I wasn’t going to write to The Roar about Raelene Castle stepping down, but upon reading the article by the nameless person called ‘The Crowd’ yesterday, I felt another point of view should be put forward.
There have been several articles recently, suggesting the discontent over the Rugby Australia Board various CEOs is only a new thing. I believe there has been serious disquiet about the direction of rugby and lack of support for the clubs and grassroots rugby for the past ten years or more.
The total abandonment of the AIS coaching program, the crazy of purchase of NRL players, the shrinking of the talent pool of serious rugby players has for years set the path for today’s chaos.
Many serious and well-informed people have attempted to discuss and change the Rugby Australia Board’s direction. In most cases, the Board doesn’t even acknowledge letters or requests for meetings.
The RA Board is a closed shop, not wanting to discuss matters with anyone. The Captain’s letter has simply brought the dysfunction and arrogance to a head. Last year, I was involved in a survey of about 600 clubs Australia wide.
Among the questions asked, was one about the level of satisfaction with Rugby Australia, 100 per cent of respondents said there were dissatisfied.
The Board has insulated itself by implementing a constitution which takes away any involvement of the rugby community, by this I mean, people can only become part of the Board if they are not affiliated with a rugby club. This seems to me to be the wrong criteria for running rugby.
The captain’s letter was not calling for Raelene Castle’s head, it asked for the RA Board to stand down and installation of an independent and knowledgeable committee to review the structure of rugby. Anyone afraid or not supportive of this approach must have an ulterior motive.
Rugby people should not be afraid of programs that work and support the captain’s initiative to implement an interim panel for a total review and restructure of rugby in Australia.
The experiment with bankers and professional board sitters has failed miserably, in Saturday’s SMH Malcolm Knox makes some ridiculous comments but he does say ‘full steam ahead to 1991’. The reason 1991 and the following ten years were successful is that they reaped the benefits of the AIS training program that John O’Neil disbanded at the beginning of his reign.
I suggest the interim panel in their research look to the past, such as the years leading up to 1991 to see what programs were involved, that lead to the success of the 1991 Rugby World Cup win and consequent years of successful rugby.
They were policies and programs instituted for rugby, by rugby people. Fancy that!
Stunned
Guest
That's a lot of money to someone to run a century old sporting body into bankruptcy. It just is not worth the money. You need to produce results to be on that sort of money.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Yes, you still have to use the search function to find something, and in this case the new site's link to the pdf of the Plan now works. You still have to go to issuu to look at the Annual Reports page by page. Either it is yet another failure of the administration compared to most other websites or they do not want to make it easy to find out anything. Take your pick, neither is satisfactory.
Malotru
Roar Rookie
Hello Muglair, I searched under Rugby Australia strategic plan from memory. In the few times I've looked for things on the RA site I've found it difficult to negotiate. Cheers, Uncle
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
There's all sorts of problems, not just the board and constitution. Didn't you change the constitution ten years ago and most of the board more recently? Hasn't solved the problem. Constant change means you don't build anything, you need a proper strategy and plan. And are better qualified people available and wanting to replace the guys you want to chop? I've not seen any evidence. Start from square one? What if some things are worth building on? What about the underage programme which is producing good players? Or other improvements mentioned on The Roar. It would be foolish to ignore them.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Website has been relaunched I think. The link to the pdf at the bottom of this article now works https://australia.rugby/about/about-us/strategic-vision The links to the Annual Reports which are still on issuu are at the bottom of this page https://australia.rugby/about/about-us/governance
Muglair
Roar Rookie
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/amateur-hour-returns-as-castle-crumbling-sends-rugby-back-to-the-past-20200424-p54mtn.html
Muglair
Roar Rookie
JD I have to admit at now being unhappy about being forced to read this shit again. I did not think it added any sense to the discussion at all and a lot of the statements are actually just bullshit, cobbled together so he can sling off at who he wanted, in the manner he wanted. To the credit of Roarers most of our bitter arguments are conducted in reasonably civil tones. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/amateur-hour-returns-as-castle-crumbling-sends-rugby-back-to-the-past-20200424-p54mtn.html
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I get your comment on "amusing". That address is your computer I think. Did you follow the link on the RA website that took you to an e magazine site. Or did you find it on the RA site, I have tried so many times. There is a different version which is the same guts but a different format and also a different perspective on the Newcastle Hunter rugby website. I could only find the Annual Reports on the e-magazine site and they are difficult to analyse as far as shifting targets and objectives. Progress against the key benchmarks such as TV ratings, attendances and membership are not clearly disclosed at all.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I think we need to go back to square 1. Castle is a either a victim or a symptom, take your pick. The problem is with the constitution and the board. If not now after this self inflicted crisis then when?
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Hi cs The Constitution determines the nominations committee of 4; the chairman, one other nominated by the board and 2 nominated by the RA voting members i.e. states SR franchises and RUPA. In practice I think the nominations committee is effectively controlled by the board so that only directors acceptable to the board are nominated for election at the AGM. My view is that only people who will not rock the boat are nominated, and at least this year, not even a group of possible alternatives to be voted on, but the number required to fill the vacancies. All very cosy.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Nah disagree. Years ago definitely, but today the AIS doesn’t necessarily offer better coaching. Rugby S&C has advanced dramatically, and I’d agree coaches across multiple sports wouldn’t offer better coaching. When the program existed it was a time where our provincial teams (And most importantly also our opponents) basically didn’t have S&C coaching.
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
I don't know Knox or have a SMH subscription, but even if he has a bad attitude or wrote a low quality article it doesn't mean that the Ten and their allies are helping Aussie rugby. Indeed plenty of rugby lovers above and below the line on The Roar and elsewhere have made very well reasoned arguements to the contrary.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Uncle Eric I must admit I skimmed over that and missed it or ignored it. I can imagine a survey of all clubs would be just the thing the 'corporate' RA board would do. I am staggered the results were released. Maybe they sent them back to the clubs that participated? RUSS RUSS RUSS OVER HERE Tell us more about the survey
Muglair
Roar Rookie
As my comment on the more recent post TWAS, in relation to Viduka’s comments re soccer at the AIS. Possibly just inadequate replacements. I can see the advantages of academies in cost savings and convenience. I can also see how the higher numbers of players going through a lower quality program in five different locations does not provide the best development opportunity. That is possibly what happened with soccer.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
We get the politicians we deserve and we get the rugby administrators we deserve. Personally I was disappointed with her performance and I think rugby has developed low expectations of its CEOs and Chairs. However, the problem is not Castle and I have heard nobody complain about her integrity or character. She just accepted the job and I assume did her best, but as per Russ' article the problem is with the Board. They hired her, they judged her performance to be worthy of a bonus, they either were satisfied with her performance or asleep at the wheel. It was not very professional to assure her that her job was safe prior to a media interview, and then that it was not after the interview. Assuming RC's version is true she was thrown under the bus by McLean and the board. Flip side might be that she had not kept the board informed and sprung it on McLean inconveniently between meetings. That was messy, and shit happens, but I am concerned that the Board since choose to say all was well but she had to go because of the toxic bullying behaviour. They need to step up to the plate pretty quickly or they are going to alienate pretty much everyone. Itself an incredible achievement since the supporter base has been increasingly unable to agree on anything.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
There is definitely a fracture there and the professional side has not: - figured out what the right pathway is for players and seems incapable of understanding differing rates of maturity and development - made any constructive attempt to connect club supporters with the NRC or SR. I really think a lot could be done but think there are too many people paid to promote the professional rugby as some sort of event when they have no idea why a rugby supporter will attend games. FFS is it really true that rugby supporters do not want to watch skilful players from their own club advance by playing against other skillful players? The consequent resentment of the elite by the so called 'grass roots' is understandable, even before they started to have to pay for everything anyway. If we focus on the quality of rugby, the quality of opportunity for aspiring places and connect rugby supporters with higher levels of rugby the commercial stuff will take care of itself. You get the strategy right and the product right you either hire one gun (instead of 20 wannabees) or get the right consultant to negotiate the deal. That is a better result than trying to get some director on the board for 3x3 years before you figured out what you needed to do and what skills were needed to do it.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Great article Russ. I had two separate attempts at starting to read Knox's article. Eventually forced myself for a 3rd. It is not compulsory to love rugby, but you should not write crap with a chip on your shoulder. Are there a lot of them at the SMH, could be a breeding program going?
Realist
Guest
Haha good pickup
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Would be good to know the details of that TWAS. This was one of Viduka's biggest criticisms of soccer. His generation went through the AIS and he was suggesting it was a super intense hothouse. If it was the same in rugby I could understand that the various academies and pathway programs would not have the same level of intensity. Something is banging in my head that there has been AIS involvement in more recent years but maybe it is just a facility for camps etc.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
“ we (the majority of rugby fans on The Roar) have set out reasoned arguements why we don’t think that recent events will help rugby in Australia and we believe that the campaign has been poorly conceived and distasteful. Similarly, rugby players and fans in New Zealand are aghast at how the Ten and their allies have gone about this.” And we could add Andrew Slack and the majority of post 1980 Wallaby captains to that number too JD. But that won’t temper the anger/disappointment/alienation of certain ‘certain’ folk here.