Well,  in essence plenty,  and to rectify the problems,  too much.  I don’t think Australia can win the World Cup to be honest.  Things are way different to 2003,  the first being the tournament is outside Australia.  While they made the final in 2003,  for mine it was shaky,  you know that feeling you get that they won the game but were never really in control of anything,  they hung on and hung on but always looked like they could falter. 

The away from home record is a disgrace,  and,  Giteau aside,   there are just no game breakers there,  no players that are just so good they can drag and lift a side to much,  much greater things. 

The core of the side is getting much older, and it is impossible to continue the performance of a 25 year old when you are 32,  in this type of sport. 

There are so many problems it is hard to isolate one on it’s own, and I will give my spin on them over the next weeks and months,  but one I have been giving a great deal of thought to of late is the payment structure that the guys at the top are enmeshed in. 

Firstly,  as I understand it,  and this may not be 100% accurate,  provinces pay the guys up to $110 000 per year, varying amounts for varying people based on a perception of worth,   over $110K the assistance of the ARU is required and sought.  I don’t think there is any limit on the amount the ARU can throw at the situation,  and given that Mr Flowers has said recently that the money is “already there”.  Those contractual details are fine and OK and I look upon them as salaries for “doing the job”,  turning up doing the training,  so on and so forth. 

Then of course the really high profile guys have the ability to negotiate further deals with third party benefactors,  Giteau’s recent massive deal comes to mind where there is quite a heap of private money in the package.  Again,  OK if you are good enough and you deliver value to the sponsor,  for that is what he is looking for,  money back in his pocket over and above the cost of his “sponsorship” arrangement,  I should say money and or goods and services.  I can see that there is the ability for some players to get disenchanted with the glamour boys earning so much when they may rightly think and believe they play as greater role in the team’s success or lack of it as the higher profile people. 

The next bit is where I have the problem.  Guys that play a test,  and I believe the whole 22,  get paid $10000 per test match ( I have from an unconfirmed source that this amount has risen to $15000 per test match,  but personally I’m not sure so will stick with the $10K),  win,  lose or draw.  Now that is an easy calculation,  $220 000 to make the match day payments to players alone,  for 80 minutes of footy (remember I have separated this from the salary as a performance bonus for ease of analysis).  So for 80 minutes the cost is $2750 per minute.  That’s a lot of money in most people’s language. 

Now given what I do,  if I am paying someone,  anyone,  or any group of people $2750 per minute then I expect positive results.  Results,  a very subjective word.  Given where the money comes from,  and how it is derived,  I would expect 75% of games won,  and won in an entertaining fashion.  Remember also that rugby is a gladiatorial sport and people come to or go to the games to see a physical contest,  perhaps a little niggle and maybe the odd scrap.

Failure could result in a number of things,  and from a business perspective the one I like the best is one of the clauses written in to a particularly large factory in England.  The maintenance people sign the contract,  and when they undertake a job,  a time to do the job is agreed upon and signed off.  Time over the agreed upon one is then charged back to the contractor at the rate of 400 000 pounds sterling per hour.  There are a number of ways you can apply that to a sport/entertainment scenario.  In short,  the word is incentive,  and incentive to win,  incentive to entertain (that’s what the game is about now) needs I believe to be built into the “performance bonus” structure.  Other stuff will take care of itself.  Corporate sponsors who have teams of people analyzing their incomings and outgoings will quickly close the cheque book if there is no discernible return on massive endorsements paid to individuals.  Contracts won’t be re offered and may even be cut from a salary perspective for lack of performance,  provided the correct people are reviewing those contracts. 

Right now though,  the powers that be seem scared of the players with Gregan saying he will step down from the captaincy when he is ready,  didn’t know the choice was his. 

Of course the Wallabies and Australian Rugby have considerably more problems than this,  simple ones like winning the ball at primary and secondary possession phases,  and I will give my take on them,  but thought I would start with one from left field to provoke a bit of thought. 

There are a number of things I will give my spin on,  including but not limited to:

• The Front Row
• The back row
• The entire pack
• Why I think the academy system fails the basic concepts of rugby

• The destruction of club rugby in Australia
• Mothers and Fathers Influences
• The evolving Law book.

It is also to e noted that match payments for provincial games last time I checked were $5000 per player per match,  same structure as performance bonuses for test players.

While you may not and possibly do not agree with the authour and his thoughts,  the authour doesn't really care,  and freely admits he may not be 100% correct.  However,  the basis of what is said is factual as best we can determine on any given day.  Don't be passive and accepting of failure,  give some thought to why,  really why.