The Roar has had a relatively healthy relationship with the ARU in recent years. “Let the Roar of the crowd fix up Rugby” led to formal comments and suggestions being submitted to the ARU and the then recently restored CEO, John O’Neill.

This was reported on in “The Roar tackles rugby’s problems”, and included O’Neill’s response to the comments that “In that regard, we will take it in all seriousness in responding to the comments and suggestions.”

In more recent times the Roar raised a number of questions for O’Neill and the ARU in “Ask John O’Neill the Tough Questions”. O’Neill responded in “John O’Neill predicts a positive future for rugby”.

However, I and a number of other Roarers felt the response was little more than a press release type statement that did not come to grips with the valid issues and concerns raised.

Given that almost two and a half years has passed since the first article, and the annus horribilis that Australian rugby had in 2009, I though it would be worth looking at the concerns and suggestions raised in the original comments made to the ARU, and how things have changed or not in the intervening years. In addition to my comments (noting I wasn’t a Roarer at the time of the original article), this will provide a chance for old and new Roarers to re-visit the issues after digesting the events of 2009.

1(a). Administration.

Suggested Solutions:

“a) A move to return John O’Neil to the CEO position was strongly supported. However, it may be worth noting that the ARU’s decision to conduct a thorough search for Mr Flowers replacement was also supported.”

The Roarers got their wish, in that O’Neill has been returned. However, many have felt that O’Neill Mark II hasn’t reached the lofty heights of O’Neill Mark I. For example, he wasn’t the hoped for Messiah’s Second Coming. In many ways, rugby faced a different landscape for him to lead it through – no Rugby World Cup, a fourth Super team to deal with, a Wallabies team on the slide, and all three other major football codes on the rise (football in no small way due to his own efforts, and rugby league throwing off the shackles of the Super League war and returning to vibrancy, while AFL continued to go from strength to strength).

Further, O’Neill, since his return, has been looked at with a more cynical eye, with many voicing concerns or criticisms for his management style and approach to certain issues. While O’Neill must be regarded as one of the better sports administrators of recent years, the Australian rugby public has come to realise he is not perfect.

“b) Moves to reduce the partisan setup of the ARU were suggested and Australia’s shrewd corporate world suggested as a source of potential recruits.”

O’Neill’s departure in 2003, and his return since 2007, have highlighted this issue, in that O’Neill cannot “fix” rugby on his own, and the organisations and people in them are just as important as the man in charge.

There appears to have been little to no change in this department. Peter Cosgrove had been a recent addition in 2007 that gave hope of change, but there appears to have been little change since then.

There has continued to be infighting, spats and brinkmanship within the various unions and the ARU since 2007. There have been perceived partisan approaches to various issues, such as appointing the Wallabies coach.

However, there has continued to be talk of change to the constitution of the ARU, to deal with this issue, which appears to be an ongoing process. The NSWRU has recently established a separate board to deal with the Waratahs, while it deals with grassroots rugby. Something the Brumbies and Force already have.

As such, things move slowly, but this is to be expected where change will affect the same decision makers’ power bases and positions. Nevertheless, it is clear that change must occur in this regard. The moves towards an independent commission by the NRL show that even successful codes recognise the need for administrative reform, which highlights even more the need for change in rugby where almost all stakeholders agree the current structures have problems.

1(b). Accountability.

Proposed Solutions:

“There were several steps proposed to improve the ability of the rugby public to assess the performance of those charged with managing the game. Without knowing by what Key Performance Indicators the ARU’s office bearers are internally judged, the public is disabled of its ability to provide constructive criticism.”

By opening for public knowledge the range of KPIs used to assess ARU staff the rugby public can determine a) if the KPIs are indeed the best ones to develop and strengthen the game and b) if the KPIs are indeed being met.”

Nothing appears to have changed here, nor appears likely to.

Indeed, KPIs for the ARU (and state unions) as a whole would appear desirable but completely lacking.

In my looking at rugby development recently, the difference between the AFL and ARU Annual Reports dealing with development could not have been more stark. The ARU 2008 Annual Report dedicated two pages to development, half a page of which was a photo, and one page of which was statistics. While the statistics were better than those provided in the AFL 2008 Annual Report (in that the apparent raw data was provided), the AFL report dedicated 18 pages to development analysis and statistics. eight pages were photos, but the level of detail and analysis dwarfed that in the ARU report and set out a vision for development which the ARU did not.

This is the type of KPI which the ARU needs to be holding itself to, and be seen to be holding itself to, otherwise the rugby pblic cannot understand what is being done or planned to be done and measure the level of success.

It is also worth noting that the NSWRU web site makes reference to a NSW Rugby Development Plan, but no copy is available on the site. A request for it by the writer from the relevant manager at NSWRU was unsuccessful. Again, when a state or national body isn’t publicly making clear what it is doing, it supporters will start to query its perfomance and aims.

2. Marketing.

Proposed Solutions:

“a) Regular free-to-air television coverage of both Super 14 and International level rugby …”

Nothing has changed here, but there has not really been a chance to. With the new TV deal for the Super 15 commencing in 2011 to be negotiated, this will be the chance for rugby to attempt to obtain more FTA coverage, which most seem to agree the game requires. While Wallabies games have good coverage in its traditional cities, it seems to suffer outside them. Super rugby has always lacked FTA coverage, which is needed in at least some form to expose more viewers to what most agree (at its best) can be the most exciting rugby competition in the world. Australian rugby can no longer hide its light under a bushell and hope to compete, even if this means less revenue.

“b) The marketing of the game was seen to have moved away from encouraging new recruits … to merely selling tickets for international games … The AFL’s Auskick campaign … should be used as a model for rugby to build on.”

Likewise, nothing has substantially changed here, and many fans and people involved in the grassroots continue to feel that this level is being neglected. In the ARU’s defence, it has limited funds to do this, much of which is tied up in the professional level of the game (which many feel to be a major part of the problem). Further, in 2009 the ARU moved to take over more of the development from the state unions, which could take time to see the benefits of. However, this is clearly a level where the ARU needs to boost the morale of the grassroots be being seen to take action. The high visibility of other codes’ junior programs, with NAB’s sponsorship of AFL’s Auskick, and Milo’s sponsorship of junior development cricket, raises the question of why rugby has not managed to set up a similar highly visible program with substantial corporate support.

“c) The APC was not warmly received.”

The ARU took action on this quickly, with the APC being cancelled after one year. However, some have now seen this as a mistake, and the need for more professional depth in the game. The financial strain was a clear reason for ending it, but issues of poor planning and budgeting were also raised. O’Neill was seen by some as being happy to cancel a competition commenced under the previous leadership of Gary Flowers, when perhaps it had more merit.

Adding extra depth to professional rugby is apparently to be provided by the expansion of the Super comp in Australia. However, many see this as too little and too slow, when rugby league is able to set up an Under 20s national comp that was quickly successful.

“d) Tours by 2nd rate northern teams were widely criticised. Support of a global season seen as being a must to address this issue. Where low turnouts are expected, games should be scheduled in regional or new rugby areas.”

The ARU has made noises that it will not continue putting up with second rate tours. Whether this will bear fruit remains to be seen, given the burdens of the European season and the club vs country clashes which occur there but are avoided in the Southern hemisphere.

A global season is, like constitutional change at the ARU, much talked about but immensely difficult and faces huge hurdles due to conflicting interests of the various parties.

Taking games to regional areas is difficult, given the financial issues of recent years, and the understandable reluctance of the ARU to reduce possible income. However, lower turn outs during the Wallabies woeful 2009 season showed that crowds anywhere cannot be taken for granted. The ARU faces the problem that everyone wants a piece of the Wallabies, but there is only so much to go around. The cancelling of the Australia A program to save costs removed a team that could play in regional areas and meet this need.

“e) Don’t take for granted traditional rugby schools.”

The ongoing perceived lack of action at the grassroots level returns again, and again there has been little or nothing to be seen to have occurred in this regard over the last two and a half years. The expansion of the NRL into the Gold Coast, and the AFL into Gold Coast and Western Sydney, has caused great concern amongst rugby fans, along with the growth in all other three football codes generally. Many feel that rugby is losing the battle at the grassroots level, and action has to be taken now, even if the resources of the other codes, at least in the NRL and AFL, are greater. This is clearly the greatest challenge seen to be facing the ARU at the current time, and perhaps the issue that most concerns rugby supporters.

“f) … DVD campaigns that contain highlights of each season’s action. Official releases under the ARU’s banner are too few and irregular.”

No action has been seen in this area, although the 2009 highlights DVD is hardly likely to have been a best seller. However, to a great degree the merchandise for rugby is limited, and is seen by many fans as a way to gain greater exposure for the sport. The lack of trading cards, similar to league, has been raised on the Roar in 2009. Further, when a junior Wallabies or Super jersey costs almost as much as the adult version, it is difficult for fans to hook their children early by buying them such merchandise. Although this issue arises for other codes, pricing would appear to be a concern to deal with. Although the ARU might say they have other priorities, when lower division English football sides appear to have better merchandise ranges that the Wallabies, fans are entitled to ask questions.

3. Player Development.

Proposed Solutions:

“a) Contracting ‘big name’ coaches with proven records, … A more robust training programme for coaches is essential.”

Again, the Roarers got their wish with Robbie Deans, although some fans are now questioning whether he is delivering. However, the general consensus amongst fans appears to be there was and remains a lot of work to do, and until the outcome of the next World Cup, opinions are reserved.

On the issue of a training programme for coaches, again there does not appear to have been any action on this front. The steps taken by football in completely rebuilding their junior and coaching programs stands in contrast.

“b) Opening up to successful ‘foreign’ coaches was seen as a way to import rugby knowledge and experience.”

See Robbie Deans above. The return of successful Australian coaches, such as Michael Cheika, is also another way the coaching knowledge base can be widened. However, the aim then is to ensure that knowledge and experience is widely disseminated through established structures, rather than occurring piece-meal.

“c) Chasing players from a league background was seen to be a disincentive to talent developed through junior rugby and the vast majority of respondents called for the practice to be stopped.”

This appears to have occurred, with the last of the big name recruits in Tuqiri and Tahu departing for different reasons, although the manner of the departure of Tuqiri was a basis of criticism in some quarters against O’Neill and the ARU. Any league converts would from this point on would appear to need to come for the right reasons, and without any unreasonable premiums being paid.

“d) A high profile national sevens competition was suggested as a way of developing interest in rugby in non-rugby cities …”

Nothing has happened in this regard and Sevens rugby seems to remain the poor cousin, although the inclusion of Sevens rugby in the Olympics may cause this to change. The ARU needs to explain what it plans to do in this regard, and how this will operate alongside the full game going forward.

“e) Rather than chasing big name league players, the introduction of big-name foreign players into the Super 14 was backed on the proviso that it be only a short term solution, to be removed after a period of 2 – 5 years.”

The marquee player rules have provided some action in this regard, although their use by the Australian franchises has been limited to date. The Melbourne team, and the possible inclusion of Argentina in SANZAR seems certain to mean player limits will be loosened in this regard. Again, the ARU needs to make clear what it plans to do, and the reasons why, going forward.

“f) Another option suggested as a better way of spending the money currently spent on league players is to retain certain high-quality Australian players who are looking at heading overseas.”

The loss of players to Europe and Japan remains one of the major concerns for all SANZAR nations (and Pacific Island nations and Argentina), and there is no easy solution. Any allowance for foreign players in Australian Super teams must not be at the expense of Australian players going overseas rather than getting those contracts.

The ability of Australia to retain and develop players through an extra professional level like the APC is clearly desirable, although the ARU seems to have sworn off this approach but also not provided any plans or indications of dealing with widening the professional base or strengthening the club level.

“g) Establish a competition to develop forwards in much the same way as sevens develops backs. …”

The perceived problems in Australian forwards appears to have resolved somewhat, with Australia’s scrum now competitive again. However, this is clearly due to certain coaches such as Michael Foley helping solve these problems. The apparent lack of depth at lock in the current season raised the issue in a different way. Systematic coaching and recruitment of tight five positions at all levels appears to be required going forward, and only the ARU with state unions appear able to act properly on this. Recent problems need to give rise to systems to prevent that problem ever happening again, rather than letting the problem recur because the base problems were never addressed.

4. Clubland.

Proposed Solutions:

“An integrated system with stronger ties between clubs and Super 14 teams was suggested. Most widely commented upon was the apparent lack of a unified and inclusive strategy that oversees the running of the game through schools, juniors and club level into the representative arena. If this strategy currently exists it is felt that it is not being successful.”

Again, no action appears to have taken place in this regard, and the club and junior levels appear to be put aside by both the ARU and state unions while they deal with the professional game.

There seems little prospect of the club level becoming professional any time soon, although the ARU have also made clear they have no intention of re-introducing an APC competition between club and Super rugby levels.

The ARU and state unions need to develop and make clear to all parties a long term plan for nurturing the club level, which has been the backbone of Wallaby success for decades before Super rugby, and provides many of their players. Further, the recent interest of involving private equity at the Super rugby level raises the question of whether private equity might be involved at the club level to help develop that level into a professional competition. However, the involvement of private equity seems to have been decided on without any real public discussion or explanation as to why it was to be done.

Unfortunately, any plans for clubland are also likely to raise the ire of many groups, and return us to the first problem raised above, of partisanship limiting the ARU’s ability to act.

“The formation of the APC was not seen to be helping the cause of clubs and threatened to spread under-funded resources even further.”

See above for comments about the APC.

5. Laws.

“The ARU was encouraged to continue its commitment to developing the laws of the game with a focus on favouring the attacking team whilst maintaining rugby’s continual contest for possession.”

The relative failure of the ELVs made it clear that the ARU is limited in what is can do in this regard. It has become clear to many that the rules and how they are applied have a huge effect on the attractiveness of the game. However, this also faces the issue of some elements not wanting to see the core elements of the sport (positions for all body types, and constant contest for the ball) sacrificed for spectacle.

The ARU seems to be, as usual, in the forefront of reform in this regard, along with the NZRU and to a lesser extent the SARFU. However, the limits on what is achievable was shown in how the ELVs were dealt with by the IRB and northern countries.

Conclusion:

While a number of issues were acted on, and action taken as suggested by Roarers previously, on some of the more important issues there has been little or no action at all.

One thing that comes out of reviewing these issues has been what I perceive as the need for the ARU to not only have a vision and plan for what it is doing, but also to makes this clear to all stakeholders and supporters. When the ARU cannot make clear what it is doing, and how and why, then supporters will inevitably feel that there is no plan, and no one is doing anything. In other words, things must not only be done, but be seen to be done and explained why they are being done.

The ARU needs to deal with a number of issues including constitutional change, junior development, sevens rugby, and clubland, but also needs to make clear what it plans to do in the medium to long term, the reasons why, and allow those involved to feel part of the decision making process.

As such, for some of the issues little has happened in two and a half years, whereas for other little could be expected to happen in two and a half years. Which issues fall into which class would doubtless be a point of difference between Roarers and the ARU, and also amongst Roarers themselves.