Slack: Australian rugby needs independent review

I had a whole comment here, and I hit add and it disappeared, but the Gist was that I felt it was simply because of the self interest you speak of that rugby Aus wide was being held back... The only way to get that out, was have one body oversea the lot. Again, the Reds were a case in point disproving your point of self interest... it was because of self interest that the 2011 champs in 2012, with the highest membership numbers in the comp (?), huge home crowds, great rugby style etc, went and seriously hired a bloke with a 30% win record to succeed their coach... I mean really. They could have hired anyone the world over, at that time. IT would have been an amazing job... and that is what they did. TWICE, because the second time, the bloke had ruined everything that Mooney, and then McKenzie had built, and then it wasn't such an attractive place for a good coach to be...

Well... I'm not sure I follow... because the reality has been over the last goodness knows how long, that the states DO pick their mates purely because of self interest... Again, Richard Graham, case in point. The Reds were a team in 2012, having just won the comp, with the highest club membership in the comp just about, huge home crowds, exciting rugby, and the could have honestly had their pick of coaches world over, and they picked a bloke with a 30% win rate, because they wanted to be successful as you suggest? NOPE. AND, they did it twice! The absolute reality is that the current system is far too cluttered with self interest to help RUGBY in Australia. Granted, the administrators at the top of RA have to be good ones, with the long term view of benefit to RUGBY the game, in Australia, not RA, or the Wallabies.. So it does have challenges, but again, how can RA improve rugby in Aus, UNLESS they can control it? And without controlling the state unions, they simply have no say in the game except the Wallabies... and again, administrators have made bad decisions that have yielded horrid results in this regard.

On playing level. Not commercial level though. Not fan interest.

Back in the 90’s the current English clubs were roughly equivalent to second/ third grade Shute shield ( based on players transfers at the time. ) Today they are at least equal to super rugby. We’ve got great heritage in rugby in Sydney and Brisbane - but we’ve done everything we can to destroy it over the past 25 years - in favour of centralised systems.

I understand your comment - and the theory behind it. It’s something like the ‘Benevolent Dictator’ model. But in reality it simply never works - people are people, and we have biases and prejudices and ultimately act in our own self interest. Regulated liberal capitalism works because regulations are set by elected leaders - the playing field is set, and self interest works out the rest. I’m this scenario - Qld reds are motivated to pick the best coach and players they can afford, or else they go broke & / or get relegated- In other words they are aligned to the same outcome - team success and marketability. Where as in the centralised system, they can pick their mate, the crap coach, because they are always going to be bailed out if it goes pear shaped - as per rebels, reds and for a short while, Perth.

Yeah, LBJ, what my idea would do, is create direction... There would still be very much the competition between states/clubs whatever. But players are all centrally contracted, coaches are all centrally contracted... I mean ultimately everything relies on administrators doing the right thing, but surely if RA was in charge, someone with a 30% win record like Richard Graham, doesn't get the gig at the Reds, TWICE, and ruin the most successful Australian team at the time? But not only ruin the team, but the actual whole franchise itself, through loss of membership, loss of sponsorship, loss of everything... But then again, maybe they would have hired Graham anyway... again, I just want good administrators, making good decisions.

From an outsider looking in, the whole rugby structure in Australia needs to be blown up and re-started. Plenty of Aussie rugby haters are loving this. Castle, Clyne won't solve anything. Participation will continue to fall and Super Rugby will continue to experience irrelevancy in Australia. Couldn't ask for a better set of circumstances for the NRL, AFL etc... They are laughing at Rugby Australia's totally inept administration. Hopefully the AFL continues to make inroads into the private school system in NSW.

TWAS, as I said yesterday I look forward to your upcoming written piece about why John O’Neill and Justin Harrison’s opinions that agree with 95% of people on here are ‘dumb’. Until then your ranting and raving towards 95% of the people portrays you as someone losing control, who has too much time on their hands and lacking in credibility.

As I said yesterday that you have deflected again, John ONeill and Justin Harrison have been calling for exactly what 95% of posters on here you describe as being dumb. Your arrogance is of the extreme. Now as I asked yesterday I look forward to your upcoming article explaining why these two highly experienced rugby minds have got it all wrong. It is easy to be a troll but you should back up your opinions on 95% of people on here with a well worded Roar article article as to why we all have it so wrong. Until you do that your comments lack credibility.

LBJ we have to consider that outside the Wallabies, there hasn't ever been much rugby popularity in Australia. It's something that needs to be built from scratch. And without Wallaby revenue there's no money to try and do it. It's a classic catch 22. Places like France have had a tribal following that Australia only seems to have for AFL in Victoria.

95% of the commentators on here are dumb. How else would you describe somebody who claims they have solutions, but makes no consideration of things like the constitution that needs to be worked within?

Greg Martin and Alan Jones experts? HAHAHA Greg Martin said Phil Kearns should be CEO. Rod McQueen hasn't been quoted. John O'Neill didn't say anything about independent. George Gregan hasn't called for an independent review or even a review. He has said framework needs to be changed. You're reading people lobbing grenades (or some making measured and reasonable comments) that don't align with what you are saying, and just interpreting it how you want. A bunch of people are calling for all different things. The only consistency is that they are inconsistent with each other. I never called any of them dumb. I called the posters on here. The ones like you that read my clarification and then just continue on with what you wanted to say before it. Why listen when you've got a barrow to push, right?

TWAS in today’s newspapers both Wally Mason and Jamie Pandaram are now calling for exactly the same, a review by others outside RA and a change of the guard. So we can add them to that list of 95%! Throw in many experts like Greg Martin, Alan Jones, John ONeill, Rod McQueen, Justin Harrison, and our most experienced half back in George Gregan…..but according to you, they are all dumb, and you have higher knowledge. How about you write an article on here explaining why 95% of commentators on here and those in the industry have dumb comments? Your arrogance is how RA and the sport in this country got into this mess. You do yourself great disservice and your commentary on here lacks credibility.

Is he reviewing 2019? Or Cheika's tenure?

If the game re-builds it's going to re-build around QLD and NSW where the strength. Just like it did the first time. Why will they not act in solely their own interest next time around? Because a bunch of people think something without an reason, why should it be given any credibility?

Deflection? I answered your question. What I said was dumb was in reference to the comments here.

Clyne was the Chairman when he was re-signed. He wasn't when Cheika was singed initially. Clyne, the board and CEO's decision in May 2016 should be scrutinised. Was a 4 year contract unusual? At the same time Hansen was appointed for four years. Warren Gatland was signed to the end of 2019 in December 2013. Joe Scmidt was signed to the end of 2019 in October 2016. England appointed Jones to a 4 year deal in 2015. So no. The term of the contract was not at all unusual. Was the salary reasonable? We can't comment. Reports suggest Jones is on 750,000 GBP, Gatland 450,000 GBP. Joe Schmidt is on a package worth up to 850,000 EU a year with all potential bonuses. So the market for tier 1 international coaches is high. So we don't know. Apparently Cheika is on somewhere around $1M. More than Gatland. Less than Jones and Schmidt. Where there good alternatives? It's a pretty competitive market. When Cheika was first appointed, Jake White was available. However when he was re-signed White was at Montpellier for at least another year. He also then left on bad terms. So was the term reasonable? In the context of international coaches. Yes. Were there alternatives? Maybe. Outside Jake White who wasn't actually available until mid to late 2017, I don't think any good options. Cotter or White may have been available. Cotter is also apparently on 3M EU at Montpellier now. Aus Rugby could not afford to pay that for a coach that has achieved less than Cheika though. Should they have included KPI's or Options? Sure. But if I am Michael Cheika, why do I want to sign a contract that locks me in for 4 years, but can see me sacked in 2? I'm no better off than a 2 year contract. Worse off in fact. If I do well, in 2 I'll be worth more but I'm locked in for less. If I don't i'm out on my behind anyway. All downside.

Nice deflection TWAS, albeit rather too obvious.

Unfortunately you seem to be the only one who thinks that suggestion is laughable TWAS. Where are the old boys brigades in Qld and NSW going to get their support from?

Really? Doesn't she have to be the choice of the board, of which Clyne holds a single vote?