The change in private schools was inevitable, at some point it was going to be untenable to make playing rugby compulsory. Who is responsible for the disappearance of rugby from public schools in NSW and the shrinkage of participation at community level?

Rubbish. Again.

I am not sure who plays 30 games, especially on Australian grounds which tend to be much harder than in Europe.

The big problem is the small number of games played in juniors. In the GPS competition they probably play 10 a year and no club football. Compare that to the Ellas who were playing three times a week between school, union and league.

Even in Sydney club football they have cut the season short to accommodate ARC/NRC and never extended it back.

All of that compounded by the lack of coaching skills. Compare Kellaway to most other players. He makes few errors because he understands what is required in each situation and then uses the appropriate skill. A common trait with NZ players but rare this side of the ditch.

Pretty good coin I think, so logically competence is not a measure employed in remuneration assessment.

You are getting closer and closer to the National Scheme which ran from 74-94 which had close ties to the AIS. Gregan was the last of the AIS rugby scholarship holders. A national scheme can be run in five states, which is different to the RA idea of leaving it to each state.

The NRC should always have been played on parallel to the club season anyway. My thoughts at the time is that you have to base the two second tier teams around the two dominant NRC teams as you would expect those coaches and players to form the basis of the two 2nd tier teams. Maximises cohesion and minimises disruption. Those two teams then play in a broader competition perhaps involving NZ, Japan and other Pacific nations.

I think that comes down to the pool of quality players more than anything else. Those combinations have to built at test level and in the last 8 years there has been constant chopping and changing.

Take the halves, our best ones are not out and out test quality compared to the top 4, and maybe even top 8. I would nominate Lonergan and Fines as the halves I would like to see start. As for 10, Foley and Cooper are probably past it, and again have not been at the quality level of the top ? (you pick a number) at this RWC, in the last two years. CG and BD definitely are not either at this time. Hopefully there are a few young players lurking in the wings.

Ditto centres. Kerevi way off his 2021 form and JP ineffective in attack, unless a couple of metres from the line.

Will RA accept that a sugar hit of quick results are behind them now, and they have to dig in for a long haul of 5-10 years?

I am talking about the players spending long hours preparing and training in the major metropolitan competitions hoping for the opportunity to take a step towards becoming a full time professional player with a SR franchise, or overseas.

They will also be personally driven to play with and against the best players they can. At that level if you have the option to go to the NRL, it will be because that is the game that you are best suited for, but prefer to play union anyway.

How many Drua in the starting XV and on the bench against Australia? How many different clubs are the remaining 15 playing for?

Of course cohesion is great but I just do not see how many games you would be playing together if you only had two or three top tier teams, and whether that would work commercially.

The answer that has worked before is establishing a centralised style of play and coaching to support it, and maximise the number of properly skilled players reaching 2nd tier. Neither are proposed in RA centralisation.

The obsession with secrecy is mind boggling. It cuts down potential input from supporters (the true owners of the game) and equally saps their commitment. Then we all just attack each other leaving the board safe and sound. The Constitution has made this all possible as legally no disclosure outside the boardroom is required. Until the states all gang up together.

Something like that is a plausible structure but I would be concerned about the quality of the NRC teams being sufficient to select the two (or three) premier sides. Commercially, where would you base them? A lot of ideas were canvassed on possible structures a couple of years ago in some detail. The big problem is in the grass roots recruitment and coaching of players. Fix that and you solve a lot of other problems, don’t fix it and nothing will work.

Have you got the analysis to back that up? I thought their best players mainly play overseas, with the benefit of the Drua being a solid core of a professional squad.

I am adopting my usual strategy of waiting for the head hunters to call Ken. That best fits my desire to do nothing and achieve less. Hey, maybe I am qualified.

That needs to be in the 3rd tier though. It does not have to be expensive either, the players at that level want a foot in the door, not put their hand out.

They are not centralising everything, and apart from being able to influence player movements and coaching agreements, which they could do now anyway, I suspect nothing will come of it.

The board is not accountable and the states have very limited resources, mostly wasted on players and administration. It does have to be turned upside down and start again with a new Constitution.

Here is some background

The Roar Rugby Project Part 4: Who owns and controls Australian rugby and the need for change

This is not relevant. I could have told you that if the bulk of your best team are built on two subsidiary teams it will go well.

That is not plausible commercially or in the long term interests of the game in Australia. Cutting the Force made no difference because we just clog up the other teams with experienced players who will continue at SR level but do not have the ability to go further. It becomes hard for club players to step up, and risky for teams to replace reliable players out of the squad with young talent.

The fabric of the game will not handle the blood letting of cutting two SR teams.

There are different competition structures which might manage it, but they represent a massive change in the status quo, and might not be feasible anyway.

A national coaching and development scheme becomes mandatory to ensure that all players have the right range of skills, understand the national style of play, and meet the same fitness standards. That is neither the status quo, or what is being proposed in the centralisation “plan”.

The last shreds of credibility, if there is any left.

Its not centralisation. The really important bits, the really hard bits, coaching and development, are being delegated to the states. What worked from 1974-1994 is ignored, and what hasn’t since, now embraced.

This is all about minimising accountability for RA, the financing holding company, and allowing them to hold the shareholders accountable. It is supposed to work the other way around.

I do agree that it is implausible that they can execute anything, especially a thought bubble without a plan.

A couple of issues, there are 16 votes and 12 are required to get to the 75% needed to change the Constitution. The Constitutional changes driven by JON are a disaster, creating a board of directors who are accountable to nobody. The “shareholders” have been rubber stamps as they are wholly financially reliant on the RA Board.

RUPA has one vote and going by his comments Harrison fully understands the need for dramatic change. Three votes are held by the non-SR states and they could well fall in behind a move if the numbers are there.

The Force were in trouble because RA held their votes and nobody else was prepared to risk the ire and potential financial consequences for defying RA. Clearly that may have changed if ACT, Qld and WA are making waves.

Self interest is the important driver. Previously there was too much risk to openly challenge the RA Board, now the shareholders are facing a worse, or perhaps no, future.

Having said that, I would not be surprised if this was a RA inspired leak. It would allow McLellan to get onto the front foot publicly and privately to squash revolution before it starts.

Australian rugby has lacked leadership for a very long time, and sadly the one that led wound down the national coaching scheme in 1994, had no plan to leverage RWC 2003 into participation and support, and fatally changed the Constitution of the game in 2012.

The board should initiate a comprehensive review of the game from top to bottom, and for the first time actually carry one out in public and disclose the outcomes. A new leader would emerge, the obvious one being Justin Harrison, CEO of RUPA, who I think does understand the gravity of our situation and the depth of problems facing us. The board should then resign en masse and go back to where they came from, for most, that will be nowhere near a rugby club.

Jones? Good question. If he is committed to Australian rugby, which personally I think he is, then we cannot afford to lose a coach and analyst of his calibre. The “centralisation” proposed by Waugh and RA basically delegates and decentralises the important and hard work to the states. Developing five separate coaching schemes is insanity, ignoring what worked in 1974-1994 and embracing what has failed since. Eddie Jones could be the right person to set up a national scheme. Marks was a driven evangelist according to my young memories of the early days in the 70s.

A probing question my good friend. Having now resorted to the Google dictionary it turns out that despicable means deserving of hatred and contempt.
By dint of the character attributes listed I can certainly confirm my long held contempt for the RA Board over time. Hopefully that does not apply to every single director, but as a Board …
Hatred is such a negative emotion, and a dangerous one. In part my contempt is driven by the legitimate fear that the RA Board will drive the game here into liquidation. At the moment the only thing standing between Rugby Australia Limited and insolvency is the belief that a PE deal can be done.
That will deliver a short term cash hit which should restore liquidity and allow RA to keep trading beyond 2027. It will allow the current generation of directors to retire claiming credit for saving the game, holding a RWC and leaving the game in better financial condition than they found it.
PE is a ticking time bomb that will most likely end with RA running out of money. Although the amateur game will continue to survive on an oily rag it will slowly run out of oxygen, becoming at best, a very minor sport. Possibly some very negative views will be expressed by rugby supporters should that scenario emerge .
It is always possible that PE cash could be used to revitalise the game, restoring growth in participation numbers and increasing revenues net of PE share beyond current levels.
There is no evidence that successive RA Boards since 2003 have any idea how to invest money into the game to ensure its success. The stated aims of repaying debts, spending money on players, and holding the rest to protect against future losses gives me no grounds for hoping.

Despicable might be a bit strong. Short sighted, ignorant, dishonest, lacking in integrity, inconsistent with the long term interests of the game are just a couple of terms that came to mind while typing this sentence. I had better stop there.

I believe there is a cap on SR squad wages. The problem is that the higher echelon players are topped up by RA. They have to balance the $ they can afford against what can be earned elsewhere. Forcing a player to play in Perth rather than live in Sydney no doubt might tip the balance in favour of moving offshore, or cost RA more.

The English Premiership operates under a completely different set of circumstances; deeper and broader playing pool, players are contracted to he club, distances between clubs and cities is less of an issue.

The downfall of the English clubs was predictable, and predicted. They sold 27% of the Premiership competition revenue (rising to 45% if revenue > 90m, not sure if Euro or stg).

Each club received 13m and all except two clubs repaid debt or repaid owners. The other two clubs “did the right thing” and invested in facilities etc for the future.

All thirteen did the wrong thing. Lost revenues must be replaced in the short term or the “equity” received has to be held to replace revenues each year. In fact a higher amount as most clubs run at a loss.

RA’s strategy of using money to repay debt, pay players, and lock up the rest in a trust, is obviously a recipe for bankruptcy.

Can they outdo NZ for stupidity? Give away 85% of the future rights to all new global and technology opportunities? Agree to a convertible note where the PE has an option to convert to equity or debt?

Watch Hamish the Magician make our sport disappear.

I think they clamped down on the number of foreign players because it was affecting the national team, and we sure can see the difference.

Fortunately for Fiji, NZ did, because RA completely failed to do what they committed to do.