While I have a lot of respect for John O’Neill, who is regarded as one of the best sporting administrators in Australia, his comments in the Sun Herald’s interview on 23 October 2009 left me somewhat disappointed. Much like his responses to the Roarers’ questions earlier this year.

To a great degree, in both cases, the necessary questions weren’t answered, the issues dodged, and I was left feeling like I had been to a politician’s press conference – more spin that substance.

While O’Neill is to a great degree having to play that game, given the politics involved in rugby, I continue to feel like his second coming to rugby is less substantial than the first. Perhaps because we have higher expectations.

As O’Neill himself says in the article, he isn’t the Messiah. I unkindly found myself thinking of the Life of Brian …

O’Neill indicated rugby was cutting its cloth to meet the financial pressures it was facing. However, this raises the issue as to whether the mandated share of player payments is an albatross around rugby’s neck.

The agreement forced on the ARU by the WRC and first News Ltd deal cut in 1995, and unchanged in 2005, is the elephant in the room no one in power will mention publicly.

Rugby has to pump more money into junior development, and provide a next tier competition to widen the professional base (more on that later), but does not have the money to do so. Whenever the revenue goes up, the player wages share goes up with it. But we aren’t cricket with a similar deal and boundless revenue (and no code competition).

My big question is whether the new deal for the Super 15 will change that.

You can bet Tony Dempsey and RUPA will be pushing for more of the same, and to my mind O’Neill will be looking to change it. Much of the current angst between Dempsey and O’Neill is likely to be they know a big fight is coming on this point, and they are positioning themselves for that clash.

O’Neill raised the good point that Test crowds in 2008 were the highest since 2003, and the Wallabies were still a chance of winning the Tri Nations title heading into the last game. It is amazing the crash that came in 2009 with poor results, and a 40% drop in Test crowds (and that with Bledisloe Cup rugby returning to Sydney after years away).

However, in many ways it may be that 2009 was the annus horribilis that Australian rugby had to have, if it leads to change to fix the now glaring fundamental problems that have gone un-remedied in the good years (both playing wise and administratively).

O’Neill also raised the financial turnaround for the ARU since 2007. While this is clearly important given the dependence on funding from the top, and reflects poorly on the last administrative regime (who were responsible for it), it also is a case of how you read the statistics.

The ARC was responsible for a $5m hole in the 2007 budget, which would have changed the numbers had it not been staged. As such, the turnaround is in large part due to one decision O’Neill made – cancelling the ARC.

It is also worth querying how much cloth was cut to provide those numbers. Anecdotally all departments (except Wallaby players presumably) had to cut their budgets, and similarly at the state unions, and in the context where junior development was taken on more by the ARU after 2008.

As such, the turnaround in numbers means the sport was treading more lightly and doing less as a result. Although not the same thing, I am reminded of the Gordon Geckos of the 1980s who bought companies, sacked staff, and produced companies that on the numbers looked great, but had been gutted. Less spending means less getting done.

On the ARC front it is also worth noting that it was apparently going to cause another $3.3m loss in 2008. However, in circumstances where 2008 provided a $9.25m profit, this meant that the profit would have only been $5.95m before allocations.

This would have meant less allocations, or drawing down savings to maintain allocations, but in the context of the ARC always having to take losses to get set up, it begs the question of whether the ARU could have taken the pain and now be staging the 3rd year of the ARC with the numbers starting to get close to break even (and perhaps a TV deal or wider sponsorship – although perhaps not with the GFC).

O’Neill says he had to stop it. And now we have the ARU crying off doing it all again, and having to take the losses early on all over again even if it did.

The whispering campaigns complaint is a fair one, although doubtless there are two sides to any argument. The fact remains that people hiding behind anonymous comments clearly aren’t backing themselves, or helping the sport.

If something needs saying, then front up. True some may fear for their jobs (which in some ways may be a chance to trot off to Europe), but there is also the fact that if the ARU were seen to be punishing players and coaches for fair comments. That would probably do the damage the comment maker was aiming for in any event, perhaps more so.

The suggestions that Deans has been dragged over the coals for his comments about the need for an ARC style comp (although this was from Danny Wiedler, facilitator extraordinaire of any whispering campaign …) supports some whispered allegations that O’Neill and the ARU prefer yes men to robust discussion.

At least rugby has the solace it isn’t the only code, especially in bad times, that has those types of whispering campaigns go on.

My biggest problem with O’Neill is with his comments about the “third tier” (sorry Whose Got Melon). In this regard, I have a bit of a dissection.

“Each of our major competitors are supported by state-based competitions.” This appears to refer to the NSW Cup and Queensland Cup for the NRL, and the VFL, WAFL, SAFL etc for the AFL, and the various state leagues in football.

O’Neill’s suggestion “That is precisely the case with Super rugby being supported by Premier Rugby competitions in Sydney and Brisbane, which in the past two years have had Wallaby players back in the fold on a far more frequent basis” suggests club rugby is an equivalent to the VFL, NSW Cup, etc. If so, I disagree.

It also skirts around the fact that the NRL and AFL each grew out of state based competitions. As such, each has strong representation in their respective heartlands. Sydney for the NRL and Melbourne for the AFL.

Where rugby in each of its heartlands of NSW and Queensland has just one fully professional team (based in and servicing only its capital cities), the NRL has multiple teams in Sydney and NSW (and Queensland) and the AFL in Victoria (as well as two in each of their other heartlands of Perth and Adelaide).

Further, those state leagues are now essentially the feeder teams for the top teams, and propped up by them in a way which means the “fourth tier” for the NRL and AFL is the equivalent of rugby’s current “third tier” of club rugby.

Further, I feel club rugby lacks the strength and funds that can be put into the NSW Cup, VFL etc. The grass roots structure supporting rugby seems anaemic by comparison to our main “competitors”, and any suggestion that club rugby will keep ticking along in this regard ignores the serious problems it has.

Further, it also ignores the NRL has the Toyota U-20s cup and AFL has reserves, with each providing a career path and depth of professional numbers that is lacking in rugby.

O’Neill also notes “which in the past two years have had Wallaby players back in the fold on a far more frequent basis. ” This only raises questions – why wasn’t it being done before Deans did it, and where else would they go to keep in shape if they weren’t playing club rugby (at least until September when the season ends)?

O’Neill boasts about what most in rugby would regard as either a necessity, or proof we need more (i.e. they should be playing in more than a semi-pro comp).

O’Neill queries “what other football code in Australia has a sustainable third tier?”

Well, we get back to many people’s question of what is a 3rd tier? If 1st is international and 2nd is provincial, then the NRL is the 3rd tier, and the AFL only has a “3rd” tier (with no meaningful 1st or 2nd).

If 1st tier is your “pre-eminent comp” (as appears to be the suggestion) then O’Neill isn’t comparing apples with apples, and is probably wrong anyway.

If the NRL is league’s 1st tier, the Toyota Cup is 2nd tier, and NSW Cup is 3rd tier. It is sustainable because of leagues clubs and the NRL money pot I would suggest. Which raises the issue why rugby doesn’t have a big enough pot to support its own (or why the 2nd tier isn’t a lot bigger given it is so much more important).

If AFL is 1st tier, the presumably reserves is 2nd tier, and VFL etc is 3rd tier. So we come to the same analysis as NRL. O’Neill’s question actually points to the problem in rugby – the structure and depth doesn’t run deep enough. Although in rugby’s defence it has only had 14 years to build professionalism, whereas NRL and AFL properly have been building for about 35 or more.

O’Neill’s interview concludes with “We are expanding the footprint of Super rugby significantly from 2011. The season will run seamlessly from March through until the end of the Tri Nations and then on to the spring tour. Super rugby expansion will also help develop a much broader player base – the ideal of a third-tier competition.”

We have the issue raised above of only 1 professional team in each heartland, against the NRL’s and AFL’s many.

Rugby often goes several weeks without a home game in those towns (which the conference derby structure will only partially eradicate). Further, once the Super comp is over in early August, the Wallabies and semi pro club rugby (in Sydney and Brisbane) are the only product being touted.

Rugby is essentially pinning its hopes on one professional game, every two weeks or more in the current format (plus the semi pro club comps in two cities). Hardly overflowing with product. Against competitors that can provide live top level games in every major city every weekend. An issue that would begin to be solved by an Australia equivalent of the NZC or Currie Cup.

Finally, the addition of a 5th Australian side (hopefully) is hardly “significant” or providing a “much” broader playing base. It will increase such by 25%, which is better than nothing. But is dwarfed by what the ARC provided (which was almost a doubling), and is tiny compared to the professional playing base the NRL and AFL possess.

O’Neill seems to be putting a brave front on some weaknesses in Australian rugby.

O’Neill seems to be putting a lot of hope in the Super 15 format, which will ensure more derby games, and freshen up the concept. It will provide more product and more local games which is what attracts Australian viewers (let’s ignore the lack of FTA coverage which is one of the greatest handicaps to building popularity of the sport below the Wallabies).

However, the Melbourne Rebels will not solve all of Australia’s player depth issues, the extra revenue is unlikely to plug all the holes in the structure, and rugby has a number of fundamental issues that will not go away by not mentioning them.

Strange as it seems, I am disappointed to read O’Neill seems likely to depart in 2011 (unless this is move to have everyone say “Don’t go, John!!”).

From what I can see, O’Neill is right in one regard. It will take the long haul to fix Australian rugby’s problems. Which will take it beyond 2011 to see it done. Without one vision and team leading that rebuilding, are we doomed to another cycle of regime changes and chopping and hanging direction?

Much as he is maligned, O’Neill was involved in much of what was good about the last 10 years in Australian rugby, so when he talks about it taking the long haul, why do I feel a bit disappointed O’Neill may not be here to see it through with the rest of us.

Unless this is all part of some very long range plan …. but that gets me back to my main point. Just be honest with us John, we can take it. And if there is some grand plan here to get us out of the current rut, I’d like to know what it is, rather than being told what amounts to general spin.