To John O’Neill, I’m not sure if you have heard of the Roar. If you had, you would have been intrigued to read some of the postings over the last year or so expressing concerns with the running of the game of rugby.
You would be aware, given your background in soccer (sorry, should that be football?), that some sports and competitions need to evolve, be re-built and change to survive. For some reason unbeknownst to the Roar contributors, rugby seems to wobble along in a state of organised chaos.
The Wallabies are the marquee brand in Australian rugby, and one of the most bankable rugby brands in the world (behind the All Blacks, Springboks and possibly a few others).
I’ve noticed your focus on supporting and strengthening this brand.
What I fail to see, given your business and sporting background, is a strategic plan to underpin the ongoing growth of this brand.
Sure, let’s play in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Detroit, maybe even in Antartica if there is the chance of good gate takings. But other than trying to increase profits, can you tell us how else you plan to strengthen the Wallabies brand?
I might remind you at this juncture that the Wallabies brand is one of rugby, and without a strong game of rugby in this country, the brand is weakened. The current operations of your cronies at the ARU, NSWRU and others are running the game into the ground.
I’m happy to put my hand up to help with some ideas John, as I’m sure are many others on this site.
Maybe we could start with some rationalisation of administrative structures, clarify roles and responsibilities, agree on a system of competitions that support the greater good, and then seek to fund them and make them self-sufficient.
Do we really need multiple layers of administration for a sport with only 170,000 or thereabouts participants?
I’m hoping you have heard of The Roar, and you might read this posting. If so, please reply. The people want to hear from you.
Midfielder
Guest
Clarky Good call on reducing adm cost and reallocating this money to the grass roots ... overall a good article
Guy Smiley
Guest
Lapasset could only improve on the regime of Syd Millar that stubborn old fool who did his utmost to preserve the status quo and look after the Home Unions at the expense of all others.
Katipo
Guest
Clarky, Iet's hope Jon does reply to you post. I share your concerns. Like many people who frequent this site it is fair to say we care about rugby. It's interesting to reflect on the optimism that abounded in 96 when rugby turned professional and how this optimism has dissipated in the southern hemisphere under the leadership of SANZAR. You see, Australia isn't the only country suffering from the top-down focus and erosion of grass roots support that you talk about. Steve Tew, Jon's equivalent in NZ, has plot the same course and fallen in to the same hole. The All Blacks may be a success story (weren't they always?) but the game in NZ is in real strife. I won't bother to list the NZRU sins here, they are well documented, the upshot is that the average kiwi has had a guts full and is losing interest. While Tew and his executive (of mostly non-rugby people) are focused on their short-term business goals they are losing the long term war. I think SANZAR is a big part of the problem. Where SANZAR started as a vehicle to manage the growth of professional rugby, rugby is now too constrained by the parameters of SANZAR's self serving TV contracts to actually deliver growth for the sport. Rugby's long term growth is dependent on kids choosing to play the sport and not on TV broadcast contracts. Participation is fundamentally connected to healthy clubs, good TV ratings and test match ticket sales. If that is done well, the rest will take care of itself. I've been encouraged by the comments of new IRB boss Bernard Lapasset. He has stated that rugby's dollars should be spread more evenly than they are now to encourage participation. I think he is on the right track. Let's hope we see some similar visionary leadership in this part of the world.