On Monday, the game’s key stakeholders responded in striking silence to the pivotal announcement regarding John O’Neill being re-contracted as chief executive officer of the ARU, a role deemed the most crucial in Australian rugby over the past three years.
Officials from the New South Wales, Queensland, Victorian, and West Australian rugby unions all chose not to give on-record statements about the ARU board’s decision to extend O’Neill’s contract until the end of 2013.
Only Andrew Fagan from the ACT was willing to share a public opinion, likely because his remarks were positive. “We’re very supportive of his re-appointment,” Fagan expressed.
“The upcoming two years will present challenges, yet they will also offer opportunities for the game’s development. His continued presence is a wise choice, and we back it. The ACT does not oppose his appointment.”
In contrast, the others reacted with shock and disappointment, many expressing outrage upon reading the ARU’s press release regarding the matter.
The significant role at the helm of Australian rugby has now been secured for another three years, and yet none of the stakeholders were informed that the decision had taken place the previous week. After all, O’Neill’s current five-year contract still has 17 months remaining.
Nevertheless, all remained silent when asked to provide official comments. Why? As one stated, they must collaborate with O’Neill and the ARU, thus seeking to avoid potential conflict.
O’Neill’s reappointment raises numerous inquiries, particularly three: Why so prematurely? Why so discreetly? And against which key performance indicators was he evaluated?
The rationale behind Renewing O’Neill’s term so early was allegedly to prevent any attempts by New Zealand representatives to reclaim Robbie Deans, should the Wallabies outperform the All Blacks in the upcoming World Cup.
From my perspective of Deans over the past three years, he appears to operate independently and would continue to perform commendably with the Wallabies regardless of O’Neill’s status as CEO.
It is not Deans who aligns himself with O’Neill, but rather the other way around.
Moreover, O’Neill’s involvement is not critical for securing Deans as coach. If the ARU wishes to finalize the Wallabies’ coaching role before the team faces the upcoming World Cup challenges, that decision should rest with the board itself.
After all, the ARU’s strategy of extending O’Neill’s contract until the end of 2013 had been understated, with prominent stakeholders believing that a decision would not be made until at least mid-year.
However, on Friday, while the Australian rugby community focused on Melbourne and the launch of the new Super Rugby team, Melbourne Rebels, the ARU board convened in Sydney and approved O’Neill’s contract extension.
This also clarifies why no ARU board member attended Thursday’s Weary Dunlop Lunch in Melbourne, missing an opportunity to network with the country’s most influential business leaders.
O’Neill certainly needed to be present at such an event. Notably, the ARU does not currently have a sponsor for its primary competition, Super Rugby. Investec Bank, which had sponsored the tournament in Australia for three years, has ended its partnership with the ARU, along with Bundaberg Rum.
Presently, the ARU is facing a deficit this year of approximately $8 million, and it seems that nearly four years after Gary Flowers was ousted for having the audacity to push for the much-needed Australian Rugby Championship, the blame game regarding O’Neill’s predecessor has surely exhausted itself.
Indeed, participation numbers have seen a significant rise.Under O’Neill’s leadership, a recent ARU release highlighted a record of 209,571, though the Green and Gold rugby website humorously remarked at the time, “you wouldn’t have seen so much padding (of figures) since your Year 10 formal.”
While the ARU attributes credit to Melbourne’s inclusion in Super Rugby, it is essential to note that Flowers had previously promised the Victorian Rugby Union, after granting the Super 14 expansion license to Perth in 2005, that Melbourne would receive the next license. Consequently, O’Neill’s actions merely honored that organizational commitment, and perhaps it’s best not to delve into the ARU’s involvement in the creation of the Rebels.
It may be true, as the uninspiring ARU chairman Peter McGrath claimed in his press release yesterday, that O’Neill is the ideal candidate for the role, but who can really assess that?
Aside from Flowers’ 1000 days in charge, O’Neill has effectively overseen the ARU since the inception of professional rugby in 1995.
Despite the seemingly promising future, Deans’ current record stands as the worst for any Wallabies coach since professional rugby began, with only 24 wins from 43 Tests.
So, what key performance indicators did the ARU board use when bringing O’Neill back on board?
Under his leadership, the union now faces unprecedented debt, the lowest Wallabies win ratio of the professional era, a market share decline from 22 percent in 2001 to 13.7 percent today, a lack of sponsorship for Super Rugby, and stakeholders who are reportedly so intimidated by head office and its “adversarial management style”—as described by one state official—that no one dares to voice any objections against him.
Australian rugby, you’ve done it again!
by Buford Balony
