Coach deserves better than a kangaroo court
I am told that on Wednesday the Rugby Football Union will make an announcement after reviewing the England team’s recent performances and, in particular, those of head coach Eddie Jones.
If the governing body has been wise, it will have ignored most comments made on this subject, particularly on social media. The proliferation of rugby podcasts, bloggers and social media accounts following rugby, means making controversial points is more important than being accurate or logical. Who wants accuracy, when you can just shout: “Sack him, and get him, him or him,” and why do you need two weeks to decide anyway?
Well, you must consider the legalities. You cannot terminate employment without breach of a fundamental clause or going through the agreed review process. Similarly, even if you make the decision to replace,
you have to negotiate a new contract that satisfies both parties, and this takes time, like it or not. Remember, this is about a key role in English rugby. If you want to dance to the ever-diminishing attention spans of today, then more fool you. Are you really saying they should not go through proper due diligence? What would be said if they did this and it went wrong – “Clowns, ignoring every part of due process and acting like autocrats, they should all be sacked.”
So, what of the review panel itself? Depending on your point of view, it is either a shadowy, unaccountable body, in which ordinary English rugby fans have no faith, or a set of people prepared to give up their time and expertise to try to help the RFU make the right appointment. Regarding the question of anonymity: is transparency an absolute in good governance? Some answer yes, and that is fine, if you are prepared to acknowledge that there are downsides to this approach, and it might mean you cannot get the panel you want. Moreover, you accept that you have made a criterion for being on the panel: “Must be prepared to take s--- from anyone who wants to comment”. Surely anybody worth their name would be prepared to back their judgment and publicly. Ideally, this should be so, but it is not the reality and – if you have any empathy – for understandable reasons.
I firmly believe this type of panel should have somebody from outside rugby, to give balance and perspective.
If, say, they asked someone from cricket to help, published their name, and it went wrong, that person would be subject to comments that begin with: “What the hell do you know about rugby?” Why would they volunteer?
My name has come up on social media as being the sort of person who should be on the panel; some
Who wants accuracy when you can just shout ‘Sack him, and get him’?
This type of panel should have somebody from outside rugby, to give balance and perspective
agreed, and others disagreed. I would not be paid for my timeconsuming input and, even if it were initially on the basis of anonymity, there is no doubt my name would leak at some point. If it all went wrong, why should I subject myself and my family to the media attention and abuse that would inevitably follow?
I know for certain that a similarly experienced former England player, and a very high-profile coach, were invited to take part on the above basis and they declined for the same reasons. If you make light of the abuse issue, it obviously has never happened to you and if it had, you would not underplay its seriousness, nor the fact that it was the defining reason that the previously mentioned two people declined involvement.
Why does anonymity limit the media’s reporting function, beyond identification? Accountability is the claim, but accountability for what, because the RFU board makes the decision, the panel merely recommends. Like Jones or not, he is England’s longest-serving coach, has won three Six Nations titles, one Grand Slam and reached a World Cup final. He deserves the respect of having his future properly considered and being allowed to put his case. If you do not do this, what does it say to the next appointee?
You should not sack someone without a suitable replacement and that means they must be suitably qualified, available and want to do the job – not just the next person of whom you can think.
Then, do you offer a one-year contract, which virtually nobody would take unless paid disproportionately, or do you risk a five-year contract and the stick that would come if next year’s World Cup were a debacle?
Ironically, many of those who give out the abuse and claim lack of transparency and accountability, do so anonymously. Many of the writers who, rightly, criticised the RFU’S review of the 2011 World Cup, and the breaches of anonymity, are now clamouring for its end – you cannot have it both ways.