The fact that Folau was awarded millions in damages rather suggests that RA was in the wrong.
Honestly, if Castle had just come out with a statement saying that RA didn't agree with his comments but they respected his right to free speech and he wouldn't be sacked, I think the whole controversy would have blown over as soon as the Twitterati moved on to the next thought criminal. In fact, she and the board would probably have won the respect of a great many people for standing up for Folau's freedoms and enhanced the game's reputation.
And then you know what would have happened? We'd have had a stronger team to take to the World Cup. We might have, say, beaten Wales and advanced further in the tournament with an easier path. That level of success might then have spurred further interest in the game domestically .
But we'll never know now. Castle went down the path of appeasing the outrage brigade, cost the sport millions of dollars, and harmed the code's reputation in the process among a great number of casual sports fans.
As for the broadcast rights, I'm not saying that she shouldn't have tried to negotiate but the fact that the game still doesn't have a broadcast partner after all these months is surely an indictment. It was a very generous offer under the circumstances (ie less Australian teams on the table compared to the last negotiation) and frankly I think she had a pretty delusional view of just how popular rugby is in the current environment.
Then again, I think giving herself a 72% mark is pretty delusional in itself. Apparently I'm not the only one (although that report was carried by Newcorp, so no doubt plenty of people here will reflexively dismiss it).
With all that said, thank you for keeping a civil tone. It's very much appreciated.
Micheal, Derpus, you can both get stuffed.
They could have, they just couldn't make it a penalty. It is a standard legal framework, you make a portion of the deal bonuses, subject to performance and/or complying with social medai requirements ie. a good behaviour bonus.....
I see there are some listing RA re-signing Folau without inserting a social media good behaviour clause in his contract as one of Castle's failings. Are those people saying that had RA sought to insert such a clause, which the player's collective says they can't, then used Folau's refusal as grounds to not offer him a new contract, they'd have been OK with that? That's certainly not the impression I got from reading the now-locked Folau thread & this one from time to time.
Leading candidate is the founder of a private equity firm. Quelle surprise.....
I agree with this assessment. Whilst many think otherwise, I'm not super pro-Raelene. She has her flaws, but because of the campaign against her by ex-players, current players, RUPA, News Corp, Jones et al., I found myself drawn to her defence time after time after time.
The next person (well, let's face it it's going to be a man but I'll be politically correct for now) may well turn out to be a better CEO.
In a weird way it's a good time to come into the job. COVID presents the game with a unique opportunity to build from the ground up and most importantly the Trans-Tasman 'bubble' might well force the NZRU to consider the much-vaunted AUS/NZ combined competition, even if it's only for a month or two.
The unfortunate shame of the Castle administration is her mistakes will be remembered, but the seeds she has planted will be harvested by others: the Wallaby coaching team, junior talent, 2027 Cup bid etc.
But I'm sad because I don't think she really got the chance she deserved. If all that actually mattered was the 'best interests of Australian rugby' then I think it would have gone differently.
Sorry for the re-post, but this is from GRob's SMH article:
"Wiggs runs private equity firm Archer Capital and is chair of Supercars after Archer bought the business for a reported AU$180 million from SEL in 2011. It is now reportedly worth about half its purchase price and is in the middle of difficult broadcast negotiations to renew its deal with Fox Sports and Ten."
You could set your watch to the Folau sympathisers coming in to this thread cock-a-hoop at this Castle news. As predictable as they are daft.
Not just you done, it’s the game that’s done.
anyone who publicly lobbies for the incumbent to be summarily dismissed without discussion ( for a role that they were passed over) can’t credibly be considered to be the logical successor.
Not fit for purpose would be the best descriptor.
I agree that how they should have handled the Folau situation. Just sanction him by standing him down indefinitely and wait it out. Either way they had to pay out the contract, may as well keep paying it in weekly installments and hope that he would see sense and take down the post and sign undertakings not to do it again. But that is history and I Expect Clyne had way more influence over this particular situation and maybe not so much Castles doing.
Yes, Clyne and the board are responsible and Castle was just the messenger. The problem wasn't the CEO it was and still is the board and board structure. No matter who becomes CEO, nothing much will improve under the way the board is currently appointed. The whole structure needs to be swept away and the corporate hacks with it.