Raelene Castle cannot be forced out as a sacrificial scapegoat to save the board and other management.
No business can so consistently ignore and disenfranchise its customer base, yet RA continues to treat players, supporters and its RA members (state unions, Super Rugby franchises and RUPA) with disdain.
Rugby union was the first professional sport to close down, and the last to announce anything. To not even have spoken to the players, and apparently actively avoiding meetings, is a disgrace from both a moral and employer viewpoint.
After John O’Neill left rugby, he enjoyed significant success in football, where a government-led review had installed a new governance structure, delivering effective control to the very benevolent dictator Frank Lowy. Together they undeniably did great things.
Perhaps he thought it could be replicated and, after his return to rugby, a former politician was commissioned to conduct a review. The result was a new constitution brought into being, supposedly reflecting a global trend of running sport on business principles with corporate-style governance structures and independent directors.
I am not sure there was compelling evidence that Australian rugby had not been administered in a business-like and prudent manner, or if it was, why this would be a better structure.
The report identified the base of volunteers and fans as rugby’s greatest asset. The changes to the structure of the game has diminished and ignored them.
The result is a RA board and management that is not accountable to anyone. While its RA members might theoretically be able to exert authority, it is unlikely that they would be able to agree on a dramatic course.
All RA members are financially dependent on RA and are run by sporting administrators who are not going to rock the boat, possibly affecting future career prospects in rugby or other sports.
Notably missing from the RA corporate-style governance structure is any hint of continuous disclosure. Rugby fans (and players apparently) are mushrooms and have been disenfranchised.
This has been reflected by the falls in sponsorship, ratings, attendances and memberships at the elite level. At the same time support for grassroots has increased in Sydney and Brisbane while rugby in other regions continues to thrive wherever it is played.
(AAP Image/Joel Carrett)
Under the current governance structure, we are committed to appointing high-profile corporate types, too many of which have no grounding in the sport and are unlikely to rock the boat. I like hearing the good sense of Justin Harrison, a smart rugby man with the interests of the sport and players at heart.
A board of seven Justins and Justines from around the country and from different eras would provide a stack of robust diversity, which will more likely drag us out of this hole. Instead, I suspect that having no rugby affiliations is considered a plus in the nominations process.
Ironically these governance structures are falling out of fashion with changes already made to the structure of FFA and A-League, and a strong push to restructure the NRL.
In the corporate world, the Banking Royal Commission has exposed many boardroom problems around culture, governance and the lack of critical industry knowledge on the part of independent directors.
The only way forward is for RA to build a new constitution, which makes boards and management responsible to the rugby fraternity.
That hands the future of the game back to its constituents and will go a long way towards mending the disenfranchisement of fans and the consequent loss of revenues. This is a modern-day variant of no taxation without representation.
Consideration should be given to the following principles.
1. Sport is not a business. It is firstly for the players but then must be conducted on generally accepted financial principles. Income must be greater than expenses. This is particularly so for rugby, which is almost purely a sport for players with the vast majority of any rugby crowd comprising players, ex-players, friends and family. In short, people who understand the rules and ethos of the game.
2. Rugby supporters are a valuable marketing segment with global reach. We have allowed the value of it to be diminished by reducing it to a numbers game, just like rugby league. Furthermore, the supporters are its main customers so fragmenting the supporter base has crippled revenues.
3. One national body to streamline governance, significantly cut costs and embed a single purpose. Does rugby really need as many layers of government as the rest of the country?
4. Bolt on supporters by using the rugby ID as an identifier throughout the game with voting rights attached to memberships of rugby clubs. If I am a member of the two clubs I played for, my son’s club and the Waratahs, then I should get four votes, simultaneously boosting the finances of clubs, traditionally poor at retaining ex-players as financial members.
Rugby in Australia needs a shake-up after Raelene Castle’s departure. (AAP Image/Dan Himbrechts)
There are several ways forward, although the future cannot be left in the hands of a board under the current constitution.
Whether you like Foxtel or not, think that their offer was fair or not, or believe a better deal was possible or not is immaterial. There is no deal and no source of income secured.
Having said that, there should be no fear in the insolvency of RA. The game, its players and supporters will be ready to kick off again later this year or in 2021.
Rebuilding governance structures and the elite representative game is well within the capability of many women and men currently working in rugby, mostly on a volunteer basis.
Immediate financial support is probably available from World Rugby, but it needs to be conditional on appropriate restructuring of RA.
The alternatives are these.
1. Liquidation, which would result in World Rugby agreeing to appointing an interim management to oversee establishing a new entity with a new constitution. While in theory debts could be extinguished, rugby goodwill generally will require RA commitments to be honoured by the new entity.
2. Administration would require appointment of a voluntary administrator, who would work with the current board or its successors to implement the new constitution.
3. Use the safe harbour provisions to restructure RA with a new constitution and management structure without an insolvency appointment.
In all of the above, intense involvement will be required by rugby people with the necessary influence and credibility to carry the massive changes required. At this stage Paul McLean may be a key person, as well as the various captains and leaders who have taken prominent positions in the recent past.
Parochialism must be parked at the door.
Castle should never have been picked in the first place. She was a symptom, not the problem.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Why do you think that Robyn? Off the top of my head the two big things around 2007 RWC is that it became clear too many players were past their use by date and there was a shallow pool of coaching talent. The obvious consequence of the player issue was real blockages in pathways and alot of young players were heading overseas. I suppose the 4th SR team and the NRC were at least partly in response to that. When Jones was sacked, my opinion was there were no real long term options. Connolly was available as a very safe pair of hands to manage the interim and then we looked overseas for an answer. Note that many supporters complained he should have had the job many years earlier when in his prime. Either way, only a couple of coaches who could have managed the test team is way too few. To be honest I was not really paying much attention to the administration of the ARU at the time and think they were just a lot less prominent than in the last five years. A bit like referees, sporting administrators are probably at their best when not noticed. The first attempt at the NRC was a disaster on multiple fronts and cannot be labelled as anything other than financially profligate and a rugby disappointment. It would be interesting to hear others' opinions on that period. Possibly it was a turning point in administration of the game.
robyn
Guest
Pretty sure RA was in trouble since... nearly 13 years ago.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I think that is why we need to make haste slowly. Rushing to appoint a new CEO will be a big mistake. Castle's first step was to consult widely including grass roots etc. The right step but nothing further was ever said or done. I think it needs to be done exhaustively to figure out what to do next. If you were turning around a failing business, you first need to stabilise and then redefine or confirm vision, mission and values. Then define strategy and objectives, execute, monitor and adapt. Through that process, and dependent on circumstances, both new capital and management are usually required to successfully complete the turnaround.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
That exact thought had crossed my mind. I think with Rennie, Johnson is consciously stepping away from the past. Instead of a superstar coach and anonymous assistants, we have a football team with Johnson as Director and then a very strong, well credentialed Australian coaching team around Rennie. Their legacy, if there is one, is the playing and coaching structures they leave behind them. Darren Kane wrote an interesting article today in SMH about the NRL's need for a superstar CEO. That is another topic but one of the lessons is that rugby should not be seeking a superstar CEO. There is much common purpose amongst the rugby base and ten times as much talent, brains and experience than is required for the game to be successful. Hiring a $1.5m superstar just gives us another outsider trying to tell us we do not understand what needs to be done, before setting off on their journey, not bothering to look back and see who is following. We just need a team at the top to consult, listen and guide the rugby community.
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
Great points and I especially like that about the 'independent directors'. Sports admins have some similarities to political parties. If you don't have deep roots of your own in the existing structures (which give you mutual chains of patronage and obligations - a direct power base), you will always be vulnerable to people who do. For Dave Rennie, like Robbie Deans, or any 'outside' appointment (whether as coach, or in admin - sot his includes someone like Castle), lacking those deep connections and a base of your own you become reliant on someone else backing you and vulnerable if that link can be severed. Similar to Turnbull in the Libs, perhaps. Although Turnbull wasn't a total outsider and he could fight a brutal game (just ask his predecessor, King, in Wentworth) he lacked the organisational roots of people like Abbott, Morrison et al. He was really reliant on the backing of others to hold him up. I have said before that I thought Rennie was a fine coach but for his sake I doubted if the move to Oz would be a good one for him because of his vulnerability on the political front. He is now really vulnerable and if the rebuild doesn't enjoy very early success he will be under huge pressure. This may warp what should be a 2-3 year project that should be going deep into our grass roots coaching structures, our funding models, how the game is promoted and what we promote and so on. There will be initial support for Rennie but how deep will it run? Desperately hope I am wrong and whatever their connections to the Dirty Digger, there are good people on the other side of this, so maybe it will all turn out for the best, but it is a really bad start to the Rennie era, after some promising developments (coaching squad at the national level, successful U20 side).
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Great article. Cheers KP
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks SC, and you are only hitting on a number of the big issues. It will be a big letdown if the current board do not go a lot further with renewal and then make no progress on the big problems in front of them.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Thank you for this exhaustive response. And I think you may have only scratched the surface of the head miles necessary for such a shift, which may partly explain why it hasn’t been widely discussed or attempted. “ I have some ideas but have no clue what it looks like. That is why I think it would be impossible for the “captains” to give a two sentence answer on what they will do to “fix the problems”. This observation is big signal of the political vacuum in Australian rugby governance. “We have a powerful faction and we know we want change. We just can’t agree on what the change is”
The real SC
Roar Rookie
A fantastic article there Mug. I know that Rugby Australia has been in downfall with the sacking of Israel folau, low ratings, sponsorship, attendances and a dismal World Cup campaign.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thank you
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thank you
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks mzilikazi I advanced this a little with KCOL below. It will be a very large and complex exercise to come up with the answer but I do think the end result will be a simpler and more transparent structure. I live by that rule in business. If the you do not deal in complexity and detail setting something up, then the result will not be simple to understand and execute, especially if it is intended to be used for a considerable time.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks Andrew. I agree and think that the frustration of being unable to have any constructive contribution or avenue for complaint is the chief cause for the bitter anger and division in the rugby community. Not just NSW v Qld but hundreds of divisive issues so that no one rugby supporter is in full agreement with another. No wonder the "captains" or the Board can come up with concise objectives or solutions to our current mess. KCOL and I picked up on this in a bit more detail below.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks Sinclair, I may have escaped such criticism but it could be because I was not subjected to much scrutiny either. I am big on the 'sport' and 'business' thing because probably 'the business of sport' is a better description and I believe one adopted by the best run organisations. What I do see is the indiscriminate tagging of an issue; when we want approval or a handout it is a 'sport', when we need to disappoint or betray someone it is a 'business'. Obviously that can lead (in any organisation) to confusion about its vision, mission and values. The problem is the "independent" directors. In an ASX business it just means Non Executive and we have seen over the last five years problems coming up because insufficient directors with the appropriate industry experience and connection. Rugby has doubled down by preferring directors with no existing deep connections to rugby. A cynic might suggest that the intention was to entrench management influence.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
You make me think again Ken, another little piece. Rugby started in NSW and indeed Queensland disappeared for a while in the 1920's. Probably why there was the historic NSW 5 seats and Qld 3 seats. Everyone else was added as they went along with one vote. So pre Constitution change everything was a little more ordered. If you were from NSW; Queensland was an irritation and nobody else really mattered (which must have irked ACT and the Brumbies!). Queensland hated NSW and everyone else resented the two big states. We now have chaos, every single issue results in division, but along different fault lines so the support base has been shattered. The community is frustrated because we have no say. The relevance to the question; is that the rugby landscape took its first step of evolution in 100 years in 2016, and it went backwards. I have some ideas but have no clue what it looks like. That is why I think it would be impossible for the "captains" to give a two sentence answer on what they will do to "fix the problems". I was asked in a post on another article which decisions did I think RC was responsible for. I responded that my beef was she did not do anything, starting with her Cook's tour at the start of her employment to consult widely with the rugby community. There has been no announcement or discussion in relation to her findings. Smart enough to do the first important thing but either it was all too hard or her execution skills are poor. This is a whole other topic best left in the past ... My gut feel is that a year will be required to workshop this around the country to at least ensure consultation and to understand the challenges of rugby at all levels. The right answer is a corporate and constitutional structure that meets the needs of a very diverse rugby community. The structure needs to serve the community and be accountable to it. I do think the structure will be a hell of a lot simpler and easier to understand than what has grown like Frankenstein since the first official game in the 19th century.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
A very interesting outlook Muglair. We’ve never really questioned the vertical impotence in this set up. Your piece and Andrew Coorey’s comments make sense. But if adopted, what would the rugby political landscape look like? An electorate?
Armchair Halfback
Roar Rookie
Thanks Mug, excellent stuff!
jeznez
Roar Guru
Fantastic piece Mug.
mzilikazi
Roar Pro
Thanks, Muglair, and well done with your first piece. “There are several ways forward, although the future cannot be left in the hands of a board under the current constitution.” Agree with both elements of this statement. Finding the best way forward is going to be critical for the survival of the game, and that will depend on finding people of integrity, intelligence and vision to both serve as board members, and as advisors to the board.
Andrew Coorey
Guest
Thanks for writing this. I have been in the position at many rugby and corporate events where as MC/Interviewer I have said to this and previous ARU/RA chairs: " if I wanted to serve in the House of Lords, it would be really difficult, but I know how do to it. If I wanted to serve on the ARU/RA board I don't have a clue what the pathway is". ie shareholders elect boards, members elect club committees, voters select politicians, each is a chain of accountability. If the grassroots get together they can make things happen. There is no such connection from elite rugby management to its community. I have volunteered at my club for 30+ years, played in a Shute Shield club for 12, been off and on a Waratah season ticket holder. Never been asked to vote for or against anyone ever except within my own club when I was playing. So when the natives are restless ( pardon the out of date phrase) who at the top gets edgy and looks to process their concerns. Or looks to make public statements to bridge the expectation gap? No one. There is no reason to do so.