Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: Letter to Raelene Castle

  1. #16
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    17,984
    vCash
    4776000
    The Bronze Star of Faith
    I read a letter from a ceo answering the questions that were asked and not offering a single full stop more, you can't expect any more than that.

    Who can doubt that the board made decisions based upon "what they believed was the best interests of rugby" that means they've already lined up a list of scapegoats to cover their ass. Having stookie in there as the whistle blower was inconvenient, so they frost him out.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  2. #17
    Veteran Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    4,584
    vCash
    5094000
    TWF Contributor! 141 Club Award
    "what they believed was the best interests of rugby" does not even touch on what they believe that good to be, what they think comprises the game in Australia, or their strategy for achieving it. Ask Roger Davis what he thinks would be in the best interest in rugby, and it will be a very narrow and insular answer. Unfortunately, despite RA supposedly being responsible for the big picture, I doubt his answer would differ significantly from that of the board other than a cosmetic veneer of generalities and lip service.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  3. #18
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    294
    vCash
    5222000
    Dear Realene,

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to make false and misleading statements?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to act against the interests of a constituent while proclaiming to be supporting the constituent?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to do this in secret, and acting in a manner designed to prevent the constituent from finding out?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to be funnelling money to one constituent to the detriment of other constituents?

    No, I didn't think so.

    Now change "politician" for "director of a corporation". Would you still find it unacceptable?

    Now change "politician" for "director of an incorporated body". Would you still find it unacceptable?

    Now change "politician" for "director of The Australian Rugby Union".

    All hypothetical, of course.

    4 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by SteveWA; 22-08-18 at 10:21.

  4. #19
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    12,060
    vCash
    5278000
    The Bronze Star of Faith TWF Contributor!
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveWA View Post
    Dear Realene,

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to make false and misleading statements?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to act against the interests of a constituent while proclaiming to be supporting the constituent?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to do this in secret, and acting in a manner designed to prevent the constituent from find out?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to be funnelling money to one constituent to the detriment of other constituents?


    All hypothetical, of course
    .
    Hypothetical?..........

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David

  5. #20
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    17,984
    vCash
    4776000
    The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveWA View Post
    Dear Realene,

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to make false and misleading statements?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to act against the interests of a constituent while proclaiming to be supporting the constituent?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to do this in secret, and acting in a manner designed to prevent the constituent from find out?

    Would you find it acceptable for a politician to be funnelling money to one constituent to the detriment of other constituents?

    No, I didn't think so.

    Now change "politician" for "director of a corporation". Would you still find it unacceptable?

    Now change "politician" for "director of an incorporated body". Would you still find it unacceptable?

    Now change "politician" for "director of The Australian Rugby Union".

    All hypothetical, of course.
    All of these things fit within Mr Clyne's "end justifies the means" view of what is good for Australian Rugby.

    Attempting to channel the inside of his head it would sound something like this "Australian Rugby will be better with a strongly supported team in each of the major population centers and we should do everything we can to make those teams strongly supported. In the case of NSW and Qld, the teams need to be successful, in the case of Melbourne, we need the public to notice them, using the same strategies that the Storm have used to gain acceptance in this major city, the Rebels can gain a foothold"

    Note, there is no mention of how you need to run roughshod over the rights of every rugby player in Australia and rort every possible system to achieve that end. Nor does it mention the fact that the organisation does not, and will never have, enough money to replicate the salary cap breaches of the Storm, nor can they afford to buy their way out of trouble when it's discovered.

    If you'll excuse me, I need to go take a shower now!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  6. #21
    Legend Contributor Exile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,025
    vCash
    244000
    Dry July! Ex-Staff MO-vember Donator TWF Contributor!
    I think we all need to get realistic here.

    First up - the fact that Raelene Castle replied to Bakkies Email is pretty impressive.

    Next - Raels was never involved in the decision to ax the Western Force - to expect her to comment on that topic one way or another is totally unfair. If she was to do so, the next story to come out of Moore Park would be that of Raelene Castle stepping down from her role as CEO for Personal Reasons.

    Next - Raels cant dismiss the body that appointed her.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Exile
    Sydney


    ďI stopped waiting for the light at the end of tunnel and lit that bitch up myself!Ē

  7. #22
    Veteran Bakkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,527
    vCash
    5146000
    If it wasn't for the contributions from News Limited I say the Storm would have been in serious trouble. At least it was News Limited's money not the NRL's. From what I recall the league had a number of struggling clubs at the time so shite would have hit the fan if they had thrown millions at the Storm.

    Just sent this back to Raelene and added in some of the stuff that has been mentioned since her response on here.

    Hi Raelene,

    Thank you for your quick response.

    Most importantly axing a side and alienating communities is not in the best interests of Australian Rugby. Australian Rugby is a community game for all not a financial institution.

    On the topic of finances what would have been in the best interests of Australian Rugby is to address the governance and management of the Queensland Rugby Union that has seen a lot of money thrown away at payouts (which included a lawsuit won by a former Wallabies head coach) and the financial drainage at the Melbourne Rebels rather than axing a side that is heavily tied to the community game.

    Australian Rugby Union executives should have been down to Melbourne to address the financial issues there rather than flying to London throwing their own under the bus. I have seen the annual reports that have been made available publicly and it is very clear the Melbourne Rebels have benefited from millions more in funding from the governing body beyond their annual Super Rugby allocation even though they had private ownership. The Melbourne Rebels is clearly the biggest non budgeted expense to the governing body. The point of private ownership in Melbourne was to finance the side so they weren't reliant on extra funds from the governing body who weren't flush with money. If the owner couldn't commit to that he either sell the side (without assistance from the national governing body) or hand over his licence to another party. I also saw no evidence of an agreement from the private owners (as there has been a prior owner) to pay back the Australian Rugby Union.

    Last year alone the Australian Rugby Union allocated over $10 million to the Rebels far more than their Super Rugby allocation the governing body would have made a profit had they not thrown that amount of money away and not had to make such a drastic cut to Community Rugby funding. The Brumbies who were up for the axe received the least in the Super Rugby allocations and actually turned over a profit.

    Anthony French in his report to the then Australian Rugby Union board at the August 2016 meeting that was used as a tool to justify axing a side barely glosses over the issues at the Queensland Reds and Melbourne Rebels instead it was heavily biased against the Western Force and the Brumbies who have cost the national governing body far less than the Melbourne Rebels even though they have been around a lot longer. How can a board make a nuclear decision when they haven't been provided with the full details? Neither the Brumbies and the Western Force benefited from such a financial outlay from the governing body. Instead they were told to stand on their own two feet.

    At the time it was clear that the Australian Rugby Union in making such a ridiculous decision could only axe the Western Force which you had the Intellectual Property to. That Intellectual Property still hasn't been returned by the way to Rugby WA which is contrary to what you told the Government in response to the Senate Inquiry recommendations. What occurred last year was an expensive charade. Your organisation dragged the Brumbies in to this which led to a lot of speculative press in the media and I have not seen Rugby Australia address the damage it has caused Rugby in the Brumbies region.

    The current Chairman and previous Chief Executive Officer said the decision was made on future forecasting so where is the evidence of that? We don't know how much the Victorian Government and the unknown major sponsor of the Rebels are contributing, no sign of a business plan and certainly no sign of how they are no longer going to drain the coffers of Rugby Australia.

    Rugby Australia officials need to be on the ground for longer than a fly in, fly out visit to see what is actually going on in these areas since the decision to axe a side that was never in the best interests of Australian Rugby.

    Australian Rugby should be focusing on addressing these issues rather than throwing large sums of money at established players and Rugby World Cup bids. I just can't see Australia hosting a Rugby World Cup when the game has so many known issues, dwindling test attendances and television ratings.

    Kind regards

    7 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    'I may be a Senator but I am not stupid'


    https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-breakfast-show/cameron-clyne

    Link to Senate Report http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca

    https://www.change.org/p/rugby-australia-petition-for-cameron-clyne-to-resign-as-chairman-of-the-rugby-australia-board

  8. #23
    Rookie Markos2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Mount Lawley
    Posts
    115
    vCash
    5235000
    Can we stop now?

    The CEO does not answer for the Board, she is employed by them. She did not make the decision. Exile is right, by responding at all she has shown some respect. We should show her some. Writing to her has nuisance value at best.

    We just had seven great games of rugby we didnít think we would have. We have a far brighter future to come. I look forward to that.

    I reckon we will get better value if we commit our energy locally rather than endlessly banging on about how we were treated. It was terrible, but itís done.

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #24
    Veteran Bakkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,527
    vCash
    5146000
    Quote Originally Posted by Markos2012 View Post
    Can we stop now?

    The CEO does not answer for the Board, she is employed by them. She did not make the decision. Exile is right, by responding at all she has shown some respect. We should show her some. Writing to her has nuisance value at best.

    We just had seven great games of rugby we didnít think we would have. We have a far brighter future to come. I look forward to that.

    I reckon we will get better value if we commit our energy locally rather than endlessly banging on about how we were treated. It was terrible, but itís done.
    She may not have made the decision but she walked in to the position knowing what was ahead and signed off on the annual reports therefore stating that they were true and correct to the auditors and the game's stakeholders which includes supporters. No different to Pulver inheriting and being answerable to John O'Neill's mess. In most organisations the buck stops with the CEO and the CEO can sit on the board. Castle was put forward by the Nominations Committee as a board member.

    Due to the delays caused by the RA and been ongoing since her arrival next year's WSR tournament is still not signed off. The IP for the Force is also still sitting under the RA's name and only leased out which costs Rugby WA money. Twiggy is pulling swift moves behind their back as he has zero tolerance for time wasting and obfuscation.

    Her vice Chairman throwing tantrums at people like Pichot doesn't help Australian Rugby one bit (that includes WA too as the state union is tied to the RA still) and I have heard of little evidence to suggest that the grassroots have received more funding.

    Towing the company line in the best interests of Aus Rugby, throwing away on RWC bids while there are far more pressing issues and paying lip service needs to be called out on.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by Bakkies; 22-08-18 at 14:20.

  10. #25
    Rookie Markos2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Mount Lawley
    Posts
    115
    vCash
    5235000
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakkies View Post
    She may not have made the decision but she walked in to the position knowing what was ahead and signed off on the annual reports therefore stating that they were true and correct to the auditors and the game's stakeholders which includes supporters. No different to Pulver inheriting and being answerable to John O'Neill's mess. In most organisations the buck stops with the CEO and the CEO can sit on the board. Castle was put forward by the Nominations Committee as a board member.

    Due to the delays caused by the RA and been ongoing since her arrival next year's WSR tournament is still not signed off. The IP for the Force is also still sitting under the RA's name and only leased out which costs Rugby WA money. Twiggy is pulling swift moves behind their back as he has zero tolerance for time wasting and obfuscation.

    Her vice Chairman throwing tantrums at people like Pichot doesn't help Australian Rugby one bit (that includes WA too as the state union is tied to the RA still) and I have heard of little evidence to suggest that the grassroots have received more funding.

    Towing the company line in the best interests of Aus Rugby, throwing away on RWC bids while there are far more pressing issues and paying lip service needs to be called out on.
    Time to move on.

    We have a bright future ahead. Who cares about the ARU? Or ASIC? Or Clyne?

    Bakkies you really need to put the axe down for a while.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #26
    Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    198
    vCash
    5046000
    Quote Originally Posted by Markos2012 View Post
    Time to move on.

    We have a bright future ahead. Who cares about the ARU? Or ASIC? Or Clyne?
    Maybe it is time to move on. Soon. However, the ARU are still an obstacle in the way of a bright future ahead.

    Maybe not obstructing ... ahh, what the hell ... RA are obstructing WSR.

    There, I've said it.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #27
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    12,060
    vCash
    5278000
    The Bronze Star of Faith TWF Contributor!
    Quote Originally Posted by Markos2012 View Post
    Time to move on.

    We have a bright future ahead. Who cares about the ARU? Or ASIC? Or Clyne?

    Bakkies you really need to put the axe down for a while.
    When anger becomes obsession it really is time let go and look forward. But not to forgive or forget. Castle DID sign off as CEO on the back-ended deals that have decimated my Bulldogs' salary cap. Her, the coach and the board who directed her are gone. And a new young team who fight every game like the old "Dogs of War" are on the rise coached by one of those Old Dogs. And it's exciting. Fuck wasting energy on bitterness.

    ATM the Rats Arse board can't be removed. X is right - she does not control that board either. But the Force future is looking similarly good. Different to the past decade but better. Why would we want to go back to a system that marked our cards from day 1, even if we could?

    PS. The re-invention of the Bulldogs has featured a potential star5/8 with a great Nick name from his team mates - Harry - aka Lachlan Lewis - nephew of "King Wally" Lewis. Who, apparently like the other Harry will never be "King".

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David

  13. #28
    Player
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Girrawheen
    Posts
    332
    vCash
    5018000
    It's not over for RugbyWA who still have to find funds to pay off the legal bill that RA insists it must pay and also the government still requires payment of the loan for redeveloping NIB. Where is RugbyWA supposed to get this money from now that the Force has been cut? If RA was interested in helping out rugby in WA they would write off the legal bill. They are nasty vindictive bastards and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  14. #29
    Legend Contributor Exile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,025
    vCash
    244000
    Dry July! Ex-Staff MO-vember Donator TWF Contributor!
    I learned a long time ago that no one can tell anyone else that you can't just stop feeling the same way about something. You guys taught me that, and I apologize.

    Or, that its time to move on. Everyone has their own time frame. Their own internal Clock for these things.

    What I am trying to say is this.

    For all the energy that we put into this fight. The sleepless nights. The frustration, the tears. The banning from various websites. The abuse of people for having a differing point of view. Did we change anything?

    We cant turn back time?

    I have to ask you all one question. If you had the choice. IF we had a vote. If we had the option of having our Western Force go back into Super Rugby? OR Continue with Andrew Forrests and Matt Hodgsons vision of World Series Rugby?

    If your answer is like mine and you prefer to move forward with the Twiggy and Hodge. Then can someone please explain to me;

    What the Fuck are we fighting for????

    There is no arguing from me that Cameron Clyne and his band of merry men screwed us, They did so in broad daylight. They did it deliberately.

    BUT - The Supreme Court. A Senate Inquiry and ASIC Inquiry have all said that they do not have a legal case to answer. Whether that is right or wrong. Whether there is an East Coast Conspiracy or not. The fight is done. They won, we lost.

    I don't like it. I am sure that you all don't like it either.

    What we do have is a new Western Force. In a new competition. With a growing fanbase. Let's get excited about that. Please, let's leave the negativity behind us.

    Let's take TWF back to arguing about whether Fulvio and Darkness are mortal enemies or 2 mates who just enjoy taking the piss out of the rest of us.

    TWF has been my online home for almost 15 years. You guys are my family. I am going to be here for the long haul. Whether you like it or not.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Exile
    Sydney


    ďI stopped waiting for the light at the end of tunnel and lit that bitch up myself!Ē

  15. #30
    Veteran BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,654
    vCash
    5032000
    Quote Originally Posted by Markos2012 View Post
    Time to move on.

    We have a bright future ahead. Who cares about the ARU? Or ASIC? Or Clyne?

    Bakkies you really need to put the axe down for a while.
    Absolute rubbish.

    Moving on = letting them get away with it easy.

    I would say this should always hang over them, even if the situation is rectified.

    A murderer is always a murderer no matter how much time they do.

    Castle decided to take on this job so she should have known what she has gotten into. She sent back a pretty standard PR reply, was probably templated on there and sent by her PA taking about a minute for the copy and pastes. WOW, SUCH RESPECT FOR HER!!

    Bakkies is doing fine, the more of a nuisance he is the the RA/ARU the better, maybe it will actually spur them on to become a better organisation? But sure, leave them be to drag the rest of Australian & inevitably us down with them down the track.

    5 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Raelene Castles on kick and chase
    By SPaRTAN in forum Western Force
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 13-05-18, 12:14
  2. Has Raelene Castle actually done anything?
    By SPaRTAN in forum Western Force
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 17-04-18, 22:17
  3. Castle set for debut
    By travelling_gerry in forum Ben Castle
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-10, 21:00
  4. Castle shocker
    By travelling_gerry in forum Ben Castle
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29-09-09, 21:04
  5. Ben Castle
    By laura in forum Ben Castle
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-03-09, 17:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •