KEY POINTS:
I'm not too sure how long the fallout from the Brian McClennan resignation will last, as monumental decisions were made by both Brian to resign and the New Zealand Rugby League not to compromise.
The residency clause for the Kiwi coach (the Gary Freeman rule) is really nonsense,
as everyone is aware it was built in to remove Gary. It says the Kiwi coach must reside locally to oversee the development of players and coaches, elite camps and high performance.
I'm sorry to be so blunt but this is drivel; it's a convenient excuse to stand by a rule devised for the purpose of removing another coach. Why would McClennan need to be looking over the high performance programme when the NZRL has a high performance manager, Tony Kemp? Surely that's his job.
McClennan's primary role is to coach the team to win test matches and the World Cup in 16 months' time, not to worry about players he is not going to have a great deal to do with until they make the Kiwi team. That will be in five to 10 years' time, if they are lucky. Even then those players will be playing in Australia or Europe with clubs as they will not make the Kiwi team while playing in New Zealand.
So why is it essential the coach is here to see them develop? The criteria for the role need to be reviewed and revamped.
Why not change something when you want to improve it, just like the NZRL did in appointing a director of football (Graham Lowe), installing a convenor of selectors (Howie Tamati) and the high performance manager onto the selection panel?
I have no problem with these appointments as they are essential in giving balance, with varied opinions, for the coach to assess options in selection.
What is a problem is the NZRL varying McClennan's contract during his term and expecting him to accept it without having some reservations about his ability to continue with the same confidence.
McClennan's feelings are understandable regarding these changes. Next, he was to report to a person placed between himself and the chairman and then have others placed onto the selection panel without his consultation (under his original contract McClennan appointed his own selectors).
I am not going to debate whether he should or shouldn't appoint his own selectors but he negotiated that into his contract and, if it was changed, he has a right to feel aggrieved. There were too many changes for any person to feel comfortable.
Compromise from the NZRL would have alleviated this unpleasant public spat. As mentioned, it is not essential the coach reside in the country as his primary role is to win test matches.
The changes the NZRL wanted to make to the contract could have been implemented at the negotiation of the next contract. The people could still have been appointed but not be forced on the coach midway through a term. It is now time for the national body to reflect on their role throughout this process and how they could have handled it better.
Please, let the gun go now so that you don't shoot yourself in the foot... again.
