Imagine this: It’s mid-May and the Melbourne Rebels are in a hole.
They recruited well in the off-season, signing mobile forwards Isi Naisirani and Luke Jones, but their big-name recruit, Quade Cooper, has struggled to fit in since moving from the Queensland Reds.
The five-eighth’s addition was meant to spark up a near-Wallabies backline including Will Genia, Marika Koroibete, Reece Hodge, Jack Maddocks and Dane Haylett-Petty, but it’s taken longer than hoped for Cooper to click with his new teammates.
The 2019 season was meant to be their breakthrough year when they’d qualify for the Super Rugby finals for the first time in their nine-year history.
It’s round 14 and the Rebels host the Bulls on Friday night before a trip to Japan to take on the Sunwolves.
That’s followed by the Waratahs in Melbourne and a brutal finish with games against the Crusaders away and the Chiefs at home.
They probably need to win at least three of their last five matches, so coach Dave Wessels plans to pick a full-strength side to take on the Bulls.
Wessels is in the last year of his Rebels contract and he’s been told by the Rebels board that he needs to make the finals if he’s to get a new deal.
He’s well regarded by overseas clubs, but they need to see him steer a strong roster to the finals if – at the age of 37 – he’s to be considered as a head coach in Europe or Japan.
Scott Johnson has been in his role as Rugby Australia’s new Director of Rugby for two months. His task is to oversee a new National High Performance model similar to the one he led in Scotland and also used successfully in Ireland and New Zealand.
His directive is focused on getting the Wallabies to improve significantly with the World Cup only four months away and lifting expectations of downcast fans following a dismal 2018.
Part of that is managing the workload of Wallabies players. Johnson, as well as Wallabies coach Michael Cheika, want Adam Coleman, Genia and Maddocks to miss the Rebels’ clash with the Bulls.
They’ve been bashed around a bit over the past month and need a rest. Plus Johnson wants Hodge to play at outside centre, while Wessels wants him at fullback.
Wessels is seeking to create history and he’s under pressure. He’s chasing victories for the players, fans, fellow Rebels staff and sponsors – while there’s understandably a large personal incentive to do everything he needs to try to retain a job he cherishes.
Johnson isn’t invested in Melbourne sentiment; he’s driven by what’s best for Australian rugby. But if the Rebels make the finals, it would be a great milestone for the growth of the game in the Victorian capital, the Melburnians shout.
Johnson shrugs his shoulders – “So what?!? It’s all about the Wallabies.”
(Photo by Atsushi Tomura/Getty Images)
This scenario is an example of the potential tug-of-war that’s facing Australian rugby this year.
At the announcement of Johnson’s appointment in December, Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle and chairman Cameron Clyne declared it a “milestone day” for Australian rugby and talked optimistically about achieving “greater alignment” between the Super Rugby clubs, RA and the Wallabies.
“This is a proven model, it demonstrates success,” said Clyne. “While we’ve been working on it for 12 months and talking about the type of changes that would deliver it, I think the key element here was actually getting someone of Scott’s capability who’s actually delivered this sort of program.”
It all sounds upbeat and bullish. However, the changes have seemingly been made not through governance reforms, but rely instead on goodwill, a spirit of collaboration, and perhaps most heavily on Johnson and his experience with Scotland.
It’s optimistic. Or do RA plan to exert some leverage over the Super Rugby clubs with threats to reduce funding allocations if they fail to comply with Johnson’s demands? Will there be repercussions for non-compliance? RA only top up salaries, right? So why should they be able to throw their weight around?
Will the fans even be aware of Johnson’s plans – be it selection, workload management, fitness, even playing style? How far does his control extend?
Or does RA believe that given the Wallabies have been so poor recently and need all the help they can get, they’ve effectively been given a mandate by Australian rugby fans to fix it – even if that’s to the detriment of the four franchises?
Do they therefore think they hold the upper hand in the PR battle if the inevitable clashes between franchises and Johnson and RA are fought openly in the media?
The new plan sounds grey and a bit loose, and threatens to undermine the Super Rugby competition.
Yes, the five New Zealand Super Rugby clubs plan to rest their All Blacks this season. And Irish provinces thrive in European competitions with their centralised model of managing Test players at club level.
The All Blacks and Ireland are the two best Test sides in the world. It’s a “proven model, it demonstrates success”, said Clyne.
(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
The centralised model of a common goal all sounds good in theory. But when there are different motivations – competing motivations – amongst the power holders and with job security, ego and financials on the line, then the so-called national alignment can become fragile.
A lot seems to be riding on Johnson and his experience with Scotland, not on structural changes. If Castle and Clyne want greater control, don’t they need to be offering the franchises something more tangible than a repeated mantra about greater alignment and cooperation?
Wessels wouldn’t have to leave Melbourne to chat with someone who knows about the friction that can be generated between state/club and country.
Andrew McDonald, Victoria’s cricket coach, defied Australia coach Justin Langer by refusing to bat Aaron Finch as an opener in his final Sheffield Shield match before the first Test against India.
McDonald views Finch as a middle-order batsman. Cricket Australia view the Sheffield Shield as a breeding ground for international cricketers, not as a hard-fought competition for state supremacy.
Of course McDonald wants Australia to be strong and successful, but he’s primarily driven to win titles for Victoria.
Alignment and centralisation – their success is proven in the rugby sphere, but for Australian rugby fans, don’t expect smooth sailing.
Jock the sock
Guest
Don’t worry Quades back. As Twas and Fion keep harping in how he will save rugby in oz
JimboMelbourne
Guest
Australian Rugby is heading for history books. It is competing against three other football codes. It is the only country that has this level of competition. The three other codes are either growing (soccer and AFL) or surviving. Each is based on a NATIONAL CLUB COMPETITION. Rugby Union is trying to attract new followers with a competition even ardent rugby supporters find hard to understand. Most other rugby union competitions are based on strong professional club comps. The Northern Hemisphere clubs including the North American are based on national club comps. The tier above is international competitions. Australian Rugby sits on its hands whilst the other codes erode their supporter base. The Super Rugby is based over 10 time zones and requires hours of travel. South African teams are competing in the UK - Australia could start with a National Comp which could include a team from Japan and perhaps a combine Pacific Island team (Though getting big companies to sign up as supporters may be hard) It time for RA to look at what the other codes are doing, forget traditions and get on with growing the sport in AUSTRALIA.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Very fair point. So not only did the VFL not offer extra support, they profiteered off them.
andrewM
Roar Rookie
a bit of history, if not for the 'licence fees' paid by the Eagles and Bears, a significant number of the melbourne clubs would have gone bankrupt. it could be argued that expansion was forced upon the VFL and not something they proactively embraced..
Andrew Joseph
Roar Rookie
Ta
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I get what you are saying - the difference being a huge part of why the VFL/AFL got it right is because of what was laid down for them to work with dating back decades. With regards to marketing? Really? How much marketing do NRL and AFL actually do? What helps them is when it comes to the sport pages, and the sport section of the news, its all NRL and AFL. On your last comment. Money. Why could it surpass the NRL? The NRL is completely tailored down to the rules for the Australian market. We have to play within a global calendar and global rules. We can only accommodate a short competition because there's 3 full months (or more of test rugby). The NRL throws all it's eggs in the domestic basket. Our point of difference is the international game. Otherwise how are we not just a NRL knock off? For this to be viable we'd have to create 9 teams from scratch and then build them up to better support than what we have. That sort of thing takes a life time (the building support).
cookie
Roar Guru
So TWAS 'build it and they shall come' isn't entirely fanciful? All I am saying is that since circa 2003 the VFL/AFL have got it right whereas the ARU comparatively sat on their hands with the she'll be right mate attitude. The main difference between Rugby and the AFL/NRL these days is that they have a national local competition played in the same time zone. They do a very good job at marketing and nurturing the game. By Comparison the marketing and sustenance of rugby in Australia is practically non-existent. Yes no doubt the states set up make it more difficult. I believe the super rugby competition, especially the inclusion of the SA teams playing in a different time zone has made the comp to hard to follow for most and that it has led to much disinterest in the australian media which has had a knock on effect. A pacific competition would be played in the same time zone and would draw on the large islander populations in NZ and Aus.. many whom have been drawn towards league due to better marketing and professional opportunities. I see no reason why a competition of say 14 teams all playing home and away games couldn't be built. I see no reason why if marketed and nurtured properly it couldn't surpass the NRL broadcasting deal as it would be for a much larger and more diverse market.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Exactly. Your discussion completely deviates from the whole point for you to conclude that you agree. You entered into a discussion. What has your input added? Nothing relevant to the point that most of what the ARU has as cash reserves would be needed for the next 3 RWC years.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, ''The discussion isn’t financial statements, or more so the exact amount.'' My discussion was. You are getting more confused, did you read the difference between accrual & cash accounting? YES or NO ????? No side stepping
AllyOz
Roar Rookie
I am not sure RA/Johnson will be so prescriptive. I imagine that players will have "loads" set - say two rest games across the Super season or a set number of minutes before a rest or controls around return from injury or "assistance" in injury management but it will be up to the franchise to determine what specific games or when rests are taken. The clubs have an interest in the Wallabies performing well. Their crowds aren't just determined by their performance but on their "name" players. If Quade Cooper had never played a test for the Wallabies I don't think he would attract the same crowd - even though he might play the same way.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It really doesn't matter. I've never stated what type of accounting the ARU used. Just that any profit on the RWC, needs to be considered against the ARU's operating loss in 2003. If they loose $10M for 2003 and the event they host in 2003 makes $44M, they don't have $44M more to spend after 2003...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The discussion isn't financial statements, or more so the exact amount. The discussion if there was ample money to invest. You've just rambled on a pointless discussion to conclude that you agree with my original point. The whole point is this cycle is not RA's doing. As even if they chose not to compete in World Cup's the reduced content that reduces their revenue would not be able to be recovered as all competitors do compete in the RWC.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, ''And regardless. It’s still semantics.'' There are no semantics in Financial Statements, only black or white. Ask the auditors. ''So they earned enough to cover the loss of 4 RWC’s instead of 3? It’s really irrelevant to my point that due to global factors that limit content, RA are stuck in a cycle that causes a $10M reduction in revenue every 4 years.'' I agree with you.
concened supprter
Guest
TWAS, You are stalling. Did you read or did you not read & understand the difference between Accrual & Cash Accounting? Yes or No answer, please . No TWAS sidestep around the question.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
What relevance is any of this to the following points: - Profit from the RWC Event in isolation does not consider operating loss in a RWC year; - Money actually banked from the RWC would be necessary to cover 4 yearly operating losses due to RWC's reducing revenues for all test nations. Can you explain any of what you are saying means in the context of that? Or are you just making pointless ramblings hoping to catch out minor details over semantics?
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, further to your statement, ''So again, you don’t know how much money the ARU had in the bank on 1 January 2004, or there abouts?'' TWAS your statement is irrelevant to the Net Profit/ Surplus of the ARU. The ARU prepared their financial statements on an Accrual Basis.NOT a Cash Basis, to understand the difference (which is significant) read the following, ''https://www.profitbooks.net/cash-accrual-accounting-method/''
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And regardless. It's still semantics. So they earned enough to cover the loss of 4 RWC's instead of 3? It's really irrelevant to my point that due to global factors that limit content, RA are stuck in a cycle that causes a $10M reduction in revenue every 4 years.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The significance of January 1 is the start of the next reporting year. I.e. after all expenses for 2003 had been accounted for. They may have reported a RWC profit in 2004, but it was earned in 2003. Don't you claim to be an accountant?
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, you are confused as usual. You say, ''So again, you don’t know how much money the ARU had in the bank on 1 January 2004, or there abouts?'' 1 January 2004?? 1 January 2004 ??? What is the significance of 1 January 2004??? When your ARU only released its RWC Profit Surplus on 7 Apr 2004. Extract, ''ARU make huge profit from RWC 7 Apr, 2004 Australian rugby looks set for a huge financial windfall following the record multi-million dollar profits generated from last year's World Cup. The Australian Rugby Union said it had received a tournament surplus of $44.5 million after hosting the event in 2003.'' TWAS, Go back to your desk and do some meaningful work.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It wasn't easy, but remember that it was a very small part of the competition. In 1981 the VFL had 12 Victorian Clubs. In 1982 that became 11, with one relocating to Sydney. Come 1987 they expanded to 14, with the 11 Victorian Clubs being able to help carry this. But at the same time I don't think too much investment was made in the Bears or the Eagles. It was essentially sink or swim. The VFL felt allowing them to be involved was the investment. The 90s saw another another 3 at the expense of 1 Melbourne Club to bring that to 18. Most importantly, all clubs in the 90s were in regions were AFL was the major code. They were like the NSWRL including the Broncos. The concept of actually investing in new franchises only started with GWS and the Suns, though dated back to the mid 2000s with huge potential incentives for North Melbourne to relocate. The AFL has undoubtedly got it right, but a lot of it was luck and circumstance (e.g. the circumstance that there were AFL heartlands without a club to look to establish new teams in). COLA was really what the AFL attempted to do to help all clubs. But AFL doesn't have a national team to protect so comparing the two is fraught. RA needs to spend money on the Wallabies as they are a team in their own right.