Pulver must be ruthless and clubs must be selfless

Rugby blew it in 1907. It should have paid it's players then. They would be greater than the Blacks now. Can you ever reverse history now? You can see the day when AFL will overtake union in Sydney. One sport is inclusive and class-less, one is about class. Question is do the rugby people even care? They like to think of themselves above the masses. "The right crowd and no over-crowding!"

Super Rugby and players in general should not be able to play in the finals unless they play a certain amount of regular season games for that grade in the club. When I was playing colts they wouldn't let a 1st grade colt play in the 2nd grade colts finals because they hadn't played enough games for that team, why should the rules be different for Super Rugby players?

Midfielder, Beecroft (Div1) and Epping (Div3) are in different subbies divisions.

Hamish good points. -Look in other sports, trans-tasman sport works well. -Basketball//Netball/rugby league/Soccer -Rugby union and cricket, no. Interesting both on an individual level, both are very dominant, while the other overall is weaker. -Aust/NZ do actually have each other now. Under the SANZAR banner of Super rugby, and the rugby championship. So in super rugby plenty of trans-tasman games and love. -But for 3-rd Tier, does NZ need, or is it in there best interests to have there 3-rd Tier tampered with an OZ influence. -3-RD tier is not really there to make profits, it's there to develop talent. So maybe NZ, doesn't think it needs OZ in 3-rd Tier, we got super rugby now. If super rugby fades away, then a trans-tasman domestic comp is the natural step, agreed totally. -But for 3-rd Tier, and high performance development pathways, I'm just not sure NZ rugby want's Australian rugby involved on any level, now or in the future. And i'm not sure NZ rugby needs OZ anymore either for test-matches either. OZ cricket doesn't need NZ cricket. -NZ rugby has so many new rugby markets in Asia-Pacific developing and big rugby markets. USA/Canada/Japan, and down south america way Argentina and of course the Boks. -Japan is playing the AB'S in Tokyo at end of year. And RWC in Asia Japan 2019, so more marketing opportunities for AB's Brand -So plenty of big commercial rugby markets for NZ. Plus the endless developing Euro rugby markets. Italy/Russia/Belguim/Germany/Spain/Portugal/Georgia/Romania, so don't know how vital OZ rugby is anymore to NZ. Yes OZ has a big kiwi ex-pat population, but huge TV markets overseas, that really want to engage with NZ rugby. -Heck NZ now is helping developing rugby nations. Crusaders have a lucrative deal with Brazil rugby. Developing high performance deals.

Hi Johnno, Don't get me wrong Sir, and I do agree with you sentiments, but the only thing that has remained constant in the history of rugby and it the short period of the professional era is New Zealand and Australia's isolation from the other major playing nations in world rugby. I don't have a crystal ball but I don't see that changing any time soon. The basis behind what I say is regardless of the politics and happenings that go on in world rugby it is important that New Zealand and Australia both have competitions that identify and groom players for super rugby. New Zealand already has that in the form of the ITM Cup,and Australia's attempts to replicate such a competition has proven to be unsuccessful. Better yet it would make sense for Australia to invest in a model that has proven to not only being a very entertaining form of football, but a proven environment to identify players of great potential, and groom them. The competition is a going concern, has a fan base, and most importantly is competitive rugby - half the job is already done for them. Its either that, or seriously - someone give me a better alternative? Having 4 teams such as Northern Beaches, Country, City, and Brisbane and allowing a rule to all teams of both nations of 3 overseas players would promote local interest while also distributing talent amongst the competition. There would be no ridiculous salaries or no major marketing campaigns - this is low budget, cost effective, break even rugby. It is important in the long term of rugby that New Zealand and Australia and have a trusted Allie in each other also on the world stage. Our unity (if solid) would only work to the benefit of Australian and Pacific rugby. The way I see it, if we are fighting against each other we risk losing the allocation of these resources and funding to other nations or even worse - the other hemisphere. For this to happen, and this is probably the biggest issue - both parties must be willing to compromise and enter with the ongoing intent of the betterment of Australasian rugby. Look at it like European countries coming together to form the Euro. Lastly, and this is from a fans perspective - we want the Wallabies to be competitive. We All Blacks fans are in a tough place. If we compliment the All Blacks - we are arrogant. If we compliment anyone else - we are patronizing. Look at Saturday nights test against the Springboks. The anticipation, the fear, the challenge - we get that when we play the Springboks as the Test match will be just that, a test. As an All Blacks fan you spend all week at work wondering if indeed the All Blacks will get knocked off as it is very much a possibility. Sadly the days of that leading up to a Bledisloe are a thing of the distant past. We as New Zealanders care about that, sadly the nation of Australia do not...and that to me highlights the biggest problem with Australia rugby.

WCR agreed. not gonna happen. ITM cup has a proud history. The NPC in NZ, aren't gonna stuff that with aussy clubs in there 3-rd Tier. ARC in OZ, has to happen develop our own.

Did he go to the game?

Magic Sponge What strong club system are you talking about ... Lets compare 1970 ... Eastwood V Manly in RL and better still Manly RL V Manly RU Eastwood V AFL ... there was no AFL Eastwood V Apia .... there was no NSL no A-League You could compare ... Today Eastwood V Manly RL .... you can't compare ... Eastwood V AFL hhhmmmmm GWS & Swans ... you can't compare Eastwood V WSW & SFC ... you cannot compare .. OK Super rugby is not the leading club sport .... however you only have five teams... Not lets compare the next level down... Eastwood V Ryde Eastwood RL, Norths RL, Wentworthville RL.... all pay money and have pathways to the NRL for juniors.. Eastwood V State Football say Club Marconi, Blacktown City ... who also pay money and have pathways to the A-League.. Eastwood V AFL ... rugby's wins in Sydney to date there is no second tier AFL... RL & Football underneath their second tier structures have huge junior structures to support the levels higher ... nothing wrong with what you want its a matter of making what is there work better... and that means IMO spending heaps of money at the park levels...

Very, very few southerners come north to Brisbane. We do get a few overseas types, including some from NZ, but Qld lose a lot more to the Sydney club system than Mexicans that see the light. So leave Qld out of it as a source of problems. Also, Qld disproportionately provide the real quality talent in rugby, although the NSW clubs do a great job at turning out the quantity. Yeah, the Vikings - aka the Brumbies - performed well against club players. And rightly the QRU decided against helping to develop the Brumbies and giving them a free look at Qld talent week in week out.

The ARU do nothing for the clubs and have only worried about administrators salaries and large wallaby contracts. Hence no money in the coffers.

Gatesy the article is confusing. It is the clubs that develop the players. For instance Easts had 3 players who play for the Force and wanted to play back for their club in the semis but were told they need to play in a mickey mouse WA comp. Their mates and loyalty were with Easts and yet they were denied by the ARu to play for the club they wanted to. The vast majority of 1st graders want to play for the club they want not who the Aru tell them to play for. Without a strong club system you have a weak wallabies, hence the current state. Check out how many tahs and wallabies come from the Sydney uni club. Go back to the 90s when each club had strong and talented players and enjoyed playnig for their clubs when they can. Why weaken the club comps in Sydney and Brisbane to continue with weak club comps in Vic and WA

Hamish, I hate to break it to you, but Australian teams joining the ITM Cup is just not going to happen. Now or well into the future. That means we need to figure it out ourselves. The ARC was a near perfect model. It was just woefully executed in terms of team locations and branding. Expense was an issue but much of that has changed with the introduction of the Rebels to SR. Accommodating players in Melbourne proved a significant financial burden. With moves to allow SR franchises to determine where their player's play post SR much of the other expenses would also be removed. The remaining expenses would be travel and accommodation for teams while interstate. Well, in terms of travel a solution could be to chase a sponsorship deal (as in a universal competition sponsorship eg. jerseys of every team) not for financial gain but to mitigate expenses. The accommodation issue could be overcome by working off a fly in/fly out basis initially. Tough for players, yes. But necessary.

Rugby is Life That Central Coast comment by Pulver is arguably the most damming thing I have ever heard ... Others reading CC Rugby is well established and has maybe the best ground on the CC at Terrigal ... Rugby is Life I sometimes watch rugby matches at Woy Woy Oval the standard is much better than say Epping V Beecroft ... Recently David Gallop came to a Mariner fans forum on the Central Coast .... his knowledge of local issues made us feel relaxed with him in the top job... as I posted below the attitude of many running rugby concerns me most of all its like they assume what has always been will remain so ... whereas everywhere around them is in a state of change...

I am with you midfielder. Think long term. Problem is you dont get pats on the back for that because the results are only seen 10 years down the track and some other guy gets the credit. It is a problem with our society in general Pollies cant think past the next election cycle. Companies can't think past the next the next quarter's results and rugby administrators can't look past last weeks Wallabies game. Where are the visionaries - the real leaders. As long as we have followers in charge we will go nowhere.

I have a soft spot for RU and at times fear from my experiences [which over the years has not been insignificant] there is an attitude issue which essentially makes it difficult to be spoken to in a serious way if you don’t understand rugby and its history. I have commented along with Skeek & Johnno over the years that the development of any sport is from the broadest base you can get. In a thread last week I wrote http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/09/12/football-structure-in-australia-is-on-the-up/ about the efforts Football had made from being a strong number one is player numbers to be even stronger today and how even on small budgets investing in the juniors was seen as the driver in the future. Adding further to the article the Mariners last week they here taking over the CC junior association http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/282253,mariners-take-charge-at-academy.aspx also last week Adelaide announced a partnership with a local park team http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/adelaideunited/news-display/Landmark-agreement-to-strengthen-development-of-local-talent/74791 I honestly believe until Rugby is prepared to spend about 40% of its revenue on park teams and technical development it will struggle. The model in place is not working… while rugby maybe experiencing its best years pertaining to income and media space its difficult IMO to see this being the case in 15 years without investments in juniors … The scary part as I see it is while other codes spend huge amounts and are putting massive efforts into park teams, rugby seems to stuck like the roo caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. Consider what the other codes are ding. AFL 300 million in WS and the GC over 7 years, plus heaps of day cerebrations. AFL building ovals and providing free coaches for the private schools in Sydney & Brisbane. RL a redesign of their second tier competitions and merging with Touch. The FFA has created a state-based National Premier League across the country with promotion and regulation, meaning the tier below the A-League is structured, with each team required to have a technical director qualified to a certain FIFA level. While this may take some money away from the A-League, it is seen as being critical in creating a pool of players and creates over 100 academies around the country. The FFA Cup, with over 800 park teams invited to play and broadcasters and sponsors being involved, again brings in the park teams into the national setup to feel a part of the family. Other developments include the establishment of a National Indigenous Kids academy, higher technical qualifications being required by all coaches, and massive inroads into the private school system, with schools creating football academies akin to what they have developed in rugby. At some point the inability to expand into new populations centres and connect to folk without an understanding of Rugby will hurt it… On the brighter side all is not lost, the game can be expanded, it can grow, it can become appealing, however it needs a change in attitude and a change in priories.

And who says NZ want us in there rugby program, stuffing up the most successful rugby program in the World. With Australia's big brother attitude, thinking it can do whatever it wants, completely ignorant to the rugby culture of NZ. Why would they want Australian rugby which has been incompetent since day 1 with there rugby programs going on for over 100 years, just swag in to the best rugby system in the World. No thanks, if I was NZ. You have a rugby paradise NZ, why let ignorant incompetent groups in Australian rugby just invade. NZ rugby doesn't need us financially. OZ rugby has done well occasionally in it's history, it had a few golden generations. But now global rugby is changing, and is proffessional and a wider audience, OZ rugby can't survive of the private schools. The new import rules at the Force and rebels, being allowed 6 development imports next year is a sign. That means any player from overseas who has not played for there country of birth will be classified as a developmental import. Think Jason Woodward from NZ at the rebels now. So more guys like him OZ rugby wants, and once they do 3 years in OZ will be eligible for wallaby selection. Call it poaching to beef up depth and stocks, but now OZ rugby is looking overseas to find players, and get them into our rugby program. Our depth is small.

Hamish, I think I am with you on this. I was not impressed at all with these latest efforts which seem absolutely misguided. I spoke to a friend of mine who was a long standing board member of a central coast rugby club, he shared this anecdote with me.. One of his members ran into Pulver on the coast, Pulver apparently has a holiday home there. The member asked Pulver to come down and watch a game and Pulver said "oh I didn't know there was a rugby club here". WTF. There is an entire competition with 5 grades. A thriving competition which is doing very well. If Pulver doesn't even know about things like this in his own backyard is he really taking the trouble to understand what is really going on. I don't know. For Pulver Rugby=Wallabies. For the rest of us the Wallabies are the cream on a cake. Fortunately my son still wants to be a Wallaby so there is some hope. But rugby has a long term problem and it requires a focus at the grass roots so that in time each state will be demanding through the performance of its playing base inclusion in a competition. For the record I think they are still waiting to sight him at a central coast rugby match.

Kind of regret putting that cereal in my mouth now. A lot of my solution is very Unaustralian. Its all about swallowing your pride for the betterment of Australia Rugby. It is about strengthening ties with New Zealand and integrating 3-4 Australian teams into the NPC. It may have worked in the amatuer era but the gap between Shute Shield and Super Rugby is just too big. You only have to look at the performances of Peter Betham, Nic Stirzaker and Kimami Situati to understand that it in the best interests of Australian players to be playing in this competition. I think Australians need to understand the NPC is basically diet Super Rugby. That means putting together a Northern Beaches team, a country team, and city team, and Brisbane team and playing at Brookvale, Wagga and at Lang Park. Have a look at the NPC - its taken to the people. Half the stadiums used don't even have corporate hospitality facilities. I just simply don't get it with Australian Rugby, and I do call it Big Brother Syndrome. Your sport of rugby is in a state, the professional rugby competiton you participate in is up in the air, you're bleeding cash, and you have lost the support of respect of the public. Australian Rugby simply needs a to start from scratch. Learn off New Zealand as they do something different to you. Both nations identify talent at secondary level, yet one produces quality on an ongoing basis and one produces a group that has contributed more to social media than the game of Australian Rugby. Bill Pulver needs to move from the mentality of rugby during his lifetime, for the game of rugby will continue on long after his lifetime. On day 1 he should have written a list of what is problematic with Australian Rugby, and then spent the next 4 years trying to address it. Instead it appears all we have is another person with a Sydney twang, with a perfect double windsor tie sharing stories on the Australian public speaking circuit. Short term sacrifice, long term gain.

What is your solution for the CEO or do we need to sow up your backside?

ps - First impressions last Bill. Take your finger out of your ear.