I think the free to air is an element to it, but it’s a diminishing slice as viewing habits and technology change.

I think the endemic issues have been poor marketing across different levels of the game, poor on-field performance both real and perceived, game-day costs to attend super or international games and disorganised, short-sighted game administration at multiple levels.

I wonder if there has been any surveys done asking super rugby punters whether they go to club/schools rugby?

I think in regards to Is Ben O’Keeffe the Only One in a Rush, and reducing time wasting, there really needs to be a review clock implemented for TMO decisions, and if it can’t be conclusively proved/overturned, depending on what the Ref has asked for, the TMO within X amount of time, then it reverts to the original on field decision, which I hope would mitigate the obvious howlers and get away from some of the more pedantic rock-and-rolling-frame-by-frame which is happening.

RA gives grants and or loans as part of the funding arrangement to all super rugby clubs, to help support player wages and the maintenance of the salary cap (that is the same cap for all Australian super rugby clubs).

One of the major points of contention with the Brumbies funding was that it was originally provided annually as a grant, but was subsequently turned into a loan from RA – i.e. to be paid back. However this (now) loan is being serviced and paid back by the Brums, and as has been pointed out, when the previous chairman’s financial auditors tried to come in and do a hatchet job, they found the books were good, finances decent and transparent.

The back-up carrier pigeon was shot down over the Tweed River and hasn’t been seen since.

Maybe part of the issue that a large part of the broad rugby community has zero engagement or involvement with ‘grassroots rugby’ in any way.

Russ, can you link or list some direct example/s of what other sporting administrations that have such a board appointment model in place, particularly the “voted by the rugby (or whichever) population” aspect.
I’m just struggling to picture how such a model actually works.

*dial-up buzzing and whirring sounds* 😛

Very interesting read that survey – didn’t know about it.

Fortunately/unfortunately tv subscription fees are going to remain the model as its pretty much the major revenue stream.

I don’t want to be overly critical of them, but SOAAR haven’t really provided all that much detail in terms of actual solutions. It’s a laundry list of problems and issues and the ‘solutions’ that are provided are light on detail and heavy on rhetoric that has been designed to exploit into the general malaise, anger and disappointment in the wider rugby community and muddied by a ‘get us into power, then we’ll figure it out, trust us we’re not those guys’ approach. It’s also coupled by a very opaque position on the former Chairman’s performance, and the use of loaded language such as “a Board of financiers, bankers, eg Phil Waugh, and professional Board operatives“.

Us Queenslanders aren’t that slow 😛

Pretty agree on all your points laid out 😊

The current franchise structure is more akin to the A-League from 2005, which had seven australian teams that were largely operating in self contained, large geographic markets. If we go solely domestic (including Fiji if they want to be a part of it), that’s I think the most contemporary parallel of rebuilding a modern sporting competition.

I think SOAAR represent the views of the named members of it – and I don’t think it represents a majority of the rugby community especially in their approach, other than just broad disappointment and broad dissatisfaction with the status quo. They provide an alternative narrative for change, fair play to them.

However they haven’t demonstrated that other than a scorched earth AGM centric approach that will inevitable fail to yield any actual change, what their actual approach for advocating for longer term change, actually working proactively with the sporting administrations or fleshing out meaningful detail to many of their proposals, that to be frank, are light on detail and big on rhetoric to tap into the broad sense of malaise and anger in the rugby community.

If Herbert and Co. are disconnected, SOAAR aren’t far behind them, except they can play the anti-establishment card.

The views of rugby stakeholders across this country are far from monolithic, in both what the strategic vision should be for rugby in this country, what is broken, and how it must be fixed.

A letter of no-confidence being sent on Friday (November 2023) on behalf of six member unions was hardly faceless…

You might be right.

Surely me agreeing with you twice in one day is one of the signs of the end of days…

I think if he can be kept for a reasonable price, then go for it, but as has been a bit of a theme here, he’s been firmly stuck in the ‘has potential’ mould for some time now and unfortunately doesn’t seem to be able to break from it.

There’s been injuries that have disrupted him for sure, and maybe Kiss could get more from him than Thorn could in terms of development, I’m not sure.

But there are equal moments of absolute gold in every game, and then there are the absolute head scratching howlers in equal measure. Mercurial as they used to say. You just don’t know what you are going to get and I think with the current playing stocks, he creates more risks than opportunities on balance.

Gotta agree, a break would kill any momentum off, just like it used to before 2020.

I ain’t never saw this Dan Herbert character pass a rugby ball in his life 😛

In 2012, the Arbib review delivered:
-The creation of an Independent Board of Directors and changes to the Membership of ARU to better reflect the Rugby Union community across Australia, both amateur and professional.
-Adoption of the new Constitutional changes rebalances the voting entitlements of Members and will assist in promoting a Governance structure, working independently in the best interests of Rugby Union across Australia.

Huh, all this high level change sounds oddly familar…

Because it would demonstrate that:
-SOAAR was serious (and realistic) about progressive, ongoing positive change for rugby in Australia beyond an AGM, rather than just the wailing and gnashing of teeth and coming across as ‘we’re not in control of rugby, we want to be in control, then we’ll figure out the details’.
-It would actually give them the ability to flesh out their proposals and provide a strategic vision that actually acknowledges the limits of change that can realistically happen.
-How are people supposed to support this in the long term, if they can’t see what the pragmatic way forward is if they get stopped at their first speed-bump and take their toys home in a fit of pique?

I agree. I think it could well be played through the window for the sake of three matches (not including the Qld vs Wales exhibition match).

Not to mention the prospect of double headers for some serious rugby game day exposure.

I think it’s something that has so many good opportunities to change for the better than the current compromised arrangement.

We don’t even have a proper home and away season against Aussie sides at the moment because of the comp structure. For example, Qld won’t play the Brumbies in Canberra this year, despite that probably being one of the biggest matches of the season. Or that the Brums have ever played the Drua actually over in Fiji (from memory).

So for the sake of argument, lets say that none of SOAAR’s short term aspirations materialise at the coming AGM, i.e. the new board is “…no renewal, more of the same.” and there is no fundamental reshaping of the current constitution.

What is SOAAR’s plan for:
-proactively working with the RA board or stakeholders in the wider rugby ecosystem to affect the change its calling for?
-the next steps in developing a more detailed set of reforms or changes that could be implemented by the rugby administrators and endorsed by supporters in this country?

I haven’t found the one page summary sorry, or I can’t see it on your groups FB page or the Change.org page.

Part of the reason is because the strategic vision for rugby in this country is fundamentally divided across pretty much all the stakeholder groups.

Maybe complete collapse is what it will take for the type of genuine reform (whatever shape that might be) to happen. This would be rugby’s equivalent to the decline and then reform of professional soccer in this country, with the demise of the old NSL in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and the establishment of the A-League.

I get this is a major ‘alternate program’, but I think it’s too radical and trying to tear down the whole structure unnecessarily, where smaller more progressive reforms could make headway. I also think its not doing any favours for the messaging through the lack of clarity around just what the view of SOARR is on the tenure of Hamish McLennan, who I would say isn’t fondly remembered by a majority of the rugby community given whats come to light from his time in charge and his administration and leadership ability.

This is not saying there shouldn’t be change, its needed for sure, but I just can’t see this realistically happening. Its big on aspiration, but I think if it was more focussed on some core issues, greater detail could be fleshed out.

Also get someone in your group to draft up a one pager, instead of a nine-page letter.

a Board selected by the rugby population of Australia
I’m keen to understand more about this notion of (greater?) direct democracy, I think I understand it as part of a broader package of greater visibility/transparency etc. at the national level, but I can’t see how it would work in practice, is it ‘one person, one vote’ or are votes weighted based on your involvement and participation in the rugby ecosystem, or the mechanism for it?

Review the governance structure and the Constitution of RA in consultation with the wider Rugby community
You’re still going to have some sort of fundamentally federated structure, which will never inherently be enough for people who argue for a centralised model.

Conduct a forensic review and analysis of the RA and Super Team finances, including appropriate financial risk analysis. This would include analysing the debt facility and dependance on future events.
What terms of reference/spotlight is going to be different from all the other forensic reviews of the finances that have been done recently? What new information is expected here? Is it just going to ‘reveal’ that the existing funding super club funding model is fundamentally broken?

Implementation of a policy of ‘spending within our means’
So you either dramatically increase revenue or slash spending. RA only really has levers on the latter, given the reliance on broadcasting revenue in the short term.

Review the competition structure
In partnership with (or despite) New Zealand? Australian Rugby has to make the decision that it either wants to be part of the wider rugby ecosystem in the Pacific, or it has to adopt a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality and not be a part of it and looks domestically only. If it’s the former, there must be an accomodation for New Zealand and how it wants to be part of a trans-tasman rugby competition.