Cheika: I should’ve quit before the World Cup

Well the clubs were really here first and are also quite resilient. In one form or another clubs are like cockroaches. Some eat a bait, others get stomped on but most of them you just can't kill off. Someone else organises international rugby. The two bit in between where there is human interference appear to be a problem.

Mug that is most probably due to the fact that they grew organically and both NRC and ARC was built to solve a problem without fully understanding what the solution would end up like or if the punters would support them. In the end both ended up on a spike of reality,

SMI I played over 30 years and we needed a 3rd tier then. Even if you have three really good teams in a competition of 12 they are not playing at a consistently high enough standard with good enough players. The ARC and NRC are just very poor attempts. With too much time to think over the last couple of months it seems to me that the international competition and club competitions are not the problem. The current SR and NRC structures are not a functional pathway between the two right now.

Mug: The Manly v Warrigah is a game I very much enjoyed 2 years ago? as my partner's boys live in Manly now but played rugby for a few years. I don't want to make 3 Sydney teams national. ! would prefer that the major Australian clubs were better supported so that they became good enough to be the primary feeder for SR. The best teams will always attract most support and get the better players who will go on to higher games, that is life. I am not sure about Academies and haven't heard much about their structure etc.

I don't know that we are disagreeing, unless you want the clubs involved on a primary basis. When they had multiple teams in Sydney not tying them to clubs was just unbelievable. As I said they just thought they could throw money at it, or find people who would. If I am a Manly supporter, which team do I watch and support if there are 5 Manly players scattered across three teams. I choose one team and next year there are no Manly players there. You could not make this stuff up. If you want to make 3 Sydney clubs national, then you are creating a 3rd tier anyway because all players go there. It is a huge risk in my view, potentially weakening your two main club competitions and fracturing the supporter base. There is no such thing as "the SS clubs", only noisy ambitious minorities in a minority of clubs. Don't start an ugly brawl by suggesting promotion and relegation :angry:

oz: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12331395 I saw it in SMH but you can only read a couple of articles before they pull the pin.

T-WAS: Quote from SMH. Taken from NZ herald as I don’t have a sub to that left wing rag. Maybe you do? According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Folau settlement – estimated to be around $4 million – is included in the player costs, with half paid by NSW Rugby. Cost of the payout is also included in the $20 million Rugby Australia owes to creditors. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12331395

Mug: We will have to disagree but I think reality is on my side. Both the ARC and the NRC have had dismal attendance and poor TV ratings, I guess as few I know watch it. Had they committed to the clubs initially as the local feeder to SR then we might have had something. They already have links to schools and run the colts that are fed on by the development academies. So I think there are some logical reasons for that road. I suggest that had the clubs been involved there would have been more tribalism and more support for it.

As in they needed to.

"Beg" and "offer" are clearly on either end of the spectrum. When an iconic rugby nation like Australia turns up asking for 10% of your relief fund because they need funding for the next three months I would say "beg" is pretty close to the mark. Especially if you are unable to say you are solvent at the same time.

As in the NRL and AFL are able to stand on their own two feet and obtain commercial funding?

That is complete rubbish. We have always suffered from the lack of a third tier and the Sydney and Brisbane clubs are not it. ARC was extremely poorly thought through, someone just figured they throw money at it and just add water. I think it was a shocking decision, just shirking the hard work the previous administration should have done, that he was criticising them for not doing. The current NRC is better and I presume costing less, but it is not the competition it should be, or needs to be. Overall the administration of rugby has been far less than it deserves for most of its history. Although at least in the old days they were mostly volunteers.

Incredible value? Your proposition was that this is a bad idea because after two years we would be unable to keep a successful coach. If that coach is that fantastic we just got sensational service and the game here moved forward for two years. By the way I don't accept the argument that a successful coach will automatically want to move on, or that it will be impossible to keep him. Solvency. On what planet can Australia afford more stuff ups like these? To afford it requires RA to be in a strong financial position. I don't think it is, or was before COVID. As we slip backwards internationally it might be reasonable to ask why. I am sure if we made better decisions we would be better placed. Quite possibly other countries are far better administered and less likely to keep leaving themselves in such a weak position. Getting Rennie is possibly a great move but it comes to nothing if in 2023 we have to go chasing another star coach because we have not developed any here.

Why have you got unbelievable value? A coach like a player will want a higher value per year deal if they are only signing for 2 years, not 4. When did solvency come into this? You've just randomly added that into this discussion. You're making the same argument that every other naysayer does. "Be damned what we see everybody else do, and the options every other player and coach takes. I'll do something totally different and assume it just works out because I want it to." I'm no expert. But the people who are running teams and national unions that are performing well are closer to it. I'll take what they do over what you think every day of the week.

:happy: I see you are sticking to your guns on RA being solvent and cash flow positive. On balance results are better because you reduce the risk of absolute value destruction when you get it wrong. Well it would be fantastic if you paid top dollar to secure the outcomes you want. The worst case you paint is that he has done such an outstanding job that you cannot afford to keep him. For a start that means you got unbelievable value for the first two years. Then it assumes that even though you are desperate to keep him it is just too costly. Even then you have to assume where he is going has gone down the toilet and they sacked their coach. So our superstar says I have built a contender here but I am off to these losers because they are paying me enough to retire on. I doubt if the salary differentials are such that you would trade from top to bottom. You have deepened my convictions on this and, come to think of it, I thought we should have offered a two year contract this time around as well. Happy with the team Johnson has got though.

So firstly you'd likely pay more to secure a coach without long term security, and then you'd risk losing him halfway through building towards 2023? Better results are not guaranteed. Now if the rest of the world changes how it works then that changes things. But until then, it's a pointless discussion, because they haven't and the best remain contracted long term and until it changes, we live in the same world.

But that's the thing Machiavelli. We have to do the best we can to compete. If we don't secure long term contracts we absolutely have to compete financially to secure decent options. Generally players and coaches across all sports will take less money per year for a long term contract. Which works well because international rugby is built around 4 year cycles. The last thing you want is to lose key personnel at the end of 2021. The real world of employment isn't relevant. The real world of professional rugby is what's relevant. As for alternatives. No. I keep asking for people to say which ones were available. The response is crickets.

TWAS you infer that Eddie Jones is the highest paid coach in the world. That does not make his salary “top dollar”, it usually has a much broader meaning. At a stretch I did find one definition which says the highest price for a commodity or service. Even then you have provided all of the reasons why Eddie's services would be differentiated from Cheika and most other international coaches at the time. I will take your effort to keep the definition narrow, that Cheika is paid around the market price of a top international coach at the time. Unsurprising as he was international coach of the year, RWC runner up and successful at Leinster and the Waratahs. Presumably Rennie did not come cheap either given how desperate we were to move on from Cheika and capture Rennie before the All Blacks. You did suggest it was a choice between Cheika and White although I agree with your analysis that it was just a decision to be made within dud option c: “Sacking Cheika meant being lumped with his salary anyway and then having to find a suitably qualified alternative in 2018. Who was a good coach to lock into that was available? Should they have repeated the mistakes of Cheika’s long term contract and signed Jake White for 4 years considering he said he would not take a short term deal and no other highly credentialed coach was available until after the RWC?” “And then also had to replace him. Which probably costs similar money again – so now they are paying double for a coach for 2019. The only decent coach available was Jake White, who wanted… a long term deal.” “No. Not White. He publicly said he would not take a short term deal.” “As for the choice between White and Cheika. Derr. White was never a choice as he wanted terms they were not willing to entertain.” You have convinced me to change my position TWAS. I started from the point that I hoped the COVID crisis removes long term contracted deals for all management positions. That is ALL. Globally. That just happens to include rugby coaches. It is how the market operates, but is neither rational or commercial. That would then flow on and make it easier for reactive followers like Rugby Australia to make decisions in the long-term interest of the game. As you say, in 2018 with a serious problem with the Wallabies, and a flow on impact on the game in Australia they were left with a bunch of dud options. That was your word I think, but in any event, it does not really describe how poor a selection it was. I was only looking backwards for an example of how costly a losing fixed term deal is. However, you have forced me to think this through and I probably have moved to a position that what the rest of the world does is neither here or there. The contract should be for what is in Australia’s best interests at a price it can afford. The bottom line is the contract with Cheika proved unaffordable. The success is built by the entire organisation not one person, be they CEO or coach. I do not believe any problems have been fixed on a sustainable basis as far as coaching and development pathways since 2014. If good work has been done then that will be down to groups of individuals whose work can be dismantled in a fraction of the time it took to build. So, to sum up. If Rennie resigned today: 1. Yes, I would ignore the market and its behaviour; which is to retain the best credentialed available coach at the going price for four years. 2. Absolutely it is an unknown step. The alternative is to do the same as we have done in the past and risk bearing the full cost of a contract which has no relief for poor performance. 3. Better results should be guaranteed. Firstly, the role is designed to fit the person best able to carry out the role as part of an overall objective of improving Australian top tier rugby. Second, you take out a hell of a lot of risk. That is a bit academic because if he did resign he and Johnson have built a very good team which would create an immediate problem for Johnson. The next four years could see this team change the way we think about coaching at the top levels in Australia.

I've told you what top dollar is. What Eddie Jones earns. So Cheika earns considerably less than top dollar. Which I think he should too. He's not a proven exceptional international coach. It was never painted as a White/Cheika choice by me. I have repeatedly said White was not an option, by virtue of what he wanted. RA never said anything about White so how did they paint it as such? What I framed was, who were the decent options available... and don't say White, as he wanted terms RA couldn't agree to. Unless you can say some decent options available, you can't say there was a better solution. Well you can, but you're just talking out your ... and refusing to consider the realities RA needed to work within... just like SMI. So what are you saying? RA can just pretend the world around it doesn't exist? Get rid of fixed term contracts then. And every time somebody performs well, you risk losing them to a better paying job. And since everybody else does fixed term contracts, your replacements are limited to out of contract options. You are yet to explain how you just ignore the world around you and succeed. I accept other points of view. However in this case, I don't accept yours. Not because I don't want to accept a different one, just that yours is incomplete. It's seemingly: 1. ignore the market 2. Unknown step 3. better results

What top dollar is, I am not sure. Does anybody earn more than Eddy in world rugby? England is probably the wealthiest union and I am sure they were very keen to get him. The inference you make is that Cheika is not paid top dollar so you might help decrease my ignorance by telling me what other top coaches are earning; Gatland, Scmidt, Erasmus, Hansen. My understanding was that Cheika was earning about $1m a year. As I said this was painted as a Cheika/White choice, both at the time by RA and several times by you in this thread. You now more correctly point out that there was a list of options available. Obviously the one that I am saying was alive and discussed broadly by anti-Cheika supporters was option a. It is still a live discussion whether it did sacrifice the long term to avoid short term pain. My key point is underlined by you; they are all bad options. The only options available because of entering fixed contracts. You are right that I am ignorant of what work has or has not been done on pathways. Would not have a clue if it has been any good or not either. Where would I find that detailed analysis TWAS? Probably not on the RA website. If it has been done it remains unpublished. If it has been done is it a professional and independent analysis, or just self serving? I take it that you are endorsing the work done and have not been critical of the skill levels, attitude or preparation of Australian professional players. Castle and the Board absolutely outsourced responsibility for the success or failure of Australian rugby to Cheika. Who did you think was responsible? Clyne? Castle? Please show me their statements where they took responsibility. Johnson’s appointment is to a role that was well and truly overdue and I am sorry he is keeping such a low profile. You may need help to understand that where you see ignorance and stupidity is just where you do not understand or accept other points of view.