The fallout from Munster’s appointment of Roger Randle as their next attack coach, and specifically the decision of three former players to step down from the Munster Branch’s eight-strong Professional Game Committee (PGC), raises serious question about the governance of the province.
Between them, Billy Holland, Mick O’Driscoll and Killian Keane represented Munster more than 500 times and for all three to resign from the PGC this week in advance of Munster formally confirming the appointment of Randle is more than just a terrible look for the province – it raises concerns about the decision-making process at the top end of the province’s structure.
Nor is this the first time that this has been called into question: the departure of Johann van Graan and the criticisms of the province by former player Conor Murray being prime examples.
It is understood that the Munster CEO, Ian Flanagan, and general manager Ian Costello were the driving forces behind the recruitment of Randle, whose strong bond and previous working relationship with Munster head coach Clayton McMillan would have made him the latter’s preferred choice to succeed the Bath-bound Mike Prendergast next season.
There is a PGC in all four provinces and normal practice would be for them to be consulted on the appointment of coaching staff and the signing of players.
[ Clayton McMillan defends Munster’s appointment of Roger Randle as attack coach ]
Evidently though, the Munster PGC was not consulted about the appointment of Randle. It’s understood that the lack of consultation with them, rather than the choice of Randle per se, is what prompted their resignation.
If this is the case, then one could readily understand their decision to step down. After all, if they were not consulted before a key appointment was made, then what’s the point of them staying on board? Or, indeed, what is the point of the PGC? By extension, are the roles of the CEO and especially the general manager too powerful?
Munster said they carried out “due diligence” before coming to the decision to appoint Randle. But if so, they either weren’t particularly diligent or they ignored any potential consequences in hiring Randle.
No one should be regarded as being guilty of a crime they were accused of in the past, one which they denied before all charges were dropped, thereby debarring them from working in their chosen profession forever more.
Yet had those responsible for coming to the decision to appoint Randle truly carried out due diligence, they would surely have expected the kind of backlash which has ensued. This was in the ether since Randle’s name was linked with the impending vacancy more than a fortnight ago.
Furthermore, while strictly speaking the IRFU only appoints the provincial head coaches, whereas the assistant coaches are appointed by the provinces, it’s also a bit rich of the union to wash its hands of any involvement in this process. It must have been aware of, and signed off on, Randle’s appointment from whenever contracts were agreed.
But, ultimately, it’s the decision-making and power structure within Munster as a professional rugby entity which have been brought into question once again.