ARU fee structure change for 2015

[Chris McCracken]

The ARUs primary objective is to own the names, email addresses and every other fact they can get about who us playing rugby or who is a parent of a rugby player so they can then communicate marketing and anything else directly for minimal cost. The fact that RugbyLink has not been proven as a club, team and competition management system is if little consequence to the ARU. They don't care of the likely disruption it will cause when comps start (or earlier). It's all about their needs.

In the interest of fairness, MRA already does all of the information gathering you mention. They have all of that data and a means to collect it. They need to have that data available as the authorised peak body for the sport, anyway. If you think the government or insurance companies will allow a peak body to run without contact details for NOK, you've got another think coming.

Also, Rugby Link (by alternate names) is a well proven system. It is a third party implementing the system and they operate for Cricket, Netball, Golf and Tennis Australia - among others.

I'm afraid neither of those is really at issue here.

Also, how can any organisation say that another organisation us not allowed to discuss or do business with a privately owned insurance company? Im not a lawyer but i doubt the ARU have the power to make this demand and Surely this is an attempt to restrain trade under Australian Trade Law?

I think this is more to the point. The ARU's methodology to protect their newly found income is poor, at best.

 

[Druid]

The big issue with all of this is the ARU have shown their hand. They are willing to threaten the lifelyhood of development officers (by withdrawing funding), decreased participation of non-school Rugby and threatening all and sundry to disown them if they don't do what they want. Tantrums aside, if the ARU had of simply worked with the grassroots and explained what the issues were and the path forward, it could have been so much better. However, whatever income they receive they will also piss away as many people I have spoken to will not attend another Wallabies game while Bill is in charge because of this fiasco.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think that the letter on its own shows Pulver is not the right man to lead Australian rugby.

 

[Brendan Hume]

So am I right in assuming the SJRU position to the NIL and NPR fee is as follows:


- they have negotiated a $1.1M cut to funding
- they have sourced their own insurance
- they will not be using Rugby Link
- they have reduced their ARU Fee to $11
- they will not pay that amount to NSWRU until they receive some guarantees on what programs the money will be spent on

Is anyone aware of any other position from any other Union, and does anyone have any documentation that confirms this position?

 

[Chris McCracken]

So am I right in assuming the SJRU position to the NIL and NPR fee is as follows:


- they have negotiated a $1.1M cut to funding
- they have sourced their own insurance
- they will not be using Rugby Link
- they have reduced their ARU Fee to $11
- they will not pay that amount to NSWRU until they receive some guarantees on what programs the money will be spent on

Is anyone aware of any other position from any other Union, and does anyone have any documentation that confirms this position?

I have just written to our Zone and NSWRU requesting just that. I'll post anything that gets turned up. Our club has a drop dead date of Feb 3 for setting our final fee figure. So, I hope I get a response soon.

 

[Quick Hands]

So am I right in assuming the SJRU position to the NIL and NPR fee is as follows:


- they have negotiated a $1.1M cut to funding
- they have sourced their own insurance
- they will not be using Rugby Link
- they have reduced their ARU Fee to $11
- they will not pay that amount to NSWRU until they receive some guarantees on what programs the money will be spent on

Is anyone aware of any other position from any other Union, and does anyone have any documentation that confirms this position?

As I understand it, the $1.1 million cut to development was always going to happen. It was assumed by the ARU (?) that the NPF collected in NSW would equal this and be returned to rugby in NSW for development.

As far as I am aware the NSWRU have through Gow Gates obtained unsurance on a per team basis on the same terms as pervious years. (I think I attached the letter to a previous post some time ago)

SJRU clubs will be using Buddha

The fee as agreed to by NSWRU and SJRU will be $10 plus GST per player

SJRU will not forward that money on to NSWRU until they see what they are getting for their money

 

[Brendan Hume]

As far as I am aware the NSWRU have through Gow Gates obtained unsurance on a per team basis on the same terms as pervious years. (I think I attached the letter to a previous post some time ago)

That's what I can't find. If that's the case, Bill has lied to Queensland Rugby clubs. I can't tolerate that.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's what I can't find. If that's the case, Bill has lied to Queensland Rugby clubs. I can't tolerate that.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's what I can't find. If that's the case, Bill has lied to Queensland Rugby clubs. I can't tolerate that.

 

[TSR]

You would think the QRU (and other state unions) would be making the point very clearly to the ARU that it is unacceptable that the NSWRU (albeit through their proactive approach) have been allowed to adopt last years insurance arrangements and that option is being denied to the QRU.

I can't see how the ARU could hold a gun the QRU's head on this - the NIL is not supposed to be funding any of the community rugby grant.

 

[Strewthcobber]

You would think the QRU (and other state unions) would be making the point very clearly to the ARU that it is unacceptable that the NSWRU (albeit through their proactive approach) have been allowed to adopt last years insurance arrangements and that option is being denied to the QRU.

I can't see how the ARU could hold a gun the QRU's head on this - the NIL is not supposed to be funding any of the community rugby grant.

Would the QRU care? Its not like they are competing with NSW unions for players over $$. And its the players not the union that pays.

The new insurance arrangements maximise the contributions to the state unions by enforcing the registration and payment of every player. (Of course that assumes the sane numbers actually sign up)

 

[Brendan Hume]

You would think the QRU (and other state unions) would be making the point very clearly to the ARU that it is unacceptable that the NSWRU (albeit through their proactive approach) have been allowed to adopt last years insurance arrangements and that option is being denied to the QRU.

I can't see how the ARU could hold a gun the QRU's head on this - the NIL is not supposed to be funding any of the community rugby grant.

I don't think the QRU have pursued any alternative on behalf of its members. They are the architects of the scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TSR]

The QRU should care because it is their job to represent their members.

Even if the QRU are the architects, I don't understand what is wrong with backing down and exploring an alternate option. The QRU know that their members are unhappy. Surely they need to pursue alternatives on behalf of their members.

My key point here is that the letter from the NSWRU clearly shows that returning to the team based insurance is a viable option, despite what this subsequent letter from the ARU indicates.

The QRU should be pursuing this approach. Why aren't they?

 

[Chris McCracken]

Even if the QRU are the architects, I don't understand what is wrong with backing down and exploring an alternate option.

Because it's basic human nature to dig in your heels. No-one likes to admit they're wrong - especially when they're on record as having developed a plan to save the game.

 

[TSR]

Chris - 100% agree. But this is an organisation, not an individual. If they dont have a process in place to review and implement change which extends beyond personal stubbornness, then we really are in trouble.

The sticking point with organisations is normally the money already invested. There is also the concern that an administration will be seen as incompetent/lacking authority if there is a significant change of position.

I can't see how the first concern applies here and I would suggest the QRU will do far more damage to their reputation if they continue to support this is direct opposition to the wishes of their sub unions.

 

[Chris McCracken]

Chris - 100% agree. But this is an organisation, not an individual. If they dont have a process in place to review and implement change which extends beyond personal stubbornness, then we really are in trouble.

I think we ascertained that some time ago.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Chris - 100% agree. But this is an organisation, not an individual. If they dont have a process in place to review and implement change which extends beyond personal stubbornness, then we really are in trouble.

The sticking point with organisations is normally the money already invested. There is also the concern that an administration will be seen as incompetent/lacking authority if there is a significant change of position.

I can't see how the first concern applies here and I would suggest the QRU will do far more damage to their reputation if they continue to support this is direct opposition to the wishes of their sub unions.

I can't applaud the NSWRU enough for their efforts to support their members. It is now up the the QRUs members to decide whether they will roll over or hold the state body to account and ensure that organisation acts for its members. Time will tell what the outcome will be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Chris - 100% agree. But this is an organisation, not an individual. If they dont have a process in place to review and implement change which extends beyond personal stubbornness, then we really are in trouble.

The sticking point with organisations is normally the money already invested. There is also the concern that an administration will be seen as incompetent/lacking authority if there is a significant change of position.

I can't see how the first concern applies here and I would suggest the QRU will do far more damage to their reputation if they continue to support this is direct opposition to the wishes of their sub unions.

Sometimes organisations take on the personality of those running it. Just as the ARU won't admit that they've got it wrong because the Hawkers and Pulvers of this world think that they are a little bit better and smarter than the rest of us.

Michael Hawker for example is reputed to be some sort of insurance guru - he ran IAG for years and now he's a director of Aviva plc which is the biggest insurer in the UK. So if he can't get us a good insurance deal, who can? Instead we're left worse off than we were before in terms of premiums etc. Or is the NIL, just like its cousin the NPF just a sneaky little cash grab by the ARU. How for example can the NSWRU source per team insurance, but the ARU headed by and insurance expert can't?

It's all got a very nasty smell.

 

[Chris McCracken]

OK, I just spoke with the right person about the changes in NSW. Ostensibly, there will remain an NPF and it will be similar to that which was to be charged by the ARU. The fee, however, will be paid to NSWRU and will cover the cost of DOs, etc. This is due to the cancellation of the ARU's 1.1M development grant.

All of this confirms what Quick Hands has said thus far.

Country will use Rugby Link. As to whether other groups move to Rugby Link or use Bhudda was beyond our conversation's scope.

Our other concerns regarding part-time players, deferred costs and costs for junior players playing in senior matches are still being discussed, but there are some good ideas being considered to mitigate them.

The upshot is this: NSWRU players will get away slightly cheaper than otherwise, they will know precisely where the NPF is being spent, there will likely be some sort of concession for part time players, there will likely be some sort of concession for deferred costs, and there is an ability to keep running in-club programs like our local Wallas Friday nights.

While it hasn't reduced the cost to players a great deal, this is something I can sell to the membership. Perhaps the ARU should have tried something similar.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Great wrap up Chris. It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds through the season as sign on days and matches start. It always bothers me to think that when shit decisions are made and volunteers pick up the pieces, and work harder to pick up the pieces the people who have made the decision can look at it and say - "see, it didn't have the impact you said it would"...

I'm interested to see how the concessions for part timers, etc work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk