Tim Horan (67)
Yeah, there's a reason I haven't been posting much on this thread lately. Within a few minutes of criticizing Castle, and I'm a retarded idiot who's talking bullshit.
It is emotional for most who follow rugby, like your post here. I presumed it was a case of a touch too much red wine before hitting <post> god knows I'm guilty of it. But given the continuance I think not. To be faiur though, most of the responses are also emotional and ad hominem.
Well, some of Raelene's greatest hits are:
- Sacking Israel Folau for non-rugby related reasons and having to pay him a seven-figure settlement as a result;
I tend to agree with you here, a scenario that was going to happen in Aus, but that rugby did not need to be the test case. But was it Castle or Clyne (and other members of the board) driving it? Hard to say. NOT hard to see that she drove the conclusion. Best that could be made out of a cluster F@&%
Telling Foxtel to walk after they offered the same money for less content, leaving rugby the only major sport without a broadcast partner
What is your source for this? It is completely contrary to the discussion and information that has been under discussion for some time. The generally held position is that Foxtel threw a low ball thinking that RA had no choice and that it was a good way to set a precedent for all sport negotiations on the schedule.
But even if you are correct, there is a problem with RA seeking to better their position?
These actions were far from the issue that left rugby without a broadcast partner. CV-19, the Fox media attack etc.
Not presenting any audited financial statements, leaving stakeholders to speculate as to the true financial position of Australian rugby
Statement interrupted by the CV-19 close down and a nervousness from auditors on how to handle projections. It is an outside event that could not be planned for.
Oh, yeah - presiding over the worst run of Wallabies results in recent history.
With a set up she inherited and with "run of results" predating her. Also ignores the on-going battle she had attempting to get Cheika under control and the limitations she inherited in the contract she inherited.
Add to that she apparently only got the job because a) Cameron Clyne knew her, and b) they needed a woman on the board to make up the numbers, and I'd say her departure is well due.
Where are these appearances? What I have seen is a situation where Clyne was starting to lose his grip on the situation, they found a candidate who managed to get through Clyne's requirements but who was subsequently prepared to work independently.
Of course there's no guarantee that whoever replaces her will be better, but at the very least they've got to go through a better process than the one that appointed her.
Well finally something we can agree on. Unfortunately though, due to the manner of this passing and the self appointed parties influencing matters, the "process" has already begun nowhere near as responsible as the admittedly dodgy processes of the past.
All the best Aurelius, but for me you are tarring Castle with matters are either incorrect or outside her control, and have missed the good she was actually doing.
We have most of us got an idea on a vision for the future of rugby, whatever yours is, just remember the Irish saying when asked for directions "well if that is where you are going, I wouldn't start from here".