• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
McLennan is a fuckwit and he made his own bed. He had multiple opportunities to take a bit of accountability and if he had he probably wouldn't be in this position. As somebody else said, I have no sympathy for him.

I care far more about the future of Australian Rugby however and what the best model moving forward is. I firmly believe that is a highly centralised one and frankly speaking have very little time for the state unions. If this is a play to retain their power - and I suspect it is based on their long long history with a revealed preference to look after themselves instead of the health of the game - I will just about pack it in with Rugby in this country. And I don't buy for a second they are "more keen" to do it absent McLennan. I'm sure there will be some form of 'alignment' but as ever, the devil will be in the details. We will have to wait and see.

Having said all that, if this all washes out with a non-dickhead for chairman and a highly centralised model, play on, I'll happily eat my words.
 

Crashy

Trevor Allan (34)
One thing that surprises me about McLennan, given his corporate background, is his inclination to get involved in day-to-day mangement of ARU. I have been on three boards at different times, and one of the basic rules of governance is that directors do not get involved in management. A board appoints a CEO, who is responsible for running the business and reports to the board, directors must not get involved in management (except a managing director).
Anyway, if McLennan does go, do we have to wait for the next meeting of the Shore Old Boys Union to get our next chairman?
Yes this is something I couldn't get my head around and is precisely why Marinos left. Imagine trying to get on and be CEO with that bloke running around in the press and acting in part as a claytons CEO himself.
I truly think he has rugby in his best interests but his ego and slightly socio-pathic tendencies mean he can't get on and be a proper chairman - if you want to run around like a ceo - be one - or bite your tongue and get back in your box.
I'm assuming with little funds he has decided to take some of the heavy lifting..

I also think he mainly became chair is the global wankfests at worldcups etc which he so likes to attend.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
He upset the Kiwis Deluxe for a while and that’s a happy memory. :) :)
I honestly don't believe he did, noone over here took him to seriously. But fair enough if you think he did and that's what makes a good chairman we have differing expectations anyway.
Same as upsetting and seemingly trying to start a war with NRL (another thing the states appear to be pissed at according to their notice to RA) I not sure that ever helped or helps the game in Aus.
 

KiwiM

Trevor Allan (34)
I'm not sure what the argument to keep him is.

There are more problems than McLennan but that doesn't mean that McLennan gets a pass and gets to stay.

He's lost the trust of the states, the fans, I can't imagine searching for a new Wallabies coach is helped with him around.

For a man who pushes centralisation - why would anyone trust a centralised system with McLennan at the helm?
 

drewprint

Colin Windon (37)
But I understand you think he is best thing going, and have no problems with that mate, we just think different things make good chairmans is all.

He deserves the sack for his later poor actions, but for his first couple of years as a bit of a wartime leader I’m pleased. He’s now had his time.
About the level of comprehension we’ve all become so used to Dan. Never change.
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
McLennan is a fuckwit and he made his own bed. He had multiple opportunities to take a bit of accountability and if he had he probably wouldn't be in this position. As somebody else said, I have no sympathy for him.

I care far more about the future of Australian Rugby however and what the best model moving forward is. I firmly believe that is a highly centralised one and frankly speaking have very little time for the state unions. If this is a play to retain their power - and I suspect it is based on their long long history with a revealed preference to look after themselves instead of the health of the game - I will just about pack it in with Rugby in this country. And I don't buy for a second they are "more keen" to do it absent McLennan. I'm sure there will be some form of 'alignment' but as ever, the devil will be in the details. We will have to wait and see.

Having said all that, if this all washes out with a non-dickhead for chairman and a highly centralised model, play on, I'll happily eat my words.
Welcome to your opinion about the best way forward nsnl, but where's the detail explaining what a centralised model consists of? All very well calling out the state unions for lack of detail, but RA are the people calling for change and commitment by all parties without any detail at all.
 

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Welcome to your opinion about the best way forward nsnl, but where's the detail explaining what a centralised model consists of? All very well calling out the state unions for lack of detail, but Rugby Australia are the people calling for change and commitment by all parties without any detail at all.
For me we need centralised control over player rosters, contract decisions, talent ID, coaching staffs & a national age-group development set-up. That means the national director of rugby has final say over who plays where, who coaches the super teams. A High Performance Unit run out of RA takes much more responsibility for identifying age-group talent, ensuring they are retained in the game from a young age and brings them into the national fold earlier on.

The 'lack of detail' line is clever spin from the states IMO. The whole point of entering negotiations is to work out the detail collaboratively. I think they are just setting the stage to say 'well we weren't given any detail' and walk away from it all/only commit to the bare minimum (i.e. S&C programs). Forgive me for being cynical but at no point in their history have the states demonstrated any desire to put the interests of the national game over their own interests.

Again, very very happy to be proven wrong on this.
 
Last edited:

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
Doran reporting that Twiggy has pledged his support to McLennan. Interesting detail, not sure how relevant it will wind up being.
That makes very little sense to me. I thought Twiggy was all about corporate responsibility and restructure. Now he's throwing his support behind a cowboy chairman?
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
For me we need centralised control over player rosters, contract decisions, talent ID, coaching staffs & a national age-group development set-up. That means the national director of rugby has final say over who plays where, who coaches the super teams. A High Performance Unit run out of Rugby Australia takes much more responsibility for identifying age-group talent, ensuring they are retained in the game from a young age and brings them into the national fold earlier on.

The 'lack of detail' line is clever spin from the states IMO. The whole point of entering negotiations is to work out the detail collaboratively. I think they are just setting the stage to say 'well we weren't given any detail' and walk away from it all/only commit to the bare minimum (i.e. S&C programs). Forgive me for being cynical but at no point in their history have the states demonstrated any desire to put the interests of the national game over their own interests.

Again, very very happy to be proven wrong on this.

RA has already unilaterally cut a franchise, failed in that implementation and reneged having gutted that franchise of what had been developing talent. Any Union who agrees to an open ended centralisation in the absence of transparency is not meeting their fiducial responsibilities. QRU have spent a time building their finances and are entitled to want to keep beneficial outputs within their own tent. ACT have a responsibility to their own members to ensure their on-going survival, especially with RA seeming to have aggressively approached them with questions of viability. RA need their heads read if they think that WA will expect (edit: an absence of) detail and to be honest, while Vic have been on the benefitting side of past RA transgressions they have also had to fight to ensure their survival.

Centralisation is potentially key, but the RA always had it's work cut out to prove their stripes. With the immediate history, they are hardly exposed in glory.

No the centralisation path is not locked with the obvious cutting of McLennan. It would seem to be a necessary step for any on-going arrangements irrespective of centralisation. But those discussions are at an impasse before it happens.
 
Last edited:

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
Rugby Australia has already unilaterally cut a franchise, failed in that implementation and reneged having gutted that franchise of what had been developing talent. Any Union who agrees to an open ended centralisation in the absence of transparency is not meeting their fiducial responsibilities. QRU have spent a time building their finances and are entitled to want to keep beneficial outputs within their own tent. ACT have a responsibility to their own members to ensure their on-going survival, especially with Rugby Australia seeming to have aggressively approached them with questions of viability. Rugby Australia need their heads read if they think that WA will expect detail and to be honest, while Vic have been on the benefitting side of past Rugby Australia transgressions they have also had to fight to ensure their survival.

Centralisation is potentially key, but the Rugby Australia always had it's work cut out to prove their stripes. With the immediate history, they are hardly exposed in glory.

No the centralisation path is not locked with the obvious cutting of McLennan. It would seem to be a necessary step for any on-going arrangements irrespective of centralisation. But those discussions are at an impasse before it happens.
Centralisation is the latest buzz word to fix rugby in Australia, you can centralize all you want, but the boat is still sinking. The financial model moving forward does not add up, the fall through of the PE deal pretty much said it all, sorry the figures don't add up.
 

molman

Peter Johnson (47)
Centralisation is the latest buzz word to fix rugby in Australia, you can centralize all you want, but the boat is still sinking. The financial model moving forward does not add up, the fall through of the private equity deal pretty much said it all, sorry the figures don't add up.
While I don't disagree that there are financial issues, I would almost contend that the two go hand in hand for RA. The federated model likely makes RA a less attractive investment option for private equity than other sporting organisations/operations out there. Hence the centralisation contains a element of not only desired benefits in alignment/economies of scale/operational efficiencies etc..etc.. but also, likely provides a better product to bring to market in search of external investment.

The issue in much of the discussion being had are all the vagaries around the scope and meaning of that word centralisation, so yes, without clarity and clear dimensions it really does read like a buzz word, but it's also hard to argue that structurally the setup of Rugby in this country isn't somewhat broken and increasingly looking dwarfed by those sports it's competing with in the marketplace for both athletes and the fans.
 

eastman

Arch Winning (36)
That makes very little sense to me. I thought Twiggy was all about corporate responsibility and restructure. Now he's throwing his support behind a cowboy chairman?
Twiggy and MacLennan are cut from the same cloth- they’re both relentless self-promoters (driven by self- interest).

Have a look into Fortescue Industries and its the furthest thing from an organization with strong corporate governance and an arms-length chairman.

They’ve both bought into each others bullshit and will back each other.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Voting breakdown is:
QRU + Reds = 3 votes
ACT + Brumbies = 2 votes
Rugby WA = 1 vote
Rugby SA = 1 vote

That is 7, which is one short of the majority. The article says it is unclear if the Force are aligned with Rugby WA. Not sure where you are getting Tasmania and NT from Sully, they aren't mentioned in the article. All up you'd think its close to curtains for the hammer, I can't imagine every other entity giving him the eight votes he needs.

Personally couldn't really give a rats arse, he will just be replaced by some other wanker, this is worth noting though: "McLennan’s departure would likely see more willingness by states to sign up with Rugby Australia's centralisation plans, according to sources close to the process who spoke anonymously due to the confidential nature of the talks."
That's a direct quote from the article.
 

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
That's a direct quote from the article.
Yes, I am not calling you a fibber. When I read the original article on the SMH on my laptop it just did not mention South Australia or Tasmania. May have missed an update or something to the story, idk, clearly they did sign the letter.
 

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
I admire the optimism of those who think that McLennan being boned will lead us out of the 40 years in the desert, so to speak.
I'm happy to see him go, and have little sympathy for him, but I get the vibe from all the stakeholders that lip service is about all that "centralisation" will get. Or "nut service" as it were, from NSW after they left theirs in Rugby Australia's jar.
My only hope is that Waugh can do something with the rabble. I heard him talk last weekend and I was more impressed with him than I thought I would be.
I agree. I’m happy to see him go as it’s untenable now but the statement from these unions especially QLD and ACT basically indicates he’s at fault for the current performance and not their incompetence the last 20yrs. A lot of shift blame going on because opportunity with public outrage is allowing them to do it
 
Top