No clear vision, goals and strategies is the big wakeup call right there. American rugby has too long been a place of pockets of interest. We are spread out too far. The membership and their representatives have had widely varying ideas of what USA Rugby should be doing and what their dues should fund. Too often, it appears, such varied ideas can be like a large group of people ordering a pizza – argue all you want for anchovies, olives or pesto; you know you’re all going to settle for pepperoni.

Other statements from the report:

"The international game is the key driver and opportunity to grow and develop the game in the USA but this may not be widely accepted or supported."

"The image of the game is a problem if rugby wants to grow, attract investors and become part of the recognised sporting system in the USA."

"There is a general sense that the current governance model of USA Rugby is not effective. The Board is too large, the Executive is not functioning and there are problems with the quality of decision making, leadership and direction the Board is taking."

"There is a need to review and update human resources policies and procedures to ensure staff [are] supported and retained in a challenging environment."

ASMT goes on to say the current way USA Rugby is run does not allow for good decisions to be made. The national office is overworked and works with no clearly defined operating plan, policies, or guidelines.

Repeatedly ASMT mentions the lack of a clear vision. Repeatedly ASMT points out that the way decisions are made (especially big ones) is cumbersome.

Repeatedly ASMT says there’s no coordination.

And repeatedly ASMT points out outdated or poorly-working elements of USA Rugby’s governance and you feel you could write 2,000 words on how it’s the Board’s job, or some specific person’s or committee’s job, to make sure things like the by-laws are modernized and who the heck dropped that ball and ...

OK, we know this. Members of the Board know this. Members of the National Office know this. Even journalists know it.

So why didn’t we do anything about it? It could take some months to fully answer that question, but I believe the answer, in part, is because the problem itself hindered a solution. If you have a setup that makes it difficult to make decisions effectively and efficiently, then how can you decide to change?

If you have a Board based on specific constituencies, how can they see the big picture? If you have a national office that hasn’t had a chief executive last longer than three years, how can you plan for the long term? If you have a Board that is supposed to approve major changes in the organization but meets as a complete unit only twice a year and then only for a weekend, regardless of the issues left on the table, how can you get anything done?

All this before we get into personalities or personal failings. Before we get into the fact that the Board of Directors has not taken a strong interest in measuring the performance of CEO Doug Arnot and, in addition, eliminated the committee that oversaw human resources in the national office. Before we get into the fact that USA Rugby not only went from a positive cash flow in 2002 to a negative cash flow of $364,687 in 2004 and also spent the reserves the organization had built up in previous years.

Because with those added factors, the lack of vision and lack of a cohesive plan get brought into sharp relief.

Or, as Mike Campbell says in Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises when asked how he went broke, it happened "gradually then suddenly."

Or, as ASMT put it so much more succinctly: "The Board model is not in line with best practice and will hold USAR back from achieving its full potential at many different levels."

In the end, we needed to hear it from an outsider. We couldn’t hear it from someone on the inside because everyone knows each other. Everyone has "an agenda," something I found myself being accused of in recent days. People didn’t address the substance of the words, but the source; the way they were said; the forum.

But here’s someone else saying it in the right forum, with an agenda we can all agree on – the growth of rugby union football in its proper form – and saying it well.

And to the Boards great credit (whether they fought about it or not), they listened. They appear to have acted. It is quite possible that some will have voted themselves out of a position. The Board itself may find itself tasked with new jobs, and new responsibilities. A new vision of how the National Office, the top executives of USA Rugby, and the Board work together will take shape in part because an outsider is helping shape it.

Can we look back on this turning point and say it was a great one? We hope. Or will we wonder about the other great changes that have heralded a new age of reason, plans this writer has often lauded?

Will having an outside, unimpeachable source be enough? Don’t know. I want to believe, I really, really do.