Michael Cheika

[Viking]

If there are KPIs that give the employer an opportunity to terminate the contract earlier, how does that interact with a long-term strategy? Surely it pushes a short-term winning mentality because otherwise the coach might lose their job.

I'd also suggest that putting these KPIs in a contract would either cost the employer a huge amount to add them (because they greatly reduce security for the employee) or they'd be too easy to meet to be worthwhile (because otherwise, why would you accept them).

I think it is unrealistic to think that contract clauses to make it easier to fire a coach mid contract at no cost can easily be added to a contract. Why would any coach who is a desirable hire for the employer acquiesce to that?

I disagree. You obviously need effective KPI's. 50% win ratio in the first year, 55% second, 60% third and so on etc.

And even if he doesn't meet that criteria they can still keep him on if they think he's doing a good job. But they then have the ability to terminate if there's another disastrous year like 2018.

You need to be reasonable with KPI's. But they work. Almost every workplace has them.

I do get what your saying though, I don't think they will necessarily protect against average performance but they will certainly protect against disastrous performances - which is needed especially since it's likely we will hire a coach with no international coaching experience.

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree. You obviously need effective KPI's. 50% win ratio in the first year, 55% second, 60% third and so on etc.

And even if he doesn't meet that criteria they can still keep him on if they think he's doing a good job. But they then have the ability to terminate if there's another disastrous year like 2018.

You need to be reasonable with KPI's. But they work. Almost every workplace has them.

I do get what your saying though, I don't think they will necessarily protect against average performance but they will certainly protect against disastrous performances - which is needed especially since it's likely we will hire a coach with no international coaching experience.

I just don't think any coach you want to sign agrees to those KPIs unless they are balanced out with a substantially increased offer.

Most workplaces do have KPIs. They are not a condition of employment though. The process of "managing someone out" over not meeting KPIs is a slow one and generally involves a payout as well. The employment relationship is pretty different in most workplaces compared to professional sport where contracts are for fixed periods.

I think you are being unrealistic in terms of what RA could demand to be included in the contract of a prospective coach.

 

[Viking]

I just don't think any coach you want to sign agrees to those KPIs unless they are balanced out with a substantially increased offer.

Most workplaces do have KPIs. They are not a condition of employment though. The process of "managing someone out" over not meeting KPIs is a slow one and generally involves a payout as well. The employment relationship is pretty different in most workplaces compared to professional sport where contracts are for fixed periods.

I think you are being unrealistic in terms of what RA could demand to be included in the contract of a prospective coach.

Possibly the payout will be less hasn't met the KPI's. They wouldn't be straight forward KPI's. I'd imagine they'd be tiered. And yes, he would likely be paid more if he meet those KPI's and less if he doesn't.

I really don't see a big issue if the contract says they can terminate you and you only receive a 50% payout (or none) if the win ratio is 30% or less.

I can't see how anyone would think that's unreasonable - especially for a teir 1 international team with a history of winning the RWC.

 

[Viking]

If you can terminate your contract and just get a big payout - then where's the motivation to win?You might as well lose and get 4 years pay in 2 years.

 

[Braveheart81]

Possibly the payout will be less hasn't met the KPI's. They wouldn't be straight forward KPI's. I'd imagine they'd be tiered. And yes, he would likely be paid more if he meet those KPI's and less if he doesn't.

I really don't see a big issue if the contract says they can terminate you and you only receive a 50% payout (or none) if the win ratio is 30% or less.

I can't see how anyone would think that's unreasonable - especially for a teir 1 international team with a history of winning the RWC.

I don't think they are necessarily unreasonable. If you're a top level coach that the employer actively wants to hire though, why would you agree to them though when you almost certainly don't have to?

If you can terminate your contract and just get a big payout - then where's the motivation to win?You might as well lose and get 4 years pay in 2 years.

That's going to affect your future employment prospects though.

 

[Derpus]

If you can terminate your contract and just get a big payout - then where's the motivation to win?You might as well lose and get 4 years pay in 2 years.

Good luck getting another gig though.

 

[Viking]

I don't think they are necessarily unreasonable. If you're a top level coach that the employer actively wants to hire though, why would you agree to them though when you almost certainly don't have to?




That's going to affect your future employment prospects though.

I would have thought all coaches will have to adhere to them. Surely that's common practise at the highest level of coaching.

Good point on future prospects - but if you're looking at things from a financial perspective, might as well take the gig, lose, and retire early (i know that's a little unrealistic - but you see my point).

 

[Rebelsfan]

If you can terminate your contract and just get a big payout - then where's the motivation to win?You might as well lose and get 4 years pay in 2 years.

and what of the players - those with contracts - win or lose, they still get paid, right? Where's the incentive?

 

[Blake]

I don't think it is an if, more a when. They are basically telling people internally he has the position.


Rennie has confirmed he hasn’t signed anything. With The AB’s going out early Foster probably won’t get the gig. So Rennie will have his had up for that. IF RA want a kiwi coach they will have to wait until the NZRU take their pick of the best and RA will have to make do with the scraps.

 

[Joe Blow]

Why would it have been better though?

If the starting point is spending an extra million dollars to get rid of the coach under contract then you'd want to see a fair bit of improvement for that money? It's pretty hard to suggest that an inexperienced head coach would have improved things substantially in a short period of time.

What would Larkham have been offered to take up the role as a caretaker coach for a year or so to the end of the RWC. This isn't a great position as you're very unlikely to get the role long term afterwards and more likely, you've had your chance as head coach of the team and it's been short lived with little chance of success.

Unless you're going to offer someone like Jake White a vast amount more money than you should, they're never going to take the job as a short term contract. You'd be far more likely to be agreeing to a contract that extends well into the next cycle so you've effectively closed your window of being able to appoint a new head coach when there are more desirable names available.

I just don't see what real upside there was for RA to fire Cheika a year ago.

First of all, Cheika should never have been contracted more than 2 years past the last
RWC and/or he should have had very clear targets to meet in order to carry on. If that was the case he would have been replaced 2 years ago.
Larkham would have jumped at the opportunity if given a year or two with the promise of carrying on in the role if he reached reasonable targets. Larkham may not be the greatest coach but he should not be judged on his time under Cheika.
But the main “up side” is that maybe we would have performed adequately in the RWC and not ended up the laughing stock of Southern Hemisphere rugby. Reason enough in my book. That extra million dollars would be considered a good investment if we were playing this weekend and the Australian public was excited about following our national side.
And that is firmly on RA. Giving Cheika the ridiculous extension ahead of time and then not having the spine to can him when it was the obvious step to take.

 

[Braveheart81]

First of all, Cheika should never have been contracted more than 2 years past the last
RWC and/or he should have had very clear targets to meet in order to carry on. If that was the case he would have been replaced 2 years ago.

I still think the crux of this is that there is no reasonable point where RA doesn't offer an extension to a coach contracted to the end of 2017 who made the RWC Final in 2015.

At what point should they have decided that Cheika was gone and they weren't going to offer him an extension?

I can't see any RU making that decision.

The only Tier 1 coaches who got fired in the last cycle were Coetzee from South Africa and Noves from France. Both had significantly worse results than Cheika. Neither of them had the luxury of having got their team to the RWC Final at the last RWC.

I feel like the entire premise that there was a reasonable time where RA could have not contracted Cheika through to the end of 2019 is mistaken.

Larkham would have jumped at the opportunity if given a year or two with the promise of carrying on in the role if he reached reasonable targets.

I disagree strongly with this. I can't see anyone who has a strong desire to coach their national team accepting it in a way that doesn't give them a decent run at it. You almost certainly only get one chance at it and accepting a shit sandwich in terms of appointment time without the ability to get the assistants you want and the preparation you need means you're very likely to have a tough time achieving the sort of result that would see you get an extension.

You could apply the same situation to Cheika. He wasn't going to accept a caretaker appointment in 2014 and he didn't because no coach in their right mind would.

 

[I like to watch]

As much as I like putting the spear into the numpties at RA, I can’t complain that they appointed Cheika (in fact I was supportive of the decision at the time)or his extension. There were no standout alternatives available at that point of time.


Given that pretty much the last 5 or so coaches have been deemed to have failed by many, were they all poor hires?
or has the landscape changed, and public’s expectations are too high now?

 

[Joe Blow]

I supported his appointment, as most did. However the original contract was extended ahead of time. Why?

 

[Joe Blow]

I believe we were not doing well at the time and he had a year to go on his contract.

 

[Joe Blow]

As much as I like putting the spear into the numpties at RA, I can’t complain that they appointed Cheika (in fact I was supportive of the decision at the time)or his extension. There were no standout alternatives available at that point of time.


Given that pretty much the last 5 or so coaches have been deemed to have failed by many, were they all poor hires?
or has the landscape changed, and public’s expectations are too high now?

None of them had a record as poor as Cheikas. Deans got turfed when we were actually still performing well comparatively.
Of course all are entitled to their opinions and I have zero confidence in RA with the current board. I’m guessing many will agree.

 

[Braveheart81]

I supported his appointment, as most did. However the original contract was extended ahead of time. Why?

Probably because both parties were keen to do a deal. Rugby Australia had a coach who had just got the side to the RWC Final and they were keen to lock him in and Cheika wanted to keep the job and have certainty.

I don't think it was massively early though. For a contract expiring at the end of 2017, it would be very normal for negotiations to start early in 2017. Completing them in 2016 was earlier than normal but not by a long way.

I'm not really sure what would have been different if contract negotiations had commenced in 2017 though. There was still nothing to suggest that RA shouldn't extend the contract. The 2015 RWC was still easily close enough to overshadow the average results in 2016.

 

[Braveheart81]

Deans got turfed when we were actually still performing well comparatively.

Deans had already been in the job for 5 and a half years, only had 6 months left on his contract and RA were in a position where they either needed to extend him to the 2015 RWC or appoint someone else.

There was a very obvious replacement waiting for the job.

 

[Joe Blow]

It’s easy to paint any picture you desire in regards to this board, and I agree that the Folau saga was handled as well as possible. But generally things have not been going well. The axing of the Force and how it was handled, the extension of Cheikas contract and the boards complete reluctance to hold him accountable for results have been telling.
They cannot claim any part in the recent success of our juniors. This was going to happen regardless when this crop came through.
It is a tough nut that requires the best people we can find. That is how Australian rugby has managed to punch well above its weight for most of the past 30 odd years.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

The big question is, will they make a movie about the Wallabies and Cheika?

Will it have a cameo of Jake the Muss down @ Coogee Oval?

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not trying to paint the RA board or management in any light whatsoever.

All I am trying to argue is that there was no conceivable situation where Cheika didn't get the contract extension through to the end of 2019 nor a situation where RA could sack him prior to the 2019 RWC and not offer his replacement tenure beyond 2019.

I don't think there was an alternative option in the first instance (Cheika's extension to 2019) nor a better option in regards to a replacement. Sacking Cheika early would have just resulted in an inferior ongoing appointment that was made without the availability of the top echelon of potential coaches.