The rugby world down under is spinning like a Shane Warne leg-break.
The big news? Six member unions, including the heavyweights Queensland, ACT, and Western Australia, have thrown a curveball, demanding Hamish McLennan’s resignation faster than you can say “rugby scrum.”
Now, I have had my fair share of footy dramas, but this one has got more twists than a Quade Cooper sidestep.
The unions kick things off with a classic lawyer-esque double shuffle, saying: “This request is not about opposition to Rugby Australia’s centralisation proposals – we remain committed to supporting high-performance alignment”.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
High-performance alignment? Sounds like a diplomatic way of saying, “Yeah, we’re not thrilled about centralisation, but let’s keep it on the down-low”.
But then, just a hop, skip, and a jump later, the truth spills out like beer at a post-match celebration – “To date, despite months of media speculation and commentary from Rugby Australia, the Board and executive have brought us no substantive strategy or any outline of how centralisation would work.”
But fear not footy fans, because I have got a remedy for all this confusion. If we are going to stir the pot, let us do it right. If the member unions want a substantive strategy and an outline, then we will give it to them.
How about we start by clearly laying out the benefits of a centralised model – think streamlined development, a united front, and a rugby powerhouse on the global stage.
And do not just take my word for it; look across the ditch at the mighty All Blacks and over the pond at Ireland – both rocking a centralised model.
Australia and England, on the other hand, not so much. It is like trying to win a game with one hand tied behind your back – not ideal.
Last month World Cup semi-finalist England got smart; they are moving to a centralised model. Now, we have to steer our ship back on course. None of that lawyer talk, just straight-shooting footy wisdom.
For the best interests of the game, prior to any meetings, the six unions should quit being tricky and propose a united strategy and outline for centralisation.
Queensland Rugby Union CEO David Hanham. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images for Rugby Australia)
I propose CEOs sit this one out and simply put four men in a room: Stephen Larkham (ACT, Munster), Michael Cheika (Waratah’s, Leinster, International Coach), Eddie Jones (Brumbies, International Coach), and Brad Thorn (Reds, All Blacks legend).
Between them, they know what it takes to win; they have multiple World Cup Trophies, Super Rugby championships, and most importantly detailed insights into not just the Australian system but also successful centralised models in Ireland and New Zealand. Add to that also coaching knowledge from France, England, South Africa, and Japan.
Hold on – I have just had an epiphany. Maybe this is the problem; our best coaches end up improving the quality of our international opponents!
For mine, I want to see entertaining rugby, the players’ welfare looked after, the Wallabies winning, and our powerhouse regions being competitive and not being diluted.
I do not want to see Queensland, New South Wales, and ACT suffer at the expense of propping up Rebels and Force.
At the end of each season, the first picks for locals born/bred in Queensland go to the Reds. For the ACT, it is all about the Brumbies. Likewise NSW and the Waratahs.
Like backyard footy – you stick with your mates, your team, and your roots. No dodgy footwork here, just a fair go for every state.
Further, no pork barrelling the Waratahs team at the expense of Queensland and ACT.
Israel Folau played for Waratahs. Why not ACT, or the Reds? This is the type of detail that needs to be resolved in the centralisation model. Who chooses where the gun players go – and what does the system look like?
Streamlined development means nurturing talent from the grassroots up, creating a conveyor belt of top-notch players. It is about not burning out the players. Ireland’s IRFU controls when players rest and play. Player welfare needs to be key.
A united front means every state and territory standing together, singing from the same rugby hymn sheet.
As for a rugby powerhouse on the global stage? Well, that is a no-brainer – it is about time we reclaim our spot among the world’s rugby elite.
So, there you have it, footy fans. Aussie rugby deserves a game plan that is as strong and true as a Bledisloe battle. Cheers to keeping the footy fires burning, the Aussie way!
Barry Ballerina
Roar Rookie
G'day Bliksem! You've nailed it, mate, especially on the player welfare front. The CTE class action down in the UK and Ireland is a bloomin' monster. But here's the conundrum: beefing up Aussie rugby with more games is right move, but it's a bit like opening Pandora's footy box. More games mean more chances for those sub concussions, and that's like rolling out the red carpet for CTE. Now, I'm with you on the player numbers game. I will say this though, we're missing those Rugby World Cup final quality sharpshooters. The days of Matt Burke - 1995 and 1999, Elton Flately 2003, and Bernard Foley 2015. The easiest way to lift Aussie Rugby fortunes is to unearth sharp shooting boots and also the monster boots. Finding the monster boots is easy. Focus on the good old force em back competition at schools and clubs. Reward best kickers in country with Wallabies half time competition and a sweet cash prize.
Bliksem
Roar Rookie
Every top nation including Ireland, NZ, France, England and South Africa has at least four professional teams that play 15-20 professional level games every year from where they select the national side. They have at least 60 professional players to pick their All Black, Bok or Ireland side. Ireland only has four sides and are more exposed to retirements, so expect their performance to vary more from year to year. NZ has the most consistent performance with 5 SR teams, but also has the NPC with far more teams that are also professional. Australia problem is that we do not play enough professional level rugby – our players struggle with the step up to SR rugby and then to test rugby. Cutting SR teams will just make it worse.
Bliksem
Roar Rookie
I want to see entertaining rugby, the players’ welfare looked after, the Wallabies winning, and our powerhouse regions being competitive and not being diluted I suggest you split this up into MUSTS and WANTS. I suggest there is only two MUSTS: players' welfare and the Wallabies winning. The WANTS could include playing entertaining rugby (losing attractively would not do) and SR teams being competitive against NZ teams. For the Wallabies to win consistently we need depth in each position as injuries, form, overseas contracting, retirements and the bench play a bigger role today to win tests and tournaments. This means that we need three test quality players in each position or a Wallaby playing group of at least 45 players. The gap between test and club rugby is now so big that we cannot pick Wallabies from club rugby as we did before the game became truly professional. As some SR players are still developing and we do not have a provincial level competition below SR, we need at least four or five competitive SR franchises to produce sufficient talent for the Wallabies to be competitive.... just like NZ, South Africa, France and Ireland. Ireland has the least four (Leinster, Munster, Ulster and Connacht) however they are exposed to a large number of players retiring - and may wish that they had five. I do not want to see Queensland, New South Wales, and ACT suffer at the expense of propping up Rebels and Force I think you missed one MUST objective here that is partially covered by the " I like to see the first picks to go for locals no matter where you were born/bred" comment. I take the liberty to rephrase "there should be a pathway for promising local talent to pursue a professional rugby career no matter where they are born/bred". As Australia covers a very large geographical area, we should at least ensure there is a pathway in each area where there are a large number of players or in the region near it. Therefore, we must have a SR team in each of our four biggest cities: Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth as that is where the junior rugby players are. It is theoretically possible to the ACT can be served by Sydney or Melbourne, however, the benefit of axing the Brumbies will not out-weight the risk. The real challenge for Rugby Australia is to find the best (and fastest) way to develop five competitive SR franchises.
MarlinsTragic
So like two rep teams from the SR squads to take on the Kiwi’s? What happens to the rest of the teams after that, keep playing each other with depleted squads? Who would watch that?
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
edit 24 hours later. Well I got that wrong. Hamish has gone. The States and the Board have passed that test!
AndyS
Roar Rookie
Intriguing though, isn’t it? What you are describing are the kind of administrative functions that RA has already touted as the benefits of centralisation, that don’t justify five separate organisations (promotion, ticket sales, travel arrangements, etc.). And any way you cut it, any money the ‘owner’ takes would be money out of RA’s pocket. So curious to see how Forrest and RA can have common ground, especially as he doesn’t strike me as the sort to let others take all control while he just goes along for the ride doing the housekeeping…
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
It would be completely different to the current situation. High performance costs (ie players, coaches, training) to come out of RA coffers which would be derived from broadcasting, sponsorship of the National team . The private owners would be responsible for running their franchise (except for the high performance costs), ie marketing their franchise, selling seats to games, sponsors, etc. Profit for this would be revenue minus expenses. Expenses would include things like ground hire, travel, cost of making merch, catering at events, etc. Any of this profit would be split 50/50 with RA. You asked how could it work. This is my take. If you don't agree that's ok.
AndyS
Roar Rookie
You'd have to define 'profit'. SR teams have never generated profit, or even an operating surplus, So any money taken by the owner would be money not spent on the team, which would have to then be made up out of RA coffers...?
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Hard to do, but might be possible through profit share. RA pay the players, support staff and professional pathways. They collect and keep all broadcast revenue as well as merchandising for Wallabies. The private owner is responsible for filling the stadium, selling merchandise for their club. Owner keeps 50% of profit and the other 50% goes into grassroots.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Rugby in Australia is more than just Super Rugby Pacific and the Wallabies. I don't see any issue with having 5 teams, but they need to have a better system of developing the talent coming through to put pressure on the average players entrenched in SR franchises. The issue is how to fund it, which might be to let the top players head overseas and use the money to grow the game. No easy answers.
Rocky's Rules
Roar Rookie
@mjseesred Great post mate :thumbup: I've been banging on here with many of the same points for 2 years. A critical issue is employing people with qualifications and experience in Sports Administration. All these people with banking, marketing and media experience (especially from News Corp) have got to go. An ex great player is a liability if they've just worked for a dodgy bank after retirement. RA is still trying to manage a Pro Sport with hopelessly amateur, unprofessional and mostly dishonest, dunces. RA is still stuck in the 1980s :laughing:
Footy Franks
Roar Rookie
Vlandys got the last laugh.
DGS
Roar Rookie
Well that’s one of the weirder articles I’ve read on the Roar. Fancy getting Jones, Cheika, Larkham and Thorn to solve all the issues. What a motley crew. For a start they can’t stand each other (aside from Cheika and Jones at a Randwick love-in). My way or the highway from all perspectives. Larkham is still bruised after he was spat out of the Cheika dictator model and Thorn wouldn’t touch this with a barge pole.
Barry Ballerina
Roar Rookie
Super Rugby needs a shake-up, and here's the plan: first seven games, it's all square, fair dinkum footy. But then, the top two Aussie teams get to snag the best players from the strugglers – it's like turbocharging your squad. Since we switched to five teams, Aussie rugby's been on a bumpy ride, and let's be honest, Kiwis need stauncher opposition to continue to be world beaters. This new system is about giving our Aussie teams a fighting chance against the Kiwi Super Rugby juggernaut. No more diluted squads, no more copping a hiding. It's truly 'Super' Rugby Australian teams.
Barry Ballerina
Roar Rookie
Cheers, Lano, good stuff! Now, onto a serious brain teaser, folks. Picture this: Two or three Super Rugby teams, stacked with talent, dominating in Super Pacific Rugby. Or, five teams, spreading the talent thin, and let's be honest, getting a regular spanking from the Kiwis. Now, I'm all in for fair play with even player caps, but here's the kicker – only if we shake up the whole Super Rugby system. It's a real head-scratcher, isn't it? Beauty of a question, mate! What's your take?
Arcturus
Roar Rookie
What a good idea! Hopefully the dedicated fund is a little more than the current 3 or 4 %.
Barry Ballerina
Roar Rookie
Arcturus... well said. 100% agree. For mine, Rugby Australia needs to set up a dedicated fund, what I like to call Ring-Fenced Funding for Grassroots Development. They take a slice from the big money pots, making sure a set percentage goes straight into this fund. No more neglecting the local footy scene! This move guarantees a steady flow of cash aimed directly at grassroots initiatives – the local clubs, community programs, and those tiny competitions that make rugby special. It's like giving a leg up to the future stars, making sure they get the support they need to shine on the big stage. Simple as that, a proactive move to show grassroots footy the love it deserves! Beauty!
Lano
Roar Guru
Thanks for the contribution BB. Are you suggesting the commission treat Aus rugby like Fantasy Footy. All players have a rating (determined by the Commission?) and states get to pick players subject to a cap. The cap is equal across all states so in theory no team is stronger than another, and State allegiances are dismantled and there’s no implicit subsidisation of the weak states? If Hamish hasn’t enunciated the benefits of centralisation, then I too am at a loss.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
My betting is that Hamish will stay, having done a Malcolm Turnbull and made so many backroom deals that he will have reduced himself to a cipher, and is nothing but a turnstile for special interests. This is what is behind Forrest's standing up for Hamish (if I'm right). From here on in, expect West Australia to be welded on to Australian Rugby. No more threats against the Force, and given a choice between Sydney or the Bush, if the bush is WA then it's Sydney that'll go down the gurgler. The guy in front will be like a ventriloquist's doll.
Old Bugger
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I can just see the Hamster's headline attack on NZR and the key reason, why he must remain as the Chair.....oh well, it looks like what's left of RA Board will be arranging an EAGM, sometime tonight.