Some of the commentary in the last couple of weeks reminds me how little has changed in rugby, despite of, and during, a period of fluctuation in financial and on-field success and failure.
Rugby Australia (or the ARU) was last on its financial knees in 2013 and looked for ways and means to cuts its costs, one of which reported in the media was centralising administration of the states and Super Rugby franchises. This is a very sensible strategy with significant upsides in terms of efficiency, cost savings, increased revenues, and supporter (customer) satisfaction.
The way forward that was publicised (leaked, floated out there?) made no sense whatsoever. I made an unsolicited approach suggesting a different course, which was acknowledged as sound but that the ARU had higher priorities. The 2015 TV windfall just allowed RA to increase its cost base without any increase in efficiencies or revenue generation.
In a business you would never attempt to run five largely identical trading sites by allowing a manager in each state complete autonomy to do their own thing. On what planet do supposedly highly capable business people, administrators and directors think that a sport should be run differently, especially where HO always guarantees the losses. That is planet ‘ultimately not my problem’ where they grab the exit and move to the next gig leaving the sport and supporters to wallow in their own misery.
(AAP Image/Chris Symes)
That proposal is copied below and while I am not endorsing it as the perfect answer today, it is an example of the type of transformation required in administration. Add to that coaching frameworks, player pathways and reconciling needs of various playing groups (men, women, kids, schools, sevens, 15s), which need a similar re-evaluation.
From a supporter perspective I think there are large gaps in catering for members and rugby supporters that do not fit the model. For example, if I live in NSW and do not support the Waratahs, who is trying to maximise my rugby experience and consequent spend? Ditto, if I do, and am a Waratahs member, but want to go to watch the Rebels play NSW (or anyone else) in Melbourne?
The consequent much larger scope and urgent (bordering on emergency) time frames mean that it is no longer a small project. However, it does not lend itself to KPMG or Boston Consulting trampling all over our game either and it is a blessing we cannot afford them. Maintaining integrity of communications requires people who understand rugby and rugby people.
This is complex and while we were basically content for Cameron Clyne, Bill Pulver and Raelene Castle to turn up and collect the kudos and pay cheques, we must hold Hamish McLellan and Rob Clarke to much higher expectations. More short-term and temporary fixes are not the solution. If private equity investment is the answer, what the hell was the question?
(Hugh Peterswald/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Restructure administration of Super Rugby franchises (8 April 2014)
Background
Like similar elite professional clubs in national competitions (NRL/A-League), Super Rugby franchise clubs are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) highly exposed to poor on-field performance and/or poor management. It only requires a couple of seasons negative performance to create a significant financial exposure as the prospects of a quick turnaround are limited by a contracted playing group, poor management and negative membership and sponsorship sentiment.
Unlike a failing SME business, which can just become insolvent and be removed from a corporate register, the relevant ruling body is usually expected to bail out the failed franchise. The ruling body usually has limited options and is forced to bail out the franchise or club, often without any enduring concessions as to how the franchise will be managed and controlled in the future.
All in all, this is a highly unusual commercial situation. The ruling body has no influence in the management or strategic direction of a franchise, no participation in the upside or profit and bears the downside risk of the failed franchise and non-performance of contractual obligations to field teams.
Even worse, there is probably little visibility of the deteriorating situation, which might allow the parent body to mitigate the risk. Like most other insolvencies there is an unpleasant surprise for creditors and stakeholders. Everyone finds out when it is too late to implement a cost-effective turnaround with good prospects for success.
Recent developments
As reported in the press I understand that the ARU has sought to address this problem by centralising administration of the east coast clubs (Reds, Waratahs and Rebels). Based on my background notes I see a compelling need to drive such an alternative model, which I expect might deliver relatively immediate benefits such as:
1. Administration costs per franchise are reduced in the short term.
2. Best-practice systems, procedures and frameworks can be made available for the various generic activities undertaken by each club, which should enhance revenue potential, increase efficiency, reduce costs and control risks.
3. Universally understood frameworks are in place to monitor off-field administration and management performance.
It was not clear from press reports why the proposal did not include the Brumbies or the Force. At face value their involvement with the ARU and the other franchises should have been mutually beneficial.
(Alejandro Pagni/AFP/Getty Images)
Ultimately the proposed initiative was shelved, reportedly in part because it was to be led and influenced by the relatively successful Reds administration. Press speculation was that the Waratahs and Rebels (Brumbies and Force?) were uncomfortable ceding control to the ARU and the Reds or possibly that the Reds did not want to risk their current success by diluting their resources or sharing their IP to prop up other franchises.
Common sense and commercial imperatives indicate that something must be done at some stage, possibly as soon as is practical. There are more complex issues to be addressed in achieving some improved structures and that the ARU must continue to explore options that can deliver these outcomes in a manner acceptable to the franchises.
The Reds’ turnaround
The Reds are a pretty good example of the type of failing club described in the background section of this paper. Hats off to them for achieving an outstanding result in turning the organisation around in an almost unbelievably short time frame.
Whether the Reds’ experience provides real solutions to the problems of the other franchises, or whether Jim Carmichael has split the atom and separated on-field performance from off-field success, still remains to be seen. There was massive commitment to change, a bunch of the right people available to join the organisation with the capability to make it happen and a group of players who were able to produce in parallel an amazing season in 2011.
Queensland is a different market to the other four and had the potential to deliver massive rewards to the Reds if they could turn it around. Having said that it seems from all reports and commentary that the Reds are significantly outperforming other franchise administrations and have committed significant effort to institutionalise the systems and practices that delivered these results.
However many organisations experience cyclical success and there will be challenges ahead for the Reds in trying to build on their success and evolve their organisation as time and the game moves on.
One size does not fit all
Each franchise has its own history, culture and personality together with a unique responsibility for the health and growth of rugby in its franchise state. The reported model, stripping out each organisation into a generic team with a general manager would not seem to meet the unique needs of each franchise market.
However for all of the reasons discussed above, continuing to allow each franchise to conduct its operations outside of a commonly agreed framework cannot be commercially sustainable.
A significant amount of collaboration and negotiation is required to agree and identify every aspect of each club’s operations that can be either centralised or more efficiently administered using ARU best-practice frameworks or models. This was not a task that could be completed in a couple of months and it is not surprising agreement could not be reached.
(AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
The imposition of the Reds’ practices and methodologies is a high-risk strategy. It may not be practical, or even suitable, for use in the other franchise markets. Furthermore there will be implementation risks ranging from initial resistance to the forced adoption of the Reds’ model to ongoing guerrilla warfare aimed at discrediting the Reds’ strategies, waiting for some fault to show up in their execution or results.
Having said that the challenge is to identify a solution, which fundamentally meets each franchise’s needs for the sectors of the business where those services can be cost effectively delivered through a centralised service or alternatively, a platform that enables each franchise to operate itself independently with its own resources.
The major obstacle to anything being achieved will be the franchises’ resistance to the parent body having any visibility of their financial position or operational performance even where this falls far short of centralised control, which is unlikely to be the objective of the ARU at this time.
A way forward
In the first instance, this paper is predicated on the view that it is in the ARU’s interest to keep pressing forward on this issue.
Second, it is highly unlikely that there is a magic bullet solution for this. There would need to be a pot of money to firstly just get a Rolls-Royce off the shelf or equivalent services solution and cash incentives to desperate clubs so that they sign up. Even then some enticement would possibly be required to ensure all five clubs agreed to give up their current total autonomy.
(Ashley Feder/Getty Images)
Any successful strategy will require a significant amount of work to identify the needs and concerns of all stakeholders from an operational, financial and governance perspective. The person doing this work will need to be able to demonstrate independence, foster goodwill and collaboration, understand the operational and financial needs of the franchise clubs, be capable to assess the value of the benefits to them and then complete a negotiated position accordingly.
Conclusion
I am uniquely placed to assist the ARU because I am independent, able to negotiate effectively with diverse stakeholders with conflicting interests and have significant expertise in dealing with the financial and operational challenges of SME businesses in stages of stress.
While on one hand the usefulness and relevance of this paper is limited as I am not privy to the inner workings and strategies of either the ARU or any of the five franchise clubs, the converse is that I am not aligned with, or privy to the strategies of, the ARU or the five franchise clubs. It should also be noted that I do not have any relationship with an external shared service solution provider or the demonstrated expertise to try and also pitch for the work implementing such a strategy.
A capability statement and assignment history is attached for your information and review, which also demonstrates:
1. Long experience working with SME businesses and, in particular, businesses in financial difficulty.
2. Significant experience in financial management and governance systems and compliance.
3. Solid negotiation and communication skills enabling focus on mutually beneficial outcomes where the parties see themselves as having conflicting interests.
BeastieBoy
Roar Rookie
A number of years ago, my son was playing junior rugby union, league and AFL and it gave me insight as to where I thought important things could be improved. It was after Bill Pulver had started and I went to ARU headquarters to put my suggestions forward for Junior Rugby. I saw a new guy who had just transferred over from Cricket Administration. To their credit they heard me out, but I got the impression they thought all was fine. My wife went and presented to the League and she had a meeting with the Head of Junior League. Now maybe they already had the same ideas, but within a matter of weeks they adopted some of our suggestions, and you can see the improvements to this day. I don't think the Union bosses listen enough.. they have made some minor changes to the rules in response to devastating drops in support for the game. I really don't understand how they justify to themselves the decisions they make.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks for following through Rich. You should write a short article on the state of play up north. Only a few contributors have had strong suspicions that there may be some disruption in the north south economic imbalance. but most thinking about the game in SH are severely limited by the belief that this global recession will not affect the pre-2020 rugby economics. Apart from the COVID induced economic problems my opinion was that the world was poised for a recession anyway and those fundamental weaknesses will become more evident as the world attempts to go back to work. There will be social as well as financial reasons that Europe will become a less attractive destination. My great criticism of rugby in Australia is that it has swallowed the “rugby is a business not a sport” hoax hook, line and sinker. We get left over executives and pay them huge salaries because they are not beaten up ex rugby players. There is a robust business theory that businesses should focus on their customers. Sports are strong when they focus on all aspects of player development at all levels. Some would say that they want players to leave the sport as better, more rounded citizens than if they had not participated in their sports. RA greatest confusion is that the customer is Fox and the sponsors. Not surprising in a way, especially seeing that they pay management’s wages. Foxtel and the sponsors are really trying to win rugby supporters as customers and RA’s job is therefore to provide a sport that its supporters want to support. Probably RA’s other source of income is to sell match attendance, memberships, merchandise etc. to supporters. Rugby supporters are mainly current and past players, friends, and families. The main restriction on the supporter base is the understanding of the complexity of the game and its ethos. Keeping them happy is a complex mix of results, quality of rugby, development of playing and coaching standards at all levels and the maintenance of its culture. The neat thing is that it is a virtuous circle. Sadly, I do not think RA sees things the same way. The complexity of rugby is just handed off to others or poorly managed. Strategy then becomes some sort of negotiation game around supply and demand for sporting content on pay TV and maintaining sponsorship for reasons that have not much to do with the game. It is not much different with other professional sports. What they have achieved is poor results and a supporter base with diminishing faith in RA to look after the interests of rugby. That obviously effects the value of the supporter base to TV, sponsors and RA itself. They have taken control of most aspects of the game in Australia, often diminishing the roles of the volunteer faithful, and screwed it up. In the main leadership is required cut the cost and scope of administration and mobilise the significant supporter base to properly deliver the needs of the sport. A TV executive who believes a state of origin, rule changes and private equity are the answers, supported by a part time and temporary CEO is not the answer. We need a CEO who can rebuild rugby and turn it into something sponsors and pay TV will invest in, and supporters will pay to join or attend. As a side issue you may not have seen this SMH article which in my view highlights just what low expectations RA has placed on its CEOs. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/always-going-to-end-in-tears-o-connor-says-cheika-s-wallabies-were-doomed-to-fail-at-world-cup-20200616-p55329.html
Rich1234
Roar Rookie
Cheers Muglair, thank you for the response. Really enjoying the chat. I see your point 1 and tend to agree. On point 2, I also tend to agree and it does reinforce how much of a dogs breakfast has been created. Same old story, sub par executives at a state and national level, lack of cohesion, ego’s, lack of a long term strategy et al.... we all could go on and on. Clovis in Europe - I am based in London and enjoying a beer whilst typing. Club rugby has been smashed here and at present there are the beginnings of a civil war between players and owners in the UK. Quite simply, the model doesn’t work because the clubs don’t make enough money to cover the wages of both players and enormous staff rosters. And that is even with wealthy owners. I predict that the UK and French leagues will go after less foreign players and focus on the top few and pay handsomely if they can within restricted salary caps. This will ultimately benefit them. The Welsh are in serious trouble so need CVC money, the Irish are pretty sound, and the Italians will continue to be the minnows. If the Welsh get the SA teams, then that will help. Pro 14 is less watched than the Top 14 and UK premiership. The one saving grace is the SIx Nations and Heineken Cup (or whatever it is called these days). On not for profit status, probably best to clarify my comments. I do agree with you. If a club can make a profit that is then spent strengthening the club, helping the community, youth, or whatever, then great. As the pandemic has shown, in AFL, NRL and Rugby, the majority of clubs are either poorly managed, or their business model doesn’t work. Yes the pandemic was an exceptional event, but it did expose the various business models. Quite often, volunteers who are incredible underwrite the club in a way. My point is that greater thought has to be given to the rugby code in Australia from top to bottom to ensure that the code can grow, be healthy and survive and prosper for all to benefit. Too much focus has been put on the stars and the tv rights. I for one absolutely agree that talent needs to be retained but at what cost. This is a much bigger and more complex conversation and my brain hurts at the moment. On the subject of a rugby power, I would argue that our winning World Cup teams in 91 and 99 and their records leading up to those wins equate to ‘super power’ status. The term super power is probably the most incorrect term. Let’s just say that as a country, we enjoyed enormous success and were particularly dominant over those two periods. Probably more so with regards to the 1999 team. Super power these days probably equates to who has the most money so therefore who has the most power on the world council. Private Equity is not the answer as we both agree. Private ownership has its limits unless you are as rich as Andrew Forrest and commit long term. But private ownership could work subject to detail - the devil is always in ththe detail and how that works across all areas that we have discussed. I agree with all your points following. I think the ARU whorls control the game, the States should manage their respective areas. At the end of the day, and coming back to the question of a super power, if NZ can run the game the way they do, and I consider them the only superpower then why can’t we copy them. (We cant because of all the reasons we have stated). It would be nice.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Everything else is, although maybe it will improve with the COVID financial contraction. It could force the closure of the Mosman campus.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Thanks Rich. That is a valid observation but there were two main reasons for looking back: 1 Using a real document removes the issue of ‘hindsight’ speculation, and 2 going back six years is intended to show how little has changed, and that transformation, not tinkering at the edges, is required. The problem referred to is still contemporary but there are many more parts of RA and the franchises that need to be ripped up and rebuilt. On your other points: What is a rugby ‘super power’? I would question whether we ever have been one. World Rugby is dominated by the NH Tier 1 countries and we also do not have playing numbers and financial muscle. We have often played well above that status and that does give us some influence, as does being closely aligned with NZ. Rugby is a not for profit, just like most sports. Successful club ownership really requires an altruistic streak aligned with some other driving need, such as being a long-term fan like Crowe. Even he does not have deep enough pockets and would be out of his depth if Souths was not a valuable sporting property. Forrest has an interest in rugby, is parochial about WA but also has business and commercial interests in WA and Asia. American owners often have an allegiance to a team or city. I would think even the big global profitable clubs often have significant intangible assets and debt. It will be interesting to see how the financial impact of COVID plays out in Europe and Japan, although the Japanese economy has been flat for thirty years so they may be less affected. The RA ‘strategy’ of pursuing private ownership is just an example of the paucity of commercial acumen and thinking. Pretend today that you have removed an expense from the P&L and then clean up the mess when it quite predictably does not work out. Private Equity cannot add value here unless it is a private group of passionate rugby supporters. I left the hook at the end of the article, possibly as the title for the next one. PE is otherwise about the maximum return on capital invested for minimum risk. They won’t want a minority position in ownership or control so taking a share of revenue makes sense which I think is similar to the NH deals. In its current impoverished state RA will get a minimal stake up front and it will inevitably end up as awfully expensive debt. McLennan’s public reaction that this is a positive development worries me. Sure, it demonstrates that PE might see upside value in Australian rugby but who doesn’t? My current thinking is that all rugby in Australia should be under the umbrella of RA. All professional rugby should be managed within that one corporate structure including SR and NRC with corporate style divisions delivering different teams etc. I am less clear on the interface with amateur rugby but that would probably become evident following a deep review. The minor state administrations (including ACT) would probably stay as is. I do not see where Qld or NSW administrations add any value and we should look at the next level down; Premiership, Subbies, schools/juniors, Country etc Junior development is tough. My understanding is that a lot of the school rugby stars are NRL scholarship holders and the U20 system can afford to make them full time professionals, albeit on a modest wage.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Sure, a part season for the Valke Falcon's in the Currie Cup rules out Louwrens, despite him then getting suspended for steroids, serving a two year ban and making it as a pro after working his way back through club in Perth. Meanwhile, "Paisami first played contact rugby as a nine-year-old in Auckland. He represented Mangere College, was an Auckland under-14 and under-16 representative and had a game for the Blues under-18 squad before moving across the Tasman" but we'll start tracking him from playing for Vic Schools. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/120061557/memories-of-maa-nonu-inspire-reds-rookie-hunter-paisami-as-he-gets-set-to-tackle-crusaders You ruled out Cottrell for playing Hospitals Cup but not a guy that played age rugby for the Blues. You are claiming Faulkner for doing part of his secondary school in Vic. This trumps your "few" vs "5+" comment earlier. You don't seem to recognise the different standards you are applying.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Guys that spent multiple years in the systems is how I’ve based it. I excluded Louwrens on the basis he spent 16 years in SA. One in WA and then was immediately in elite programs in SA the following year. Paisami played Vic Schoolboys and Rebels 20s. He played Samoa 20s after already being an Aus Schoolboy before then playing Melbourne Rising and being Rebels contracted. Samu came up through the Vic junior system then left at 19. If Uru played Fiji 20s then I’d absolutely exclude him. I included him because before he played for Bris City he played 3 seasons of Dewar Shield.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Bit of a stretch on most of those? Or just double standards to try and make your case? How is Ryan Louwrens questionable but then you claim some of those blokes? You are claiming a Samoan born, Auckland raised guy who played for the Blues U-18's and Samoa U-20's. A Scot that came to Melbourne as a 24 yr old. A guy that went to play club rugby in Brisbane as a 19 yr old, then Sydney, then Mitre 10 and finally Super Rugby for the Crusaders A Fijian U-20 that played for Brisbane City You've got a guy that moved to Melbourne aged 12, played age group rugby for Vic but then finished his schooling in Canberra and played for Tuggeranong, the Brumby Runners, then moved to Sydney and Southern Districts, Junior Waratahs and finally the Force. But Louwrens is questionable because he came to Oz at 16, went back and played Craven Week and part of a season before working his way back via WA club rugby for Cottesloe into the Force. Thanks for the laugh!
concerned supporter
Roar Rookie
TWAS says, ''But then there’s a huge amount of Vic produced players who have gone OS in the last few years too. Sione Tuipolotu (Top League) Sefa Naivalu (Top 14) Mahe Vailanu (Top League & MLR) Christian Leali’ifano (Top 14) Tala Gray (Top 14) Waisea Nayacalevu (Top 14) John Ulugia (Top 14 – though may be retired now) Digby Ioane (Who knows where he is now?) Afa Amosa (Top 14) Sione Tui (Top 14) Rodney Ioana (Championship) Joe Kamana (Top League) JP Sauni (Previously Tahs & now Force) Ben Tapuai (Premiership)'' They are ALL of PI heritage, not too many locally born Victorians. TWAS has backed plenty of losers of late, he is like Peter FitzSimmons, both can't take a trick.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Valetini, Samu, Murray Douglas, Faulkner, Seru Uru and Hunter Paisami
jeznez
Roar Guru
Who are the 6 at other teams?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Sure producing more. If you count GRR players that aren't recruited by other teams. Which I don't. Because as I said, I consider SR standard or higher the goal. And those that aren't I consider unlikely to be wanted given how quickly Deegan, Orr, Tizzano and McDonald left for SR opportunity. As for Vic. Well there's 6 Vic produced players at other teams. Plus another 6 still at the Rebels (Sa'aga, Fa'amausili, Uelese, Hosea, Leota, Potter). I'd agree that Fa'amausili and Potter probably wouldn't get picked up elsewhere. The Rebels have definitely offered some of the lowest level contracts to locals who are more than a year or two away from SR standard at the time. But then there's a huge amount of Vic produced players who have gone OS in the last few years too. This is only active players who have been at a Super Rugby team (or Top 14, Top League or Premiership) at one point. Sione Tuipolotu (Top League) Sefa Naivalu (Top 14) Mahe Vailanu (Top League & MLR) Christian Leali'ifano (Top 14) Tala Gray (Top 14) Waisea Nayacalevu (Top 14) John Ulugia (Top 14 - though may be retired now) Digby Ioane (Who knows where he is now?) Afa Amosa (Top 14) Sione Tui (Top 14) Rodney Ioana (Championship) Joe Kamana (Top League) JP Sauni (Previously Tahs & now Force) Ben Tapuai (Premiership) I'd definitely agree that a couple of them too fall in the same category as Potter and Fa'amausili (e.g Vailanu).
Rich1234
Roar Rookie
Muglair, thanks for taking the time to write and post this. Really interesting and some fascinating comments. As a general comment, and definitely not aimed at you, whilst it is great to look back I think it is more appropriate to look at our current predicament, plan around that to move forward. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim high it just means that we need to be aware of the base we are starting from, the resources we have for the interim. Unfortunately, a few of the people who responded need a slight reality check on our current situation. 1. We are not a rugby ‘super power’ at present. We have been before and I hope we are again but currently we are not. 2. We also have no money at the present. 3. The business model as is now being played out in most countries (except Japan) is broken and doesn’t work. 4. Private Equity is not the answer. 5. States, with the exception of Western force need to realise that they need to change their business approach. 5. All the states including WF need to buy into the collective as the NZ system does. 6. Tough questions need to be asked around who we actually want to sign as players versus maximising the opportunity for the young and outstanding talent coming through and reducing the loss of talent to the NRL. 7. Centralise everything at the ARU except for the playing side so as to avoid ridiculous duplication and costs. On the playing side, get 4 or 5 States working more cohesively. 8. Get rid of State CEO roles and appoint a manager. Have a Chairman if necessary but any costs for them and a State board is picked up by the States. I actually had a few more points but to be honest stopped writing because it became soooooo arduous!!!! I think you get my drift. Thanks again for posting. Cheers
jeznez
Roar Guru
I thought we worked out they were producing more, certainly than the Brumbies/Vikings. You were just discounting how much more by saying we can't count anyone still at the Force and I threw some shade back saying then maybe we shouldn't count everyone at the Brumbies. Not sure how they stack up against the Rebels on the local development into Super rugby metric.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And that's of course ignoring Vic do export locally developed talent to other states too. Like Valetini, Samu, Murray Douglas, Faulkner, Seru Uru and Hunter Paisami. Most of whom were either senior squad members, development squad members or U20 squad members when picked up by other programs, because that's how professional sport works.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
That's how professional sport works buddy. Players relocate for opportunity. No team is made up solely of locals at any level. I never said it was wonderful. In fact I said there was wasted investment in many players. I just said they didn't waste the first decade ignoring local talent like the previous Force management and coaches did. How many locals emerged at the Force 2006 to 2015? DHP, Justin Turner and Longbottom?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No. It's just that full time professionals will likely be able to outrun amateurs and having 10 Super Rugby players on the field doesn't negate the weakness that having the 5 least drilled players on the field creates. Every state has produced Wallabies so let's not get carried away. The entire point was that they were producing less Super Rugby standard pros than the other 4. You say that pros at the Force that have only been in the squad since GRR count. I say that most would likely not be picked up elsewhere, my evidence being how readily players leave the Force for Super Rugby squad spots, because it's perceived as the next step.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Oh it was so unfair. The Force bringing on guys like Dom Hardman, Ben Grant, Tevin Ferris and Jake Strachan created a complete mismatch that utterly wiped out the advantage of those "few" Super and Wallaby players. The Force are delivering on that goal, they've produced Wallabies and are still shipping players out to the Super franchises.
Ex force fan
Guest
It will be 20 years if RA keep on cutting WA off. First the Force Academy and then the Western Force - every time setting us back 5 years. With support we can do it within a decade - we have enough players just need to step up on the quality.
Ex force fan
Guest
Good analogy, Some first marriages and business relationships even last while other break up. Once you lost mutual trust, respect and stop working at the relationship and everyone resort to their legal right it is normally too late to save the marriage.