Nine weeks ago I wrote about the hysteria that was Jarryd Hayne. Well, it's reared its head again after the former NRL and NFL player held talks with the ARU last week.
There were photographers waiting outside the "secret meeting", a classic player agent tactic. Managing the media to let those in the game know what you have been up to is how they earn their 7.5 per cent.
Hayne's worth is his reputation, but what is his value in a game he has never played? We can all see he is shopping himself around. Surely ARU boss Bill Pulver can't fall into the trap of being a pawn in the negotiations. 
Hayne's worth would also be limited as he can't represent the Wallabies, unlike when Israel Folau made the switch to rugby. What happened in London when Hayne turned out for Fiji's rugby sevens team showed he was off the pace physically, but more so how far off the pace he was when it came to understanding the game, and that would only be magnified in the 15-man version.
I thought Peter FitzSimons summed it up well in The Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday when he said: "We want people wearing the jersey for whom it has been their actual life's dream, not just the dream of the moment."
The development of future Waratahs has to be the long-term priority for Australian rugby, not just a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, tick-that-box kind of player.
When it comes to things I'm not happy about, who came up with the convoluted Super Rugby structure? Particularly the finals system? Whoever did contrive this formula should be on a rocket ship to the moon.
Teams finishing on top of the four Super Rugby conferences got home-ground advantage for the quarter-finals. That was the Brumbies, Hurricanes, Lions and Stormers.
The system, however, punished several teams that performed better during the regular season, namely the Highlanders (11 wins, four losses) and the Chiefs (11-4). The Highlanders had to travel to Canberra on Friday night to play the Brumbies (10-5), despite the Kiwi side collecting nine more points than their Australian counterparts during the season, while the Chiefs racked up a few more frequent flyers and jetted off to Africa to take on the Stormers (10-1-4). You could also throw the Crusaders (11-4) into the mix, as they faced the Lions (11-4) in Johannesburg, despite finishing on equal points and with the same win-loss record.
It nearly cost the Highlanders. They only just hung on in Canberra on Friday night.
So why does the system bizarrely punish teams that finished nearer the pointy end of the ladder?
If the current Super Rugby model continues, New Zealand teams will struggle to maintain their dominance. From an Aussie point of view, that might not be a bad thing. This season the Australian conference was the one that underperformed. I said at the start of the season that our teams would face a reality check when they took on Kiwi opposition.
You can always get a barometer of how you are tracking by playing a Kiwi team. That's what happened in the second-last round. The Australian teams had just three wins and one draw from 25 games against New Zealand opposition this season.
I suppose the administrators could argue that the finals will be akin to Darwin's theory of evolution, that a team's ability to survive will mean the best team will make it to the final and one will be crowned.
The only hiccup in that theory is that finals are a different beast. Teams and players find something else and raise the bar, and if that something is using an opposition's travel fatigue to their advantage, they will do it.