Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@MajorRage said in Aussie Rugby:
@booboo I don't disagree. But they have high public profiles, and if you get in the job and alienate them, the cycle will repeat.
The grassroots is obviously the starting point, but if you don't get the high profiles on board first, the rest won't follow.
I think @nzzp has a good starting point, but I would add that after all is said and done, call or write to the signatories to tell them to GTFO and write an open letter telling the world that with snakes like them and cunning stunts like that in the middle of the biggest crisis in the history of professional rugby, Australian Rugby is doomed, and if they care at all about Australian rugby instead of their own political nonsense, they will STFU and keep their noses out.
-
Good Article Really sums up the Mess that is Australian Rugby
[link text](link url)https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/121269539/amateur-hour-returns-as-raelene-castle-crumbling-sends-australian-rugby-back-to-the-past
-
@Bovidae said in Aussie Rugby:
Maybe Castle and the whole board need to go as well
Did the staff number increase under Castle. Not a smart move for a business that was struggling. But 150 staff and paying the boss 800,000. It justs eesm excessive to me
*Alan Jones has fired a parting shot at Raelene Castle, saying the outgoing Rugby Australia (RA) chief executive "knows nothing about the game" and should never have been appointed to the role in the first place as he called for the entire board to follow her lead and stand aside.
The former Wallabies coach and radio broadcaster has been one of Castle's fiercest critics since she took the role in 2018, particularly over her handling of the Israel Folau saga.
"This solves absolutely nothing," said Jones on his 2GB program on Friday morning. "I have said all along it is easier to throw Raelene Castle under the bus. I can't imagine anything that she has done, whether it's the bloated expenditure, the ridiculous growth in staff to over 150, the foolish and personal spiteful attack on Israel Folau, the hopeless performances off the paddock and on the paddock ... all of these things have been endorsed by the board
Castle resigned as RA boss on Thursday evening after a tumultuous few weeks and attention will now turn to the survival of a board that may also see a number of casualties during a precarious period for the code.
-
@Winger said in Aussie Rugby:
Did the staff number increase under Castle. Not a smart move for a business that was struggling. But 150 staff and paying the boss 800,000. It justs eesm excessive to me
Pulver got $775,000 and a $500,000 bonus in his last year.
-
@antipodean Really says everything that does Wow
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@Winger said in Aussie Rugby:
Did the staff number increase under Castle. Not a smart move for a business that was struggling. But 150 staff and paying the boss 800,000. It justs eesm excessive to me
Pulver got $775,000 and a $500,000 bonus in his last year.
This also seems excessive. Even if they were rolling in money
And why 150 staff. Maybe Jones has a point. Some leaders love to increase staff numbers as it makes them feel more important. But Id like to know what the equivalent staff number were 5 , 10 ,15 and 20 years back. And if RA was starting from starch how many staff would they need to do this work. RA really need a very senior ruthless cost cutter to be part of this new structure. With a top man or woman who is on board with cutting costs
-
But just citing staff numbers isn't enough. What were the staff doing? Were they back office suits, or were they development officers working with juniors and coaches?
This is a crucial difference. And citing the past is no guide here, because for years the ARU was the biggest drain on the game, a pack of empty blazers who had their snouts permanently in the trough.
But of course these were the good old days we are trying to emulate, so what would I know?
-
@barbarian a victim of their own success? That period leading up to the 2001 Lions series and 03 RWC where The coffers were flushed, players were getting big money and ARU got over excited by throwing large sums at league players trying to exert itself more on the domestic landscape.
Administrators were not going to be left behind as well with large salaries going their way.
Fast forward to 2020 (and it started a few years ago now) and many who knew d day would come are now just shaking their heads with [insert frustration / disgust / disappointment / disillusionment ]
-
@ACT-Crusader Welcome back.
-
I read somewhere that NZR's staff numbers had increased a lot in the last 5 years too. The devil is in the details.
Edit: According to the 2018 Annual Report, NZR employed 149 people as of 31 Dec, 2018 (111 people in 2015). So comparable to RA in total numbers.
-
@Bovidae and presuambly higher numbers where there is a central system?
I wonder if that increase under Castle was related to the investment in grassroots etc? could also be a bunch of folks on fixed and/or short term contracts.
lol ahem - I see @barbarian is already on point and asking about context! Good man
-
@Winger said in Aussie Rugby:
Maybe Jones has a point.
No. He fucking doesn't. He never does. He's just a massive fucking hypocrite who rests on the laurels of "coaching" a great team and appealing to the male, pale and stale old boys who think Sydney and Brisbane club rugby is the answer to the current state of our shitty national team.
If you want to have any credibility with the majority of Australian rugby fans, just fucking ignore the stupid old queen.
-
Does the staff numbers include the players? I had a look at NZR's annual report/website earlier in the year, and it was organised in 4 divisions, with playing being one of them.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
But just citing staff numbers isn't enough. What were the staff doing? Were they back office suits, or were they development officers working with juniors and coaches?
This is a crucial difference. And citing the past is no guide here, because for years the ARU was the biggest drain on the game, a pack of empty blazers who had their snouts permanently in the trough.
Exactly - having a Board makes sense because usually sports organisations are incorporated societies, so need a committee of some sort for governance, but I often wonder why, if these people love the game so much, they need to be paid so much to be involved? Likewise the CEO and other non-playing/coaching staff - sure, get paid enough of a salary that life doesn't suck, but again, if the love is that prevalent, why are these national bodies paying hundreds of thousands each for their CEOs and senior managers?
-
Further: Sydney Club Rugby might be enjoying a resurgence in spectator numbers, and even quality of play, but it is still a fucking basket case.
I've played on about half the grounds of Premier Clubs at various points, and while you'd let your dog shit on some of the ovals, you wouldn't keep it in the change rooms at Easts, Sydney Uni, Two Blues, West Harbour, Penrith*, or Eastwood.
*who I guess don't count any more
-
@Godder said in Aussie Rugby:
why, if these people love the game so much, they need to be paid so much to be involved? Likewise the CEO and other non-playing/coaching staff - sure, get paid enough of a salary that life doesn't suck, but again, if the love is that prevalent, why are these national bodies paying hundreds of thousands each for their CEOs and senior managers?
Bingo.
It is the same bullshit argument about politicians "Oh but otherwise they'd just go to the private sector!"
OK, let them go elsewhere. I want someone there to FIX the fucking problems, not just make bank regardless. Especially now.
A smaller base salary with a large incentive plan should be adequate for both the ExCo and the playing squads, IMHO.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
Further: Sydney Club Rugby might be enjoying a resurgence in spectator numbers, and even quality of play, but it is still a fucking basket case.
And at the expense of Super Rugby crowds.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@Godder said in Aussie Rugby:
why, if these people love the game so much, they need to be paid so much to be involved? Likewise the CEO and other non-playing/coaching staff - sure, get paid enough of a salary that life doesn't suck, but again, if the love is that prevalent, why are these national bodies paying hundreds of thousands each for their CEOs and senior managers?
Bingo.
It is the same bullshit argument about politicians "Oh but otherwise they'd just go to the private sector!"
OK, let them go elsewhere. I want someone there to FIX the fucking problems, not just make bank regardless. Especially now.
A smaller base salary with a large incentive plan should be adequate for both the ExCo and the playing squads, IMHO.
Do incentive plans even work in a zero sum sport? Everyone has one, and yet everyone can't win world cups etc.
-
Not really interested in your opinion of Jones.
what i am interested in is did the number of staff increase in recent years (and also the wage and salary bill). If so by how many. And was there a good reason for the increase or not.
These are key issues that need to be addressed. Is Aust getting value for money from their spending. Or has past leaders employed staff to boast their ego's etc. And in general spent poorly or carelessly
-
Ahh yes staffing, the simple solution to the complex problem. The 'bloated back office' full of self-important suits who spend their days telling others how to suck eggs.
My work has brought me in contact with RA staff on a number of occasions, and a few other sports as well. The reality is sports HQs are mainly filled with young people who are underpaid but passionate about the game they work for. They pay below market rate.
I'd wager there wouldn't be many of that 150 who are paid above 120k.
But also, critics of RA can't have it both ways here. They want more support for the 'grassroots' but that means staff - coaches, development officers, admin assistants. How do you think the AFL does it? They have an army of young staff who work in outposts all over the country.
But the critics also want a world-class high performance program. We need to win trophies! Well would you believe that means staff too - strength and conditioning, analysts, kicking coaches, medicos, sports psychs.
And then of course you need the things that modern companies all have to have - IT, legal, government relations, sponsorships and sales, etc etc etc.
It annoys me because people see the line on the balance sheet and go "that's way too high - think of what we could do with that money!" and then propose a series of things that require additional back office spend.
The reality is nobody here truly knows if every cent of that money is well spent, but I'll make the point that it doesn't happen for no reason. It wasn't like we had a cash windfall and went "let's hire some mates and get on the beeeeers baby".
