O'Neill paints bleak picture

O'Neill paints bleak picture

January 29, 2008

AUSTRALIAN Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill warned there needed to be significant and radical changes made to the game locally otherwise it ran the risk of falling into a irreversible decline.

O'Neill has returned to good health and work this month after undergoing neck surgery in November.

But he today a picture of a relatively unhealthy code in his first media briefing since resuming work on January 14.

He revealed the ARU management team had spent 2½ days discussing the state of the game in Australia.

"The option of doing nothing can't be contemplated and some very significant radical changes have to be undertaken," O'Neill said.

He said the position was not good and revealed the ARU was set to report a loss of $7 million to $8 million in April, despite a grant of $7 million from the International Rugby Board.

He said the ARU's reserves had diminished from $35 million after the 2003 World Cup to around $15 million and there wasn't one Australian province or state that was really financially healthy.

O'Neill said it was hard to find any of the ARU's key performance indicators over the last four years that was heading in the right direction.

"The position is fairly disturbing, the Wallabies over that four year period had a win-loss ratio of 60 per cent compared to the 70-80 per cent they enjoyed in 1998-2003," O'Neill said.

"In the recent World Cup the Wallabies were knocked out in the quarter-finals for the first time since 1995 and our Super rugby teams have only won the title two years out of 12.

"Even worse, the teams that are our heartland of rugby, New South Wales and Queensland have never won a Super rugby championship and were the two bottom teams last year.

"The matches are not providing the entertainment that fans demand."

The ARU chief stressed the need to increase the amount of high level rugby and suggested the Super competition could be expended to 1½ or even two full rounds.

"I think our players are very well paid relatively compared to players around the world and in relative terms they are under utilised," O'Neill said.

The ARU boss acknowledged any changes to the Super tournament could only be made with the approval of South Africa and New Zealand.

"The SANZAR partnership is in very good shape, but their needs and our needs inevitably are subtly different," O'Neill said.

O'Neill defended his High Performance Unit general manager Pat Howard against recent criticism by saying it was "criticism of style rather than substance. Pat has got my absolute confidence".

The straight-talking O'Neill made it clear the Wallabies and the Super tournament were his major concerns and said replacing the scrapped third-tier Australian Rugby Championship was "not a priority".

He wanted the Wallabies to aspire to a win-loss ratio of 75 to 80 per cent, which he believed would bring major trophies back to Australia.

He believed the experimental law variations to be used in the Super tournament would indisputably improve the game as a spectacle.

Regarding the off-field controversies which have swirled around Western Force in recent times, O'Neill was adamant a review of the Perth based franchise's behaviour had been completed.

"I think the Western Force's backyard has been tidied up and we're quite satisfied with the answers we received," he said.

AAP

what about the Tahs Off field troubles????????????????????????????

Jeez I can't leave this alone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

He revealed the ARU management team had spent 2½ days discussing the state of the game in Australia.

---

and had decided to slash budgets to the point that we're all going to be playing in bonds tee shirts that we have coloured in ourselves using crayola markers (our 2 major (and only sponsors)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

"The position is fairly disturbing, the Wallabies over that four year period had a win-loss ratio of 60 per cent compared to the 70-80 per cent they enjoyed in 1998-2003," O'Neill said.

"In the recent World Cup the Wallabies were knocked out in the quarter-finals for the first time since 1995 and our Super rugby teams have only won the title two years out of 12.

---

I understand why this would impact gate takings, and sponsorships...I do, but in this time, we have added a S14 team which averages 27,000 for each home game, has increased the season by one round and the gate takings for the other three teams have not been affected by the addition of another team (NSW gate takings suffered last year because they sucked, not because their supporters were watching the :force:.

The Wallabies have not renegotiated a sponsorship contract in this period, and the tests that ARU received a gate from were pretty well attended to the best of my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

"Even worse, the teams that are our heartland of rugby, New South Wales and Queensland have never won a Super rugby championship and were the two bottom teams last year.

---

Careful John, you bias is showing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

The straight-talking O'Neill made it clear the Wallabies and the Super tournament were his major concerns and said replacing the scrapped third-tier Australian Rugby Championship was "not a priority".

---

This is the most patently stupid thing (in a long list of stupid things) John O'Neill has ever said. On the one hand, he bemoans the performance of Australian rugby teams in the premier competitions (Tests and S14) but the very next breath sees him not prioritising the necessary fix to that very problem.......Who gave this Muppet the job!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

Regarding the off-field controversies which have swirled around Western Force in recent times, O'Neill was adamant a review of the Perth based franchise's behaviour had been completed.

"I think the Western Force's backyard has been tidied up and we're quite satisfied with the answers we received," he said.

---

No mention of the similar fiscal irregularities the Waratahs use to lure high priced but ineffective league converts to the Wallabies, thus affecting our win-loss ratio.


NOT HAPPY JOHN!:fight::fight::fight::fight::fight::fight::fi ght::fight:

I remember lots hailing his return as the messiah.....

I remember me being very dubious of his return :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_gerry

I remember lots hailing his return as the messiah.....

---

Tell you the truth, I might have been one of them....but I was a babe in the rugby woods for his last innings....He can have a bit of leeway since the runs are on the board from the last attempt, but not too much.

Let's face it, the success of his last appointment might just as well have been because of an exceptional player group, or some good people underneath him, not necessarily anything at all to do with him!

Love him or loath him, O'Neill tells it as he sees it and doesn't muck around.

What's the old saying, "better to be ruled by one lion than a thousand rats"?

Do we have both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIGS20

Do we have both?

---

No sorry GIGST there are only 33 rats in the Waratahs squad. We probably have 50 by the time you count all of the NSWRU board.


$7 million dollars loss and how much of that can be attributed to the high value of the Aussie dollar against the US dollar which is what our major income source is paid in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

O'Neill paints bleak picture
The ARU chief stressed the need to increase the amount of high level rugby and suggested the Super competition could be expended to 1½ or even two full rounds.

"I think our players are very well paid relatively compared to players around the world and in relative terms they are under utilised," O'Neill said.

The ARU boss acknowledged any changes to the Super tournament could only be made with the approval of South Africa and New Zealand.

"The SANZAR partnership is in very good shape, but their needs and our needs inevitably are subtly different," O'Neill said.AAP

---

Personally, I actually agree with a lot of what he says (including the bit about NSW and QLD - that's not bias, it's the truth).

However, we Australians can be a bit arrogant when it comes to talk of expanding Super 14:

Australia: "We need to expand Super 14."
South Africa & New Zealand: "What? Why?"
Aus: "Cos our players aren't getting enough rugby..."
RSA & NZ: "Ours are - we got our own competitions!"
Aus: "And we need to compete with the NRL."
RSA & NZ: "N-R-what? Who cares? Like we said, we got our own competitions!"
Aus: "How about a Melbourne team?"
RSA & NZ: "Yeah, we'll see..."

:lolup:

Yeah I agree with that conversation beige, but the ARU has GOT to stop seeing NSW and QLD as our prime market for S14......that's only half the teams covered and it's our established market. Surely if we're losing our established market we're also not doing well in our expansion base. If we lose established market share, but gain Expansion market share, there can still be an improvement in our overall position, but simply put, most moves which improve outcomes for the expansion markets also improve outcomes for the established market. The ones who are turning their back are fickle anyway, and will return as soon as the Waratahs win a couple of games! I give it three or four years...