A representative of the Rugby Australia board and the unhappy group of former Wallabies captains are set to meet this week as the troubled code tries to find unity.
The ten former Wallabies skippers sent a letter expressing their discontent over the state of rugby in Australia to RA last week, a few days before chief executive Raelene Castle stood down.
They said Australian rugby had lost its way and had suffered from poor administration and leadership over a number of years and called for new vision, leadership and a plan for the future.
Prior to the letter finding its way into the public domain through the media, RA chairman Paul McLean extended an invitation to the group to meet with his organisation and Monday appears to represent the first step in formal dialogue between the two parties.
The captain’s blueprint includes the establishment of an Australian Rugby Review board.
It would likely comprise of a delegate each from the ACT Brumbies, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Melbourne Rebels and Western Force, two or three from Rugby Australia, one from RUPA and up to eight other appointments.
“It’s about empowering fresh thinking from all the member unions and all the stakeholders to basically use this as an opportunity to get it right,” said Stirling Mortlock, one of the signatories of the letter to RA.
Rugby Union Players’ Association CEO Justin Harrison has endorsed the concept.
“There’s been discontent across a lot of levels of the game,” Harrison said on the ABC’s The Ticket.
“What we are simply asking for is that there is a real effort to formulate an Australian rugby sort of review committee for want of a better description.
“They must develop a review that will report to the game and not just to the board of Rugby Australia, where they will cherry-pick what they believe is right for them.
“The committee will report to the state unions, the associated members, the community clubs, schools and partners, the committee is obligated to report to everyone.”
Harrison said the proposes review organ was part of the root and branch reform and transformation of the game RUPA called for after it thrashed out an interim wages deal with RA last week.
Current players also see the situation as an opportunity to implement change, as RA looks to deal with a potentially massive financial shortfall caused by the coronavirus pandemic and still has to negotiate a new broadcast deal.
“Our immediate focus was just this pay deal but there’s clearly an opportunity now to change the game in various ways and these guys (the captains) obviously see a way to do that,” Rebels and Wallabies playmaker Matt Toomua told AAP.
“It’s interesting that’s for sure. Rugby has always been a sport that has very public administrative issues.
“I think you’ve got to be careful sometimes of the devil you don’t know than the one you do.
“Having an actual plan and a way forward would be my suggestion, but these guys are much smarter than me and I’m sure they’ve thought that out.”
Best way to set up a committee is to appoint neutral people, maybe have three kiwi’s, three South Africans and three Argentinian guys, oh wait, that sounds more a a bar joke. Well, I am actually serious, have them interview and investigate. You need guys with no hidden agendas
AndyS
Guest
At the moment, I doubt you'd even get consensus on whether it ought to be the game as it was/is, or the game as it could/should be (and even what that might represent). But whichever they pick will largely decide the future.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Interesting thought TWAS. But then it's 1 vote for the NT, 3 votes for Qld, 5 votes for NSW etc. (Numbers are examples only.) Then there may be the perception of block voting so that Qld and NSW get the outcomes that they want, not what is necessarily good for the national game. This is a perception that rugby should be actively challenging. Clubs and States can run themselves and will always look to the level above for help and guidance. What we have to start doing is acknowledge that it's not always going to go our way, we must be prepared to compromise or even give in for the moment and look to the greater good. Finally, I fear, too many people on too many committees equals too many decisions not being made. Then there's some long winded old bugger throwing too many words around.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Some strong words from Andrew Slack below who said he may have considered signing the letter if it had any solutions: ‘Among those who signed are some who have done absolutely zero for the code since they were the feted ones showing off their talents on the field and getting nicely recompensed for their efforts,” Slack wrote. “I have no issue with that. We all make our choices as to how we spend our time once retired from the game, and it does not deny the right to have an opinion, but it does make it less easy to accept their legitimacy for a ticket on this Captain’s Bandwagon.”
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
BF, What if we had say 9 board members? And maybe they report to stakeholders with votes based on how much of the rugby public they represent? Maybe 16 votes? Maybe the state unions, franchises and RUPA? What if we did something like that?
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Exactly RR. 17-18 would be far too big, so they keep it down to the 8-9 specifically mentioned nominees and they have their easily manipulated, self interested, professional playing majority on the review.
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
A committee of up to 18 members, what are the chances of getting ANY decision, sensible or otherwise, out of committee that big??!! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
“The committee will report to the state unions, the associated members, the community clubs, schools and partners, the committee is obligated to report to everyone.” I thought this was already the responsibility of the Board of RA, as well as reporting to ASIC and the Australian Sports Commission. Why does this sound like a kingdom building exercise by someone who couldn't get a nomination on to the Board but thinks they know better? And the make-up of the review panel? "It would likely comprise of a delegate each from the ACT Brumbies, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Melbourne Rebels and Western Force, two or three from Rugby Australia, one from RUPA and up to eight other appointments." Don't be misled. Mentioned first are delegates from the five professional teams and RUPA. So 6 delagates representing 192 players. Then 2 or 3 from RA, the organisation tasked with representing the interests of all the players, coaches, administrators and volunteers affiliated with the QRU, NSWRU, VRU etc. Then UP TO 8 other appointments. Are these appointments from the state unions representing all the senior and junior clubs across our nation, or are they nominated/invited by those vested interests already on the Review panel? Captains, just because you had skills that had you selected into the Wallabies and made some tactical decisions on a patch of grass in an 80 minute time frame, doesn't give you the right to demand anything, let alone a review panel. In fact you should be more responsible with your comments, suggestions and demands and realise the impact this has on those who gave you your opportunities in the first place, the Rugby public.
Richie
Roar Rookie
At this particular point in time I’m not sure why these squeaky ex captains are being given oil.
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
“Having an actual plan and a way forward would be my suggestion, but these guys are much smarter than me and I’m sure they’ve thought that out.” Yeah, maybe and nah, in that order.
hog
Roar Rookie
“They must develop a review that will report to the game and not just to the board of Rugby Australia, where they will cherry-pick what they believe is right for them. Now that would be a good start.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I’ve read about this. I’m struggling to see how this proposal as anything more than a board filled with the same type people that sit on the RA board, expect more of them.