Melville named USA Rugby chief executive

Nigel Melville will be the next chief executive of USA Rugby, assuming a portfolio that combines the business post with the union’s top technical job.

The former England scrumhalf and past director of rugby at Premiership clubs Wasps and Gloucester will begin when his visa is approved, the union said in a press release. The 45-year-old succeeds Doug Arnot, who departed under a cloud last summer; interim chief executive Steve Griffiths, who had been scheduled to wrap up on November 3, will continue until Mr. Melville comes on board.

The appointment is a surprise in that the Board had previously declared its intention to appoint a “president of rugby operations”, reporting to the CEO. The directors’ September minutes and a recent Sunday Times interview given by chair Kevin Roberts both clearly presented the rugby-oriented position as the more critical of the two posts.

Melville, who also has been a marketing executive for Nike and a management consultant, convinced the Board he possesses the requisite experience for both roles. His principal competition, John Kirwan, has been coach of Italy but lacks the same business pedigree.

“That I have been coaching and working in both the professional and amateur rugby business for over 10 years now has really helped me prepare for this position. In truth, I feel that everything I have done in the past has led me to this, and I am just really excited to get started,” Mr. Melville said in the union’s release.

Mr. Melville and Mr. Kirwan each attended Saturday’s USA-Uruguay match in Palo Alto, California.

The appointment makes good on the first of several priorities identified by Mr. Roberts and his colleagues. Both the chief executive and director of rugby positions have been unsettled much of the year, filled by the interim appointments of Mr. Griffiths and Alan Solomons, respectively, since the old Board’s management committee reluctantly forced Mr. Arnot to resign.

The status of interim coach Peter Thorburn will be determined by Mr. Melville, a USA Rugby representative previously said. Having taken up the post on short notice, after Tom Billups resigned in order to make clear the financial failures of Mr. Arnot and past chairmen Bob Latham and Neal Brendel, the New Zealander made a slow start but finished strongly in qualifying for the 2007 World Cup, and would like to carry on.

“They say good things come in small packages, and in Nigel’s case that is certainly true. He’s a top-notch player, England captain, successful businessman, accomplished leader, and first-class coach – with a burning passion for all things American. Nigel is the right guy at the right time to lead USA Rugby,” Mr. Roberts said in today's release.

Related:
        Roberts: top rugby man to be named
        New board adds youth to priority list
        Chair, captaincy changes are milestones

Comments

[wilson]

He should interview Billups for the coaching job.

[JAEF]

WILSON,

YES HE SHOULD.

[doug lyons]

It's interesting that prior to the Uruguay series there was general acknowledgement that this was a tough mountain for the Eagles to climb. Well, they did the job and did it reasonably convincingly.

Say what you will about Thorburn but he accomplished what he set out to do: get the Eagles into the World Cup as fast as possible.

While I have a lot of respect for Tom Billups lets not forget that under his watch the Eagles were utterly humiliated in Hartford against Wales. I was at that match and it was an embarassment. Had he been fired on the spot is there anyone that could have argued in his favor at the time?

The Eagles were also roughed up on their short tour to Europe - getting hammered by Ireland and struggling for most of the match against Italy.

So, in terms of comparison, under Billups the Eagles had their fair share of struggles to go along with the successes.

There is no question that Billups did not receive the support he should have and that hampered Eagle development. But there is a new, extremely exciting administration running the show now. To bring back Billups would be a mistake. His time has come and gone. Perhaps with the passage of time another opportunity will arise but it is far too soon to start talking about that.

Peter Thorburn has earnd the right to continue coaching this team, not to mention that to bring in a new coach now would further disrupt what has been a difficult year.

I for one see no problem with him playing some "professionals" out of position if that fits with the game strategy or sitting others if, despite thier professional status, they are simply not at a level of fitness that is required. Based on the performances in the Churchill Cup there is one "professional" player who earned his way onto the bench by looking and playing like he was incredibly unfit. Something we definitely can't afford in the forwards in particular. Benching or using some players as subs sends a clear message: get fit or get dropped.

The last thing the Eagles need now is a change in direction. Despite the losses this year 2006 has been a successful year for the Eagles - they are in the World Cup exactly where most people would have predicted.

What they do need are tours and camps to build on the foundation that has been laid. Any coaching change should come after WC 2007 when Peter Thorburn will likely want to step down and a new WC cycle begins.

In the meantime, congratulations to US Rugby for putting in place a team that has the desire and capability to bring the game to a new level with time. This is a great time for US rugby ... lets enjoy it.

[geraint hill]

"never take a backward step". That is one of Rugby's finest on field lessons. I was told that as a 7 year old boy, after getting tackled hard for the first time. I wasn't interested in playing and was willing to let the opposition centre dominate me so i didn't get hurt again.

For America to go toe to toe they can, and must, not hire Billups back. He was part of a forgettable era. It is an era that does not fit with the strategy and outlook of a highly talented board and a highly talented CEO.

Melville's credentials are phenomonal and he is the right person for the job. His brand of rugby sits in sync with the talent pool available and his philosophies helped shape Sir Clive Woodwards in the evolution to England's world cup win.

Look forwards not backwards

[ARMCHAIRBOMBER]

Exciting time for U.S. rugby! We can all thank past coaches and administrations for what they've done but lets move forward.

I was encouraged by what Roberts said in reference to trying to bring on board some true D1 athletes. While we cannot and will never have a 15 man team entirely made up of D1 players that did not make the pros, can we not find 2 or 3 from this pool of over 5000 that can make some impact? - certainly in sevens.

Money to keep new and current Eagles playing and training will be the key. All of our domestic squables and traditions (split playing season, etc...) need to get out of the way if the Eagles are to ever be competitive.

"Super League" or whatever the best domestic competiton will be, needs more games. 6 or 7 won't cut it. March thru the 1st week of June gives 13 weeks to get a 10 match regular season 2 playoff weekends and a final done. All of this before any tests and the overseas players would also be done! The climate affected clubs would need to play away matches in March thru the firstweek of April, then those hosting (better climate) clubs would need to play their away matches in April and May.

Travel money / sponsorship is the key to making it more competitive. Couldn't Southwest Air, etc. use some marketing that their airline seats fit rugby players, etc.. This is Roberts area of expertise so hopefully he can pull something like it off.

[George]

We all must realize that Thornburn achieved, with a very different financial model than the one that faced Billups, what we all knew was achievable.

He had all the support of the home office, and all the finacial support of the iRB, two things Billups never had. Say what you will about Billups, but understand that a 70-year old coach that falls asleep in staff meetings and has no use for video analysis is NOT the right long term direction for the Eagles.

Time to thank Thornburn and send him on his way.

[serzhantovo]

Looks like this thread has gone from a discussion of Melville, whose appointment I loudly applaud, to the question of who should (or shouldn't)coach the Eagles. Thorburn should be commended for stepping into a trainwreck of a situation and guiding the Eagles to the 2007 RWC. Mission accomplished, well done.

However, the Eagles goal is to make the quarterfinals of the 2011 RWC. Let's face it, they have no chance of achieving this in 2007, especially with England and the Springboks in the way. So if we're on a five year plan, Peter Thorburn's age is a limiting factor and he therefore should be thanked and kindly sent on his way back to New Zealand.

Who should the coach be? I don't know but believe he should be American, not out of xenophobia, but because we need someone that knows where the American rugger is coming from, and doesn't have to radically downshift his approach.

That said, I'm excited about recent developments. Get rugby on US television and get the Eagles some sponsors for God's sake!!

[doug lyons]

The above comments make sense. WC 2007 will be measured against how they do in the matches versus Western Samoa and whomever the final pool qualifier turns out being. If we beat these two teams it will be a successful endeavor to say the least.

With regards to the coach I really believe that for the short term - meaning through the World Cup - continuity is critical. And that means retaining Thorburn.

No question that his tenure should end at that point. A lot of people that know a lot more about rugby than I do have righted US rugby in an amazingly short period of time. These were the people that brought in Mr. Thorburn and I'd be inclined to stay the course. It's not as if he has not accomplished what he set out to do. It seems to me that if US rugby is going to establish credibility for the future coach they should know that if they accomplish the goals they set they will be rewarded accordingly. Mr. Thorburn deserves no less. And I really don't know that given the lack of playing time the Eagles have it makes a whole lot of sense to introduce the players to a third system in less than two years.

I wholeheartedly agree that a key to the future of the game is to get the WC top level broadcasting. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there does it make a sound??? That is the analogy I think of when I think of the WC and the US.

The Melville appointment is a real coup and it's hard not to be excited about where things are going.

[Wilson]

Melville will most likey look north and hire his buddy Gareth Reese from Canada.

[AF de Villiers]

Melville was DOR at Gloucester when Thorburn was DOR at Bristol and they are friends as a result.

But I'm not willing to put money on it!

Then again, if someone had said Nigel Melville would be the boss at USA Rugby a year ago I would have called them crazy.

[Elmer Gardt]

So is Mr. Melville a good choice? He has contacts in the UK and Europe, but will those contacts translate to something here in the US? He does not have an MBA or apparently even a degree in business from university. He does know rugby, but he does not know rugby in the US. Will the rugby culture shock - that of rugby in the US versus the UK - be too great for him to comprehend? Also, will Homeland Security really believe that there is no one in the US who could do the job, with like qualifiications, who is a US citizen? If they don't believe it, then he will never get a visa, regardless of what the men in Dublin want.

[M.O.]

I think Melville is an extremely strong choice.

Homeland Security has nothing to do with visas. The State Department issues work visas for overseas nationals. Looking at Melville's credentials and the specificity of rugby, a visa should only be a formality.

[elmer Gardt]

MO, you need to go and look - INS runs everything through Homeland Security along with State. The national office will still have to make a case that there are no qualified individuals in the US that can do the job.

[ARMCHAIRBOMBER]

Elmer,

I take it from you comments that you would prefer an American coach and administration. The last 25 years of Eagles rugby has proven (W/L record, visibility of game, sponsors, etc.) that there are no individuals in the U.S. that can do either with consistent success. That's just fact. Taking nothing away from previous coaches, Eagle players, administrators, etc., we cannot ever confuse passion and effort with actual results.

The status quo of the last 25 years is not acceptable to men of Roberts and Melville's backrounds. They will either move it forward in the next 4 to 5 years or head someplace where their talents can help. I'm sure they will not be content to be rulers of a 2nd class rugby nation's national side where the local high school football games draw 6,000+ at $5 a head and a free Eagle match on a beautiful sunny day draws an estimated 1600.

Not to say the Eagles will ever fill the Rose Bowl but some more exposure of them, as well as the sport overall that they play in heaven should increase with more consistent wins and some marketing/branding opportunities. This is where Mr. Roberts backround fits in. He needs a product to sell.

Rugby here is too often associated with the social game (drink ups, etc.). The comraderie and social game has its place but no one would ever pay to see it and no "national level" sponsor would feel well represented by it. This is no different from adult amatuer baseball and hoops leagues, some of which have a decent level of competiton and athleticism but do not tarnish the professional franchise when an amateur team or athlete makes unflattering headlines. Here stateside, rugby gets a black eye because the average person has never seen it at its highest levels. Any story associated with rugby is about the amateur shenanigans. They have never seen an Eagle forward plowing through a tackle on a Ford truck commerical or big Jonah Lomu in the open field choosing to run at the hapless opponent for whatever "extreme" product wants that type of branding / association. They have never seen the Eagles post win make an appearance on Letterman or even a local station sports show. How about getting some tape of the Eagles scrummaging practice in front of John Madden? He uses the word "scrum" 10 times season in telecasts.

Of course this is the catch 22 U.S. rugby has been in - money is needed to move forward and no sponsors want to give money to an unknown product. So to get U.S. rugby out of its own 25 year stalemate we all (Homeland Security, etc.) have to get behind it. The only other choice is to let it say where it is.

[John Hill]

Interesting Comments about Melville, the coach and the talent to run USA Rugby.
First of all Nigel Melville. England captain on his debut. Took Wasps to the high level they have since sustained after they had been raped by Rob andrew to get players for Newcastle Falcons. rebuilt them to win the Championship in 1997 if i recall corretly and established the plateau from which they rarely descended. Took over a demoralised Gloucester and reinvigorated and regenerated them. LEADER - and that is capitals, not shouting stamped all over him.
So a message for the INS this guy is an exceptional talent and you will not find an alternative within the US who has the depth and breadth of the demands of professional rugby, the experience of how to mess it up (like the RFU) and the skills to put it right. He was also intimately involved with Rugby in England through the revolution that has produced the World Cup winners of 2003 and the duffers of 2004/5/6. He will have seen how the RFU failed to rebuild and restructure, how the club/country debate is off course and come in with ideas and plans to ensure you don't suffer like that. So get real.
As for homeland security England /UK are your biggest and at times only ally FFS
Like wise the debate over the coach. I met and liked Billups, the guy is all good things that the US has produced, dedicated, fit, clean cut and talented; and quite unlike any professional coach I ever met. Rugby in the US has to move on from the hippy roots to become clinical and precise. on the field. That means adopting the best practices from other countries around the world - especially the founders club (SANZAR and 5 nations) and grafting them on to what Tom called what America does well analysis and planning. Your next (probably next 2) coach needs to bring in the best of the rest and weld that on to the best of US.

Which takes me onto my last (I can hear the relief) point. Development. You do not have the infrastructure to sustain the momentum of growth of Rugby and identify and channel the Talent into the Eagles. You do need to inmport coaches (and referees)for 2 reasons. First sheer volume - I used to believe that a team needs a coach. I coach a college team in England and experience has demonstrated to me that in order to achieve successa team needs a Manager, a head coach and probably 2 other Assistant coaches if they are to maximise potential.
Youth teams where there is a high proportion of rookies need more.
Do the numbers yourselves
Self sufficiency is all well and good, but you'd never have put a man on the moon without the German scientists
I am not an American, but I admire, respect and love your country I believe that World rugby needs a strong America to be for the game to be credible in a World sporting context. I will also declare an interest as I own a rugby development company registered in DE and we are planning to put UK and SANZAR based development officers into 5 locations on the East Coast and Midwest - subject to funding.

Best of luck Nigel I hope that you can help put this great bunch of rugby people on a winning track