renaissance period of talent, attendance and interest off the back of League owner Larry Kestelman’s Investment. Kestleman has set up partnerships with the NBA and is using his property investment portfolio to expand the League’s footprint. Interestingly Kestelman has recently purchased the marketing rights to Australia’s national basketball teams as well. Add the fact they have a FTA broadcast deal as does Netball.

I argued for years the transition to a new competition needed four years to win everybody over and develop a model. It can’t be done in a few months from the top down like the NCR as it simply takes a long time.

I have in the past used the example of when FFA developed its FA cup of which the final 31 games are covered by Fox to the then ARU’s development of the NRC. FFA took four yeas of negotiation and talking and adjusting to get it ready, effectively a bottom up approach. Pulver set up the NRC in about six months with twin objectives of growing rugby and secondly developing players. Very soon developing players seemed to be its main concern. One competition has exceeded all expectations the other is struggling. The obvious is take your time and get it right.

I don’t believe when I see whats going on in the Australian sporting environment we have the time any more to develop a competition within the existing structures and unions we have. I believe very very deep in my soul we need to invite private investors to develop a competition and this will take time IMO at least 18 months. For that to happen if we wait another twelve months to accept this it will be too late as investors will have to little to work with.

As an aside, I had a working lunch today with my biggest client, I have mentioned him before he runs a media company on the Coast and supplies lots of net material to all the TV networks and most radio stations. Over lunch we often discuss sport and he is a hard core rusted on soccer nut. We were discussing the changes with the A-League clubs now look like being in charge of the Australian National Domestic Competition. He told me to listen to the following its “TAB Radio” having an interview with Tony Sage who owns Perth Glory. From a rugby stance this should be a must listen as it shows what private investors are willing to do if they have control and equally to get to this stage took 4 years.

Enjoy https://soundcloud.com/tabradio/tony-sage

 

[Adam84]

Yea nah, white and private school I’d be looked at exactly the same as everyone else that falls into my “stereotype” when looking for “diversity”

It’s just a PC business concept there for aesthetics and feel good factor rather than what is in the best interests of a board

That’s your opinion