• 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

noscrumnolife

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Personally don't think its a coincidence this Brumbies/centralisation talk is out in the air as the same time as Eddie to Japan talks. My take is Eddie has said we need x, y and z changes to be successful. Centralisation is a part of that. Now Rugby AU is trying to push it through, they are getting pushback from the states. Eddie is using the media (as he is prone to do) to remind the board that he can walk if he doesn't get the change he thinks we need.

Personally, don't blame the Brumbies or Eddie for taking their respective course of actions. They've got to look out for themselves. It's Rugby AU's role to navigate the situation, which could potentially blow up in their face on either end. I'd have serious doubts about their ability to do so. But we will see. FWIW I think Eddie is playing a bit of poker. Without knowing what the state of negotiations are and who wants what etc. I'd be shocked if he walked from the Wallabies job. He has wanted it back since the day he was first sacked, lets be honest, and I don't think he would voluntarily leave now he has it.
 
Dismal Pillock

Dismal Pillock

Simon Poidevin (60)
cyclopath said:
how would centralisation stop him going to Ireland?
Click to expand...
Keep him in the centre of Australia, AKA, the practice of Centralisation.

Then he can't get to the border of Australia and escape to Ireland.

hm-hmm.gif
 
Last edited:
KOB1987

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
cyclopath said:
Can you explain? If he wanted to play international rugby, and we, by your reckoning, have better wingers anyway, how would centralisation stop him going to Ireland?
Click to expand...
Because he would have ended up at another franchise? My understanding is that Andy Friend convinced him to go to Connacht when he got dumped by the Brumbies. Our current wingers being better is only my opinion, and certainly marky wasn’t even heard of back then. He definitely would have got the jump on them.
 
KOB1987

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
well i can inform you that Kings has precisely 0. And the photo I saw of the Scots team looked like it was an ‘all ages‘ team. I’m not discounting the threat by any means, as a country we are only 240 years old. But it’s certainly not an imminent threat to the GPS rugby system.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Brumby Runner said:
It is important Adam that Rugby Australia stipulate what those "some aspects" are. This is probably exactly the detail the Brumbies are wanting, and others too if they know what's good for them.

If it's intended that a centralised body will take over the licences/ownership of the franchises, history should be sounding alarm bells loud and clear. Remember what happened to the Force when Rugby Australia took over ownership.

If NSW and Qld rugby retain majority voting on the controlling Board, will it not just diminish the successful teams (read Brumbies) through redirection of players and rolling out inferior coaching and management structures. Like it or not, the Brumbies are the most successful of the franchises and have performed at higher levels than others over recent years. The fear would be that the Brumbies organisation will be taken down to the level of the other sides in a centralised system rather than the opposite which really should be the aim.

While I think the Brumbies are potentially most at risk from a centralised organisation, both the Force and the Rebels should also be wary of such moves. If it transpires that the centralised system is primarily meant to help NSW and Qld to achieve more, then all three of the smaller teams will be detrimentally affected. It would be wise not to sign away any of their rights until the entire picture is known, and even then, what would be there to stop a future action to shrink to greatness and to plunder the better players from the smaller teams?
Click to expand...
Given the past 20 years of history, it's highly likely that RA don't really know what they mean by 'centralisation' which is probably why they can't explain it. Nothing I've seen in 20 years would indicate that RA have the ability to run anything better than anyone.

What they should be looking at is 'unification', by which I mean that we stop running an elite sport in the 21st century using 19th century colonial borders. In my view state and territory RU's are a layer of useless bureaucracy whose time has come. The only useful role moving forward should be to pick state teams at junior level or if rugby was ever in a position to run a state of origin series.

Other than that all clubs should be directly affiliated with RA (not with their state/territory unions) in the same way that all clubs in England are directly affiliated with the RFU.

I don't see any future for super rugby at all, so the Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs, Force and Rebels don't figure in my vision of Australian rugby at all. I'm not anti-Brumby, I'm anti all of them. And I'm happy to acknowledge that over the period of Super Rugby the Brumbies have been the most successful franchise. Having a management structure not weighed down by GPS old boys and assorted blazer wearers, and being close enough to Sydney for young players to be close to home are the two main factors I suspect.

The engine for elite sport the world over is club-based, where clubs develop talent from the grass-roots to the elite professional level. What this encourages is excellence from the bottom up as home-grown talent is cheaper than imported talent. (The US being the exception with their system of high school and college sport linking to the professional level). A club based professional competition is the only long-term option for Australian rugby - and it's a long term fix that's required. And I definitely see Canberra being part of that structure, just as Canberra are in important part of the NRL structure. The professional clubs in the competition run the competition, not RA. The role of the governing body should be long-term strategic planning (foreign concepts I know to RA), not running professional sporting teams or competitions.

The super rugby, provincial model is not the way to go in my opinion and hasn't been the way to go for at least a decade. We're in the bizarre situation where around 80% of the professional rugby players originate from NSW and Queensland and yet only a maximum 40% of the professional rugby players in Australia play for the Reds or the Waratahs. So, for example, as a professional sporting franchise, it's only in the commercial interests of the Waratahs to funnel enough players into their elite programs to support 1 professional team (35-40 players). Meanwhile in Sydney there are 9 NRL clubs funnelling kids into 9 different elite programs, so many of (most I suspect) the kids who don't make it to the Waratahs system just go to the NRL. I know of at least 20 kids who I've either seen start in rugby, or are mates of my son from school who started in rugby and are now in NRL programs - one of them made his NRL debut this year at 19 years of age (from a died in the wool rugby family). Those kids just aren't going to pack up and move to Melbourne or Perth, and only a few would move to Canberra because they can stay in Sydney and still be part of an elite program.
 
Goosestep

Goosestep

Syd Malcolm (24)
Quick Hands said:
Given the past 20 years of history, it's highly likely that Rugby Australia don't really know what they mean by 'centralisation' which is probably why they can't explain it. Nothing I've seen in 20 years would indicate that Rugby Australia have the ability to run anything better than anyone.

What they should be looking at is 'unification', by which I mean that we stop running an elite sport in the 21st century using 19th century colonial borders. In my view state and territory RU's are a layer of useless bureaucracy whose time has come. The only useful role moving forward should be to pick state teams at junior level or if rugby was ever in a position to run a state of origin series.

Other than that all clubs should be directly affiliated with Rugby Australia (not with their state/territory unions) in the same way that all clubs in England are directly affiliated with the RFU.

I don't see any future for super rugby at all, so the Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs, Force and Rebels don't figure in my vision of Australian rugby at all. I'm not anti-Brumby, I'm anti all of them. And I'm happy to acknowledge that over the period of Super Rugby the Brumbies have been the most successful franchise. Having a management structure not weighed down by GPS old boys and assorted blazer wearers, and being close enough to Sydney for young players to be close to home are the two main factors I suspect.

The engine for elite sport the world over is club-based, where clubs develop talent from the grass-roots to the elite professional level. What this encourages is excellence from the bottom up as home-grown talent is cheaper than imported talent. (The US being the exception with their system of high school and college sport linking to the professional level). A club based professional competition is the only long-term option for Australian rugby - and it's a long term fix that's required. And I definitely see Canberra being part of that structure, just as Canberra are in important part of the NRL structure. The professional clubs in the competition run the competition, not Rugby Australia. The role of the governing body should be long-term strategic planning (foreign concepts I know to Rugby Australia), not running professional sporting teams or competitions.

The super rugby, provincial model is not the way to go in my opinion and hasn't been the way to go for at least a decade. We're in the bizarre situation where around 80% of the professional rugby players originate from NSW and Queensland and yet only a maximum 40% of the professional rugby players in Australia play for the Reds or the Waratahs. So, for example, as a professional sporting franchise, it's only in the commercial interests of the Waratahs to funnel enough players into their elite programs to support 1 professional team (35-40 players). Meanwhile in Sydney there are 9 NRL clubs funnelling kids into 9 different elite programs, so many of (most I suspect) the kids who don't make it to the Waratahs system just go to the NRL. I know of at least 20 kids who I've either seen start in rugby, or are mates of my son from school who started in rugby and are now in NRL programs - one of them made his NRL debut this year at 19 years of age (from a died in the wool rugby family). Those kids just aren't going to pack up and move to Melbourne or Perth, and only a few would move to Canberra because they can stay in Sydney and still be part of an elite program.
Click to expand...
I’d like to hear your ideas on clubs in more detail … who, where etc

also it’s going to be hard to get rid of the the super rugby sides as traditionally the tahs and reds predate the competition.. They are in fact the rep sides for all clubs in the state, in trenched in Australian rugby
 
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Quick Hands said:
Given the past 20 years of history, it's highly likely that Rugby Australia don't really know what they mean by 'centralisation' which is probably why they can't explain it. Nothing I've seen in 20 years would indicate that Rugby Australia have the ability to run anything better than anyone.

What they should be looking at is 'unification', by which I mean that we stop running an elite sport in the 21st century using 19th century colonial borders. In my view state and territory RU's are a layer of useless bureaucracy whose time has come. The only useful role moving forward should be to pick state teams at junior level or if rugby was ever in a position to run a state of origin series.

Other than that all clubs should be directly affiliated with Rugby Australia (not with their state/territory unions) in the same way that all clubs in England are directly affiliated with the RFU.

I don't see any future for super rugby at all, so the Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs, Force and Rebels don't figure in my vision of Australian rugby at all. I'm not anti-Brumby, I'm anti all of them. And I'm happy to acknowledge that over the period of Super Rugby the Brumbies have been the most successful franchise. Having a management structure not weighed down by GPS old boys and assorted blazer wearers, and being close enough to Sydney for young players to be close to home are the two main factors I suspect.

The engine for elite sport the world over is club-based, where clubs develop talent from the grass-roots to the elite professional level. What this encourages is excellence from the bottom up as home-grown talent is cheaper than imported talent. (The US being the exception with their system of high school and college sport linking to the professional level). A club based professional competition is the only long-term option for Australian rugby - and it's a long term fix that's required. And I definitely see Canberra being part of that structure, just as Canberra are in important part of the NRL structure. The professional clubs in the competition run the competition, not Rugby Australia. The role of the governing body should be long-term strategic planning (foreign concepts I know to Rugby Australia), not running professional sporting teams or competitions.

The super rugby, provincial model is not the way to go in my opinion and hasn't been the way to go for at least a decade. We're in the bizarre situation where around 80% of the professional rugby players originate from NSW and Queensland and yet only a maximum 40% of the professional rugby players in Australia play for the Reds or the Waratahs. So, for example, as a professional sporting franchise, it's only in the commercial interests of the Waratahs to funnel enough players into their elite programs to support 1 professional team (35-40 players). Meanwhile in Sydney there are 9 NRL clubs funnelling kids into 9 different elite programs, so many of (most I suspect) the kids who don't make it to the Waratahs system just go to the NRL. I know of at least 20 kids who I've either seen start in rugby, or are mates of my son from school who started in rugby and are now in NRL programs - one of them made his NRL debut this year at 19 years of age (from a died in the wool rugby family). Those kids just aren't going to pack up and move to Melbourne or Perth, and only a few would move to Canberra because they can stay in Sydney and still be part of an elite program.
Click to expand...


I liked your post on the basis of linking clubs to country. It's not just the norm the world over, it's the norm with elite sport here in Australia too. Cricket is our most successful sport and district/grade cricket is the production line for our elite pathways, always has been. Yes there are development state squads and the BBL, but where do these players originally come from? The club system. Rugby seems to be one of the few sports where it seems to be more school-based - in NSW and QLD at least (here in WA the private schools don't produce anywhere near as many state level players as the club system).

What I question though is how do we ensure that rugby isn't just NSW and QLD centric? In WA there has been growth in the game (I would imagine also in Vic, but I don't know the specifics) and I'd hate for our young players to have to move East to get a chance at the elite level, especially when we've started producing players good enough to play at that standard.
 
G

GeoffL

Bob McCowan (2)
Quick Hands said:
Given the past 20 years of history, it's highly likely that Rugby Australia don't really know what they mean by 'centralisation' which is probably why they can't explain it. Nothing I've seen in 20 years would indicate that Rugby Australia have the ability to run anything better than anyone.

What they should be looking at is 'unification', by which I mean that we stop running an elite sport in the 21st century using 19th century colonial borders. In my view state and territory RU's are a layer of useless bureaucracy whose time has come. The only useful role moving forward should be to pick state teams at junior level or if rugby was ever in a position to run a state of origin series.

Other than that all clubs should be directly affiliated with Rugby Australia (not with their state/territory unions) in the same way that all clubs in England are directly affiliated with the RFU.

I don't see any future for super rugby at all, so the Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs, Force and Rebels don't figure in my vision of Australian rugby at all. I'm not anti-Brumby, I'm anti all of them. And I'm happy to acknowledge that over the period of Super Rugby the Brumbies have been the most successful franchise. Having a management structure not weighed down by GPS old boys and assorted blazer wearers, and being close enough to Sydney for young players to be close to home are the two main factors I suspect.

The engine for elite sport the world over is club-based, where clubs develop talent from the grass-roots to the elite professional level. What this encourages is excellence from the bottom up as home-grown talent is cheaper than imported talent. (The US being the exception with their system of high school and college sport linking to the professional level). A club based professional competition is the only long-term option for Australian rugby - and it's a long term fix that's required. And I definitely see Canberra being part of that structure, just as Canberra are in important part of the NRL structure. The professional clubs in the competition run the competition, not Rugby Australia. The role of the governing body should be long-term strategic planning (foreign concepts I know to Rugby Australia), not running professional sporting teams or competitions.

The super rugby, provincial model is not the way to go in my opinion and hasn't been the way to go for at least a decade. We're in the bizarre situation where around 80% of the professional rugby players originate from NSW and Queensland and yet only a maximum 40% of the professional rugby players in Australia play for the Reds or the Waratahs. So, for example, as a professional sporting franchise, it's only in the commercial interests of the Waratahs to funnel enough players into their elite programs to support 1 professional team (35-40 players). Meanwhile in Sydney there are 9 NRL clubs funnelling kids into 9 different elite programs, so many of (most I suspect) the kids who don't make it to the Waratahs system just go to the NRL. I know of at least 20 kids who I've either seen start in rugby, or are mates of my son from school who started in rugby and are now in NRL programs - one of them made his NRL debut this year at 19 years of age (from a died in the wool rugby family). Those kids just aren't going to pack up and move to Melbourne or Perth, and only a few would move to Canberra because they can stay in Sydney and still be part of an elite program.
Click to expand...
Not only is this entirely accurate, I can only suspect it, or something like it, is behind Phil Waugh's statements.

Bring it on, it's only decades late
 
KOB1987

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
4
Quick Hands said:
Given the past 20 years of history, it's highly likely that Rugby Australia don't really know what they mean by 'centralisation' which is probably why they can't explain it. Nothing I've seen in 20 years would indicate that Rugby Australia have the ability to run anything better than anyone.

What they should be looking at is 'unification', by which I mean that we stop running an elite sport in the 21st century using 19th century colonial borders. In my view state and territory RU's are a layer of useless bureaucracy whose time has come. The only useful role moving forward should be to pick state teams at junior level or if rugby was ever in a position to run a state of origin series.

Other than that all clubs should be directly affiliated with Rugby Australia (not with their state/territory unions) in the same way that all clubs in England are directly affiliated with the RFU.

I don't see any future for super rugby at all, so the Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs, Force and Rebels don't figure in my vision of Australian rugby at all. I'm not anti-Brumby, I'm anti all of them. And I'm happy to acknowledge that over the period of Super Rugby the Brumbies have been the most successful franchise. Having a management structure not weighed down by GPS old boys and assorted blazer wearers, and being close enough to Sydney for young players to be close to home are the two main factors I suspect.

The engine for elite sport the world over is club-based, where clubs develop talent from the grass-roots to the elite professional level. What this encourages is excellence from the bottom up as home-grown talent is cheaper than imported talent. (The US being the exception with their system of high school and college sport linking to the professional level). A club based professional competition is the only long-term option for Australian rugby - and it's a long term fix that's required. And I definitely see Canberra being part of that structure, just as Canberra are in important part of the NRL structure. The professional clubs in the competition run the competition, not Rugby Australia. The role of the governing body should be long-term strategic planning (foreign concepts I know to Rugby Australia), not running professional sporting teams or competitions.

The super rugby, provincial model is not the way to go in my opinion and hasn't been the way to go for at least a decade. We're in the bizarre situation where around 80% of the professional rugby players originate from NSW and Queensland and yet only a maximum 40% of the professional rugby players in Australia play for the Reds or the Waratahs. So, for example, as a professional sporting franchise, it's only in the commercial interests of the Waratahs to funnel enough players into their elite programs to support 1 professional team (35-40 players). Meanwhile in Sydney there are 9 NRL clubs funnelling kids into 9 different elite programs, so many of (most I suspect) the kids who don't make it to the Waratahs system just go to the NRL. I know of at least 20 kids who I've either seen start in rugby, or are mates of my son from school who started in rugby and are now in NRL programs - one of them made his NRL debut this year at 19 years of age (from a died in the wool rugby family). Those kids just aren't going to pack up and move to Melbourne or Perth, and only a few would move to Canberra because they can stay in Sydney and still be part of an elite program.
Click to expand...
there isn’t a ‘super like’ function. Well said QH
 
The Ghost of Raelene

The Ghost of Raelene

Andrew Slack (58)
KOB1987 said:
well i can inform you that Kings has precisely 0. And the photo I saw of the Scots team looked like it was an ‘all ages‘ team. I’m not discounting the threat by any means, as a country we are only 240 years old. But it’s certainly not an imminent threat to the GPS rugby system.
Click to expand...
Is it even offered though?

Anyway there’s threads for schoolboy rugby and I don’t mean to turn this down that way. Was just an avenue I see other sports going after historically Rugby talent pools.
 
The Ghost of Raelene

The Ghost of Raelene

Andrew Slack (58)
RA made this complete disaster and they better be in the office owning it.

If Rugby wasn’t teetering on the edge of irrelevance in Australia it’s certainly sprinting towards it.

I hope this shows everyone there is no justification to keep our current strategies in place and big change is required to move the Wallabies forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top