Clarke promises to stamp out RA factions

Arad: you could be right but you know the old saying about the 'greater good'!

If something has value, there will be an attempt to control it. Factions are the results of organising control. The only way to eliminate factions would be to rèduce the value. The alternative is to accept it, embrace it, control it.

Reading between the lines, I think what he means is he is going to be a dictator and all factions shall answer to him. That's what Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China did, unite the warring factions, but that's after he conquered all of them.

"Clarke promises to stamp out RA factions"

This tells me this Clarke fella is either dim or an amateur comedian. I have been entertained by the many rugby factions and their shifting alliances for 50 adult years, they were well established in business long before that and they will endure for decades to come no matter what. I read here that Rugby Australia's recently sacked incompetent office manager was paid $840,000 per annum, a recent bonus for no good reason of $120,000 and severance of unspecified generosity. These "professional" managers - carpetbaggers Clarke, Castle and Pulver - have profited handsomely from an organisation that had no idea what it was doing, while they fiddled about at the margin and rode it into the ground. One wonders just how much directors Hawker, Clyne, McLean, Waugh, Robinson, Elizabeth Broderick, Eales, Pip Marlowe, Geoffrey Stooke, Ann Sherry, Gavin, Shaw, Coolican etc voted to pay each other during the last five years while the union nosedived and they strutted about, knowingly oblivious. Just a few years ago the wunderkind, three "superstars" of limited ability, were drawing about $2.5 million a year, thrust at them by the ARU as it accelerated towards bankruptcy. They were each paid more than the All Blacks captain and their first five who, unlike any of them, was issued a 10 jersey permanently. Why is a mystery, given they won less than 20% of their matches against these blokes – it is an excellent illustration of just how utterly distorted the view was at the top of the Australian game. The game does not deserve to survive beyond the honest efforts at Club rugby level, which is not sufficiently wealthy for greed to survive.

Yes customers. Westpac report to their shareholders, not their customers. If the Wallabies and Super Rugby teams are winning does anybody talk about this stuff? Of course not hence why when JON was doing nothing for the future nobody was saying a word.

That is right TWAS, they can do what they like. But supporters are paying customers and they are a smaller number every year. Perhaps RA should rethink this because their financial situation is destined not to improve until they return to amateur days. It is no way to run a successful organisation but I am very pleased for you that you are so happy about it.

I did not say that TWAS, I just noted that the board make up started changing in nature from that date, and in my opinion hit rock bottom and has started coming back up again. Obviously peak cash was 2003 and we have gone backward from there. The Lions might have seen a financial improvement but that has nothing to do with ARU/RA administration. The value of the game has been in decline since at least 2005/06 or around there. No administration has made any sustained adding of value in response to that trend.

.. no North shore is OK I guess, at least not common criminals.

To me, the only way to start to get rid of the factions is to change the voting process. Maybe have each body allowed one vote i.e one for NSW, one for Qld, one for the ACT and so on. That way NSW and Qld can't use their votes to get what they want ahead of what may be required.

The Optus deal will not happen because the company has told the SMH it can't do a deal within the next 12 months. In my opinion, the decision to reject a Fox Sports deal by Raelene Castle will go down as one of the worst decisions taken by a Rugby Australia CEO. Fox had made a second offer to Castle that was high by any standards. When Castle rejected it. The offer was immediately taken off the table. There are suggestions that any offer Fox Sports makes now that it is the only possible bidder could be a third or half of what the second offer was. As one of the ancient Greek philosophers said: 'Whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad.'

Well without that what's his purpose of not acting impartially? You refuse to consider that his true motivation for his actions were that assessing all the facts he had, that was best for RA at the time. I'm more than willing to consider somebody may act in an untoward way, in the race of life always back self interest, at least you know it's trying. But nothing suggests there was any gain. In which case why has he lied/acted with bias, etc? He's not a cleanskin, on the basis he acted improperly, which is purely an unsubstantiated claim, rather than an established fact. You're claiming he did something wrong, or dishonest. I'm making assumptions about what you think his motivation was, because you keep making claims which can't be proven (and not saying that you and I have access to anything that would), but nothing to even indicate any motive for him to do so. Other than, to benefit somewhere he once worked? I actually recall Spiro Zavos penning an article in 2017 making strong accusations about Rob Clarke, who responded personally in the comments, and then the article was magically taken down, likely to avoid being accused of slander.

Touche re the galloping greens! Not sure if I'm still classed as a criminal having grown up on the lower Nth Shore of Sydney but escaped to Perth 14 yrs ago? If the cap fits I guess...

His true motivation for helping the Rebels (over a period of time as we know) would make great reading, I have never suggested that it was to obtain a consultancy role after he resigned, that was you who misrepresented it in order to run a counter argument... Won't bother going on with this as you seem hell bent on misconstruing for the sake of being argumentative. Original point is that he's not a 'cleanskin' per se, be it perception or reality... Your hanging out behind the pyramids in 'deNile' if you believe otherwise :)

Cheers, homework for the weekend!

What I mean is Clarke didn't make a decision, he didn't act on anything. He was tasked with preparing an analysis/recommendation. He did that. He really presented an option/his view to the board. If the board felt it was flawed they could have chosen to disregard it. They took it and considered it the best way to proceed, and proceeded with that after he left.

I said at the time I thought the board was driven by a self interest of not being a director of an insolvent entity. That does not mean a binary choice to avoid being insolvent. In fact my view at the time was it placed rugby considerations last and was a value destroying decision. Look where we are now. Maybe choosing to go to three teams would have been better but they would have had their eyes on hanging on to the income (minimising the risk of insolvency) and playing four teams. A lot of work to restructure things to try and remediate damage to WA and Melbourne. Maybe they would have been happier if both of them went, not one. In most businesses you minimise the risk of insolvency by maximising the value of the business. As far as I am concerned that is a consistent RA fail. "Execute" may have been a contextual fail under the circumstances; followed a lawful instruction of the Board and CEO.

You have a completely out of kilter view of what you are entitled to know. The member unions certainly have some rights, but they are the same member unions that have allowed the boards at the time to continue. The board has responsibilities. Those are to the member unions. Not you and I.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/04/24/the-future-of-rugby-union-in-australia/ https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/05/08/is-it-time-for-us-to-own-the-wallabies/

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/04/24/the-future-of-rugby-union-in-australia/ https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/05/08/is-it-time-for-us-to-own-the-wallabies/

Its done EFF. Rather than adopting a blocking stance that he "can't do the job required" there needs to be clarity over the job he has to do, and it certainly includes that list, and a few more beside. If the Board provide transparency over that, and his progress, then it is obvious to all whether he does a good job or not. I will be clear, as far as I am concerned RC should not have been appointed to the job. She could have proved me wrong, but between her and the Board, and they are equally culpable, nobody is really clear about what she was supposed to achieve and what she did achieve. That vacuum was a clear choice by RA and it was left to Roarers to make all of those assessments. "Keep the peasants bickering" is the textbook name for that strategic approach.