• 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

Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
LeCheese said:
I can understand the dislike of the 'corporate speak'
Click to expand...

I also don't know what the alternative is. The recommendations in the report certainly weren't heavy in corporate lingo and jargon compared to some. What would the report look like if it was considered to not be corporate speak? Presumably it would sound unprofessional and the only way it would have any credibility would be if it reflected the personality of the person who wrote it who was trusted for their advice.

I also don't understand how a report like this would be any more specific or detailed.
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
Braveheart81 said:
I also don't know what the alternative is. The recommendations in the report certainly weren't heavy in corporate lingo and jargon compared to some. What would the report look like if it was considered to not be corporate speak? Presumably it would sound unprofessional and the only way it would have any credibility would be if it reflected the personality of the person who wrote it who was trusted for their advice.

I also don't understand how a report like this would be any more specific or detailed.
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly agree. It’s probably most jarring for people who don’t necessarily run in circles where these reports and the language used are the norm; but this actually appears a very well done and informative investigation with plenty of substance.
 
Last edited:
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Braveheart81 said:
I also don't know what the alternative is. The recommendations in the report certainly weren't heavy in corporate lingo and jargon compared to some. What would the report look like if it was considered to not be corporate speak? Presumably it would sound unprofessional and the only way it would have any credibility would be if it reflected the personality of the person who wrote it who was trusted for their advice.

I also don't understand how a report like this would be any more specific or detailed.
Click to expand...

You're right of course, I think a few of us who've seen more than a few review documents are extracting the Michael a bit.

The intent and analysis is right I think, I now want to see a concrete implementation plan (though I also acknowledge that some steps have already been taken).
 
The Ghost of Raelene

The Ghost of Raelene

Andrew Slack (58)
Rinse & Repeat this article every couple of months.

Unless they have a plan to move him to FB for the Roosters the money they can offer they have. You don't break the bank for Centres. They didn't do it for Latrell when he wanted 1m and just because Manu will go doesn't mean they will just spend more. They need to sign other players capable of winning games.

I'm running with some faith here yes but I think Rugby does have enough of a carrot for him right now and hopefully Schmidt has reached out as well.
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
Sword of Justice said:

Really, really good questions put forward by Drew especially as well as 'The Professor'. I don't think Phil would have expected how difficult a conversation this undoubtedly was. Not exactly satisfactory answers, especially around trust and transparency.
Click to expand...
Drew really is on it when he wants to be. Not always the best at live commentary, but his analysis is usually pretty spot on. It's a shame he and Stan fell out.
 
Pone's Mullet

Pone's Mullet

Alex Ross (28)
Sword of Justice said:

Really, really good questions put forward by Drew especially as well as 'The Professor'. I don't think Phil would have expected how difficult a conversation this undoubtedly was. Not exactly satisfactory answers, especially around trust and transparency.
Click to expand...
Agreed - at no point did he say - "we will not do that again" - I think he used the term "the invoices were retrospective", lame
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
Nice to see Phil taking full advantage of the RM Williams collab too

1710235886005.png
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
RugbyReg said:
That wasn’t an overly impressive interview. Some decent questions asked but no accountability when the answer wasn’t given. Too matesy. Lost opportunity.
Click to expand...
It's a positive that he (and Schmidt) are out doing the rounds regardless - and not producing abrasive, combative headlines and soundbites while they're at it.
 
Sword of Justice

Sword of Justice

Vay Wilson (31)
RugbyReg said:
That wasn’t an overly impressive interview. Some decent questions asked but no accountability when the answer wasn’t given. Too matesy. Lost opportunity.
Click to expand...
I agree there was no follow up. Ultimately though the lack of answers basically define the interview. They are not journalists but he is the CEO and he’s not given the punters a scrap which is his missed opportunity. Disappointing because I think Phil has made some positive moves in his tenure since the World Cup.
 
half

half

Alan Cameron (40)
Watched last night on 10 an interview with the head of F1 on Australia.

He came across as very astute and one thing he said stood out. He said we will look at what we do this year and what worked last year. As you have to constantly change otherwise your sport will die.

He also comes from AFL.

Often spoken about but like league has a horse racing guy, F1 has an AFL guy. Should we consider someone from outside rugby, especially AFL to be in charge
 
hoggy

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
half said:
Watched last night on 10 an interview with the head of F1 on Australia.

He came across as very astute and one thing he said stood out. He said we will look at what we do this year and what worked last year. As you have to constantly change otherwise your sport will die.

He also comes from AFL.

Often spoken about but like league has a horse racing guy, F1 has an AFL guy. Should we consider someone from outside rugby, especially AFL to be in charge
Click to expand...
It does not matter Half who is in charge it is the structure of the game here that is the issue, the business model does not work or it actually does work at a limited level but at the same time the game goes broke.
Until you have a better business model (and we all know what that is) all a better ceo can do is limit the damages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top