Australian Rugby / RA

[qwerty51]

Payto and Panda just wrote an article about that HJ. Basically said ARU works out the loss from playing a match over there rather than here and WR (World Rugby) funds it.

 

[boyo]

NSW government gives Australian Rugby Union $1.7 million grant

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-government-gives-australian-rugby-union-17-million-grant-20150713-giatn0.html#ixzz3fkd80C54

 

[Slim 293]

I guess it only makes sense for the ARU and Waratahs to be working out of the same office.........

 

[mst]

I guess it only makes sense for the ARU and Waratahs to be working out of the same office...

Commercial in confidence deal - AKA merger?

IMHO I have to ask why a state government has bypassed granting money to their own state based rugby and given it to a National body like the ARU?

The lack of transparency, and making this deal commercial in confidence suggests that there is an agenda in play here that the ARU would prefer for the public not to know about. What's to hide if its just about funding more participation activities and relocating offices?

I smell creative accounting to cover a lack of dollars. Someone has already suggested it's to pay for Izzy - maybe not as far fetched as we may think.

 

[wamberal]

The NRL got $5 mill a year from Lunches McDonald under the last Labor Government to play a State of Origin game in Sydney every year. As if they wouldn't!

 

[mst]

The NRL got $5 mill a year from Lunches McDonald under the last Labor Government to play a State of Origin game in Sydney every year. As if they wouldn't!

I have no issue with the ARU taking money for when state governments fund games to be played in their state - if its in the best interests of the game, or for any development opportunities etc. I would even understand if the ARU said that the money is to help with top up to keep certain NSW based players at the Tahs. But commercial in contract about moving offices and non-contact 7's?

This is where I question about the use of funds when our grass roots need support and they are again overlooked for.....non-contact 7's? Forgive my naivety but isn't that touch footy?

 

[wamberal]

If the choice was between getting this money under these conditions for those purposes, on the one hand - or getting nothing, should they have gone for the nothing option?


This is the basic problem, all we know is what we read in the media, we do not see the full picture.

As for the grass-roots, they have to nourish themselves - that's the way it has always worked. We began as an amateur game and we are only semi-pro now.

Because of the circumstances we find ourselves in as a not very popular niche sport, we rely on grass-roots support, a small broadcasting deal (compared with the AFL and NRL), a bit of licensed club support, and an occasional hand-out from government.

That's about it.

 

[I like to watch]

T

As for the grass-roots, they have to nourish themselves - that's the way it has always worked. We began as an amateur game and we are only semi-pro now.

Because of the circumstances we find ourselves in as a not very popular niche sport, we rely on grass-roots support, a small broadcasting deal (compared with the AFL and NRL), a bit of licensed club support, and an occasional hand-out from government.

That's about it.

That's the way it's always worked,so that's the way it's got to be forever?
Seriously?????
If the wallabies can't finance themselves & the bureaucracy that supports them,then that's where the cuts have to be made.

The Schools have Sports lined up to be able to run sessions at Schools.
League now offers literally hundreds of School leavers money to play their sport.
Just because TG Milner looks just as it did 30 years ago,doesn't mean the landscape hasnt changed dramatically.
to borrow a Joe Hockey phrase,it intergenerational theft.

 

[wamberal]

They play league at TG Milner now. When I was young, Michael Cleary, the local member of Parliament and of course former dual international, was refused membership of Eastwood Rugby Club because he was a professional.


That's a change, I guess.

 

[mst]

If the choice was between getting this money under these conditions for those purposes, on the one hand - or getting nothing, should they have gone for the nothing option? But what is the money for? Nothing already established. Its for a touch footy program so where does the money come to sustain the new programs? And moving costs - wow, that extravagant!


This is the basic problem, all we know is what we read in the media, we do not see the full picture. If this were a private company it would not be an issue. When a body representing and administering a national game cannot be transparent, the reputation and integrity questions may out-weigh any good the money can do - especially when we cant see where it has gone. Parents would be justified in asking why fees when up if there is more cash heading in the the ARU.

As for the grass-roots, they have to nourish themselves - that's the way it has always worked. We began as an amateur game and we are only semi-pro now. So grass root should go it alone because the ARU, the national administering body is taking all the money to pay for itself and the Wallabies? And that's Ok? It begs the question of is it in the best interests of the grass roots game to be aligned and administered with the ARU if they have to fend for themselves? Remember its the subsidies that is funding the elite. so would that money fund a grass roots administration of its own?

Because of the circumstances we find ourselves in as a not very popular niche sport, we rely on grass-roots support, a small broadcasting deal (compared with the AFL and NRL), a bit of licensed club support, and an occasional hand-out from government. We all know the problem: bad publicity, image issues, poor quality of games, poor marketing and failure to support the grass roots where the supporter base is grown from. So part of the issue here is not only do we bring the problems on ourselves, the handouts we do get are used to indulge halfwit ideas rather than in nourishing a generation of supporters via the grass roots.

That's about it.

 

[Dave Beat]

If the choice was between getting this money under these conditions for those purposes, on the one hand - or getting nothing, should they have gone for the nothing option?


This is the basic problem, all we know is what we read in the media, we do not see the full picture.

As for the grass-roots, they have to nourish themselves - that's the way it has always worked. We began as an amateur game and we are only semi-pro now.

Because of the circumstances we find ourselves in as a not very popular niche sport, we rely on grass-roots support, a small broadcasting deal (compared with the AFL and NRL), a bit of licensed club support, and an occasional hand-out from government.

That's about it.

• No go with the grant option.

As with all just hope it is reinvested and not wasted. I've seen more changes since Pulver has been in than the period that spans out 2 RWC's - some of these changes don't bring instant results;
- NRC
- 60 cap Wallabies being selected.
- Flexible contracts.
- Extra cost for Grass Roots.
- Taking grant away from clubs.
Some of these were hard to take, yes, but some decisions in business are just that. I'm calling it progression and for it to work it needs to be grasped and worked on.

• Grass Roots, have to nourish themselves.

I agree with that to, but to put it in one line is a bit like Treweek taking a highball with Barry coming through.
In my eyes, grass Roots starts with the U6's and finishes at the NRC. The U6's shouldn't be left to flourish by themselves, and nor should the NRC - they need to support each other and everything in between. If I recall the ARU didn't hand $ out to the NRC the ARU negotiated a TV deal. Let's look at ways of using that to grow and nourish, we grow and nourish it will be a catalyst for greater exposure. It will involve team work, volunteers, and ideas - and that is what made our game great.

• Niche sport.

Its popular for me rugby winter / fishing summer

 

[Train Without a Station]

I agree with those comments Dave. I can only hope the goal is to provide financial resources to junior grades when the code can afford it.

Personally from what I've seen I'm not concerned about the Under 6's though. My club has multiple teams in age groups until you get to Under 14's when there are no more teams. Why? No competition to play in.

I think ages 12 to colts are the major risk.

 

[Dave Beat]

Personally from what I've seen I'm not concerned about the Under 6's though. My club has multiple teams in age groups until you get to Under 14's when there are no more teams. Why? No competition to play in.

I think ages 12 to colts are the major risk.

Agree, however we have 2 different jobs here;

• U6 - U12 is all about engagement and increasing numbers.
• U13 - Colts is all about retention.

With that identified we need to focus on each aspect individually. You referenced U14 - I think the change happens when going from prep school to senior school and it is at the U14 age group we realise - shit what happened.

Id be interested in the stats if anyone has them on a state by state / code by code basis.

• Do the playing numbers, and by how much drop off, or do we simply not see them in club land because they are playing at Private Schools.
• If they do drop off, do other codes increase, which codes and at what age bracket.

The U13 + retention is a huge beast, we are fighting with adolesense, girls, private schools, peer pressure to name just a few. The solution would vary depending on geographic area and that's why I'm with @Wamberal that grass roots have to nourish themselves. Each geographic area needs to work out key touch points in this age group and implement & execute the jobs required to retain and grow.
Whether it be an NRC team, or rugby club, feeding the code from the U6's up will provide growth.

 

[I like to watch]

Dave, unless the ARU devotes considerable funds to grassroots/development,this code will be consumed by the other codes.
Someone told me yesterday that Touch Footy has programs with over 250 Schools!

Yesterday I drove past Stella Maris(an all girls school)and a class was going across the rd for sport.
With a bag of 20 odd AFL footballs.
Leaving it up to volunteers to do their best in their spare time will just not cut it in today's world.

 

[Dave Beat]

Dave, unless the ARU devotes considerable funds to grassroots/development,this code will be consumed by the other codes.
Someone told me yesterday that Touch Footy has programs with over 250 Schools!

Yesterday I drove past Stella Maris(an all girls school)and a class was going across the rd for sport.
With a bag of 20 odd AFL footballs.
Leaving it up to volunteers to do their best in their spare time will just not cut it in today's world.

Understand what you are saying, but there has to be a plan if money is involved, simply plashing cash is not good. Sent a PM that applies to your area.

 

[wamberal]

Dave, unless the ARU devotes considerable funds to grassroots/development,this code will be consumed by the other codes.
Someone told me yesterday that Touch Footy has programs with over 250 Schools!

Yesterday I drove past Stella Maris(an all girls school)and a class was going across the rd for sport.
With a bag of 20 odd AFL footballs.
Leaving it up to volunteers to do their best in their spare time will just not cut it in today's world.

The ARU does not have considerable funds so I guess we will be consumed.

 

[Dave Beat]

The ARU does not have considerable funds so I guess we will be consumed.

ha ha, shit I wish the Rats laid down like that on Saturday.

 

[mst]

Understand what you are saying, but there has to be a plan if money is involved, simply plashing cash is not good. Sent a PM that applies to your area.

Would the subsidies that were loaded on by the ARU in recent times be sufficient to fund some sore of Junior ARU that can fend for itself?

Would this represent the grass-roots game better?

As suggested above, below the NRC downwards, and it would be receive and manage grants to the game for the grass-roots.

 

[mst]

Dave, unless the ARU devotes considerable funds to grassroots/development,this code will be consumed by the other codes.
Someone told me yesterday that Touch Footy has programs with over 250 Schools!

Yesterday I drove past Stella Maris(an all girls school)and a class was going across the rd for sport.
With a bag of 20 odd AFL footballs.
Leaving it up to volunteers to do their best in their spare time will just not cut it in today's world.

To show you how easy it is for schools........and everyone - pick the relevant tab!

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=68

Does the ARU have the same resources (and to this level) available?

 

[Dave Beat]

Would the subsidies that were loaded on by the ARU in recent times be sufficient to fund some sore of Junior ARU that can fend for itself?

Would this represent the grass-roots game better?

As suggested above, below the NRC downwards, and it would be receive and manage grants to the game for the grass-roots.

I'm actually not following the question here?

I think each geographic area needs to be managed differently, i have an idea local to me. where as I'd love to see the impact if the Tahs trained out west 2 - 3 days a week, and included junior school activities in conjunction with that. Not sure what $ would be spent to train out west - but it would create good will.