Gregan joins ARU board

'someone like Gregan who has proved what as a businessman?' Does Gregan not have a collection of businesses?

It's funny how 'bean counters' getting involved (or re-involved) with music corporations and film corporations has been seen as having a bad effect, artistically, on those industries.... The same with education many would argue... But not with sport....?

I have a problem in that he was instrumental as a player in the player revolt against Nucifora, and then as a coach last year against Friend. Not necessarily attributes you would want to bring to the board. I tend to agree with the general gist of KPMs argument that too many ex players on the board as opposed to professional business people/executive managers is also not the optimum. One, two at most to get their "rugby" input (not that plenty of business people dont have rubgy nowse).

Four more years George. That's how long you out-stayed your seat at the Wallabies! Sorry, that's a Kiwi jibe. He'll probably urge Tom Carter to make the A team.

George will bring good coffee and inflexibility to the table.

and generic businesses

Possibly, but only when it comes to running businesses.

KPM - you have way too much faith in this generic model of 'businessmen'

The IRB are also run by ex-players much of the time and that's why they're so useless. If I were running a large scale donut business I would want someone who knew about making the donuts in charge at a middle-ranking level, and top businessmen above directing the shape and strategy of the organisation. Ditto rugby. Businessmen know perfectly well about management, marketing, finance and everything necessary to run a business. With some acquaintance with the sport's culture they will prove infinitely more effective than an ex-player (in any case why does the ex-player need to be a good one? An average one might well know as much about the structure of the sport. Here lies the problem: confusing playing ability with managerial business activity).

KPM - "than someone with no experience or abilliy in business who happens to play the game on the pitch well." talk about talking down the calibre of gregan and eales. IRB are useless and only cover the broad international policy I imagine this governing body is about making rugby better in australia. dont you think u should have rugby players involved? if i start a donut business first thing i want to do is get the best donut maker in. i'm not going to fill my board with a whole bunch of business men as they wont know jack aboutthe donut ndustry i enjoy your arguments KPM but in this your over simplifying things

mania what is good for rugby can be dictated to the board by those that appoint it. A governing body doesn't spend most of its time thinking about the type of rugby played on the pitch: the IRB do. The governing body develop business structures, management, advertising and so forth and a top businessman will be far better at those things, for which is trained and in which he is skilled, than someone with no experience or abilliy in business who happens to play the game on the pitch well.

KPM- disagree big time with u there. what does a business man know about what is good for rugby? making money is a very important goal but just as important is knowing the game and having an insight as to how to make it better. gregan, eales and connor have insight to rugby that no one from the outside looking in would have. would u discard their experience just because you want to run it like a business? this business is rugby, you'd have to be a fool not grab as many experts as posible.

mania I suspect that a top businessman with a decent knowledge of how rugby works, not on the pitch, but as a structure, will be 10,000 times more effective than someone like Gregan who has proved what as a businessman? In fact you would do better to have Gregan lower down the ranks, to provide knowledge of the game's local structures to the businessman at the top.

I'm surprised no-one picked up on "fellow Wallaby great Mark Connors". Seriously?

I think the point is how many ex players are needed. If they have excellent business acumen then thats fine. We are talking about the Board that runs the game not admin staff. Two very different skill sets involved in those positions.

your missing my point KPM. its all good have admin staff but u still need people that understand the industry. in this case rugby, ergo you have to have people on the governing body that have been there and achieved the most that can be achieved. in this case gregan ticks all those boxes.

mania a governing body is a professional business. Being good at playing a sport in no way qualifies someone to run a business. There will be hundreds of experienced and high quality businessmen that could run a business better.

jumping to conclusions here arent u KPM? Why shouldnt an exPlayer with amatuer roots not be in the governing body? who better is there waiting in the wings? sure you need your administrators to run the show but it pays to have people who have been in the trade to have input. i'd be a bit more worried of the brumbies player revolt during gregans time and how that would affect his view on who should run the show.

That looks like far too many ex-players for the governing body of a professional rugby governing body. Note too, that these players began their careers in the amateur era which will affect how they think about rugby.

Not really coaching so much as consultancy, and a bit of mentoring for the two young scrumhalves. No conflicts of interest or contract issues.