Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
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 RA'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'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 RA'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.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
The Tahs’ handing over the keys and support for centralisation was… for the betterment of the game?
Wilson
David Codey (61)
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Though apparently the same Moses on centralisation would lead to loaves and fishes, and water to wine?
McLennan needs to be NOT part of the irritation. Then let the lot of them focus on what the centralisation actually means. I do hear the suspicion that if McLennan were gone already, then it would be something else. It's hard to disagree. The RA response has to deal with each issue in turn I would think. The people that they seem to want to be able to dictate to, like employees, are also their shareholders.
All that said, I am starting to warm to Waugh, fingers crossed.
Last edited:
KOB1987
Rod McCall (65)
Yes precisely. And in theory, with NSWRU and VRU on board RA has all it needs to achieve centralisation at the high performance level. The Waratahs and Rebels will become powerhouses in the revamped Super Rugby comp while the Reds, Force and Brumbies battle it out in the revamped Global Rapid Rugby comp.
I'm not at all suggesting that is what will happen, merely highlighting the lack of leverage the state/territory unions have. The idea of centralisation is to work together in the national interest of the sport, there are varying iterations of the model that each state union can implement to safeguard their interests, and it sounds like that is what CEO Waugh is working towards. But to outright refuse won't end well for said unions if there are at least two unions on board.
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
NSW and VIC not approached due to ongoing negotiations with RA. I don’t think the other state and territories would’ve made the move if they didn’t have the numbers. Hamish did some good things but once the ego got out of control, his position was untenable. From my perspective, once he told Wallaby fans they shouldn’t bother watching, he could f@ck right off.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
I think there is a lot more to the State Unions leverage - the concept of a centralised "national" system where "national means Victoria and NSW is somewhat ludicrous. Especially when the rest of Australia is an aligned agreement. They could continue to call themselves Rugby "Australia" but it would be a cognitive dissonance.
I'm not sure these sort of polemics are particularly helpful. RA need more states on board and surely this starts with expectations of a Chair not operating outside of his remit.
KOB1987
Rod McCall (65)
Of course, my second paragraph was the more pertinent one. As a collective voting block the abstainers have leverage. I'm not sure why they would vote for the definition of insanity though i.e. doing the same thing over and again for another 20 years.
My stance is that Hamish has to go, if not for any other reason than is position is now untenable, much moreso than it was the day before yesterday. Whoever replaces him needs to be a neutral with some degree of a sports administration background. A John Coates or John Bertrand type of person. Not a plant (i.e. aforementioned 'stooge') from one of the state unions.
Last edited:
Froggy
John Solomon (38)
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?
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?
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Well I said what I thought of McLennan when he first came in, he was all talk and no substance, I know I was crucified on here by many who thought he was second coming, but for the sake of RA, he has to go now without doubt, and between Waugh and a chairman who doesn't have to be a headline grabber, I see it as a great positive for the game there.
Jimmy_Crouch
Ken Catchpole (46)
PVL is being lorded for this.
drewprint
John Solomon (38)
I’ve been waiting for the Dan self serving waffle about being right. Hamish did lots of things very well early on, including navigating fraught COVID waters, pushing through mens and women’s home world cups, and finally showing some RA backbone against the Kiwis and carving out a more balanced negotiating platform (something long overdue).
You’ve been sooking about him for a long time for the latter action - good, and too bad. Sucks to not be deigned upon as gods and the centre of the rugby universe, doesn’t it. 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.
Joe Blow
Peter Sullivan (51)
Haha….Its the Australian way. Same with the political parties devouring leaders from within.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Ok mate, you can say what you want about me, but seems your states agree with me. I will repeat what I said early he knew how to use press fullstop, he did nothing else. RA was always getting the 27 WC, and you right he got Women's one.
But anyway of all the things he threatened /said what did he actually do? Get any supposed Super Aus comp? Anzac test against Lions? PE money that was setting up RA for making raids on all these league players that were lining up to cross to union? Get a smash and grab on Bledisloe and WC by bringing in Eddie Jones.
RA will be a lot better off with a chaiman who chairs, lets the CEO do his job, and doesn't tell so many porkies.
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. And I will add it's nothing to do with NZ, but all to do whaqt is good for Autralian rugby, a sport I had quite abit to do within admin etc for a lot of the 20 odd years I lived there.
And if this is right hiw supposed comments to ROAR, say what you want but look at last word and tell me RA going into 'battle' (his words) is good for the game as I said we see the game being run( and what is good for it) in vastly differently ways.
"
“This is divisive by nature and pits state against state, parochialism over unity and centralisation,” McLennan told The Roar.
“It’s going to be an interesting battle.”
Last edited:
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Adam seems to me that they would be willing to centralise or align their HP activities but retain ownership. That could probably happen almost immediately McLennan leaves the building.