Australian Rugby / RA

[dru]

I believe Randwick field 150 kids per weekend.

Run out the figures. 12 clubs at 150 = 1800 kids. Good.

But the Sydney Junior RU and the Country Junior RU claim 19,000 between them. On this basis it justifies less than 10% of the available funding. Currently from the NSWRU the Premier division gains roughly half of that funding.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I believe Randwick field 150 kids per weekend.

Do they run out in the Randwick strip or as part of say the Clovelly Eagles or South Coogee or Maroubra etc? Because they are very different scenarios. If they are actually Randwick teams then great but if they are village clubs with an association (in terms of falling inside their district) then I stand by position that its those clubs and not Randwick that develop those kids with Randwick merely being the beneficiaries.

Also, only 150 kids? 10 full sides but likely less. Hardly proves the point that they are bastions of development.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I also think in this discussion we are overlooking what I believe is a huge potential win for Rugby in this country and that is 7s more specifically targeted toward women. The ARU mentioned they wanted to boost womens participation to around 20 odd thousand. Which is great but hardly enough. Focusing on the womens game could be potentially the biggest win for the game if done right.

 

[Dave Beat]

how are the other 8 teams funded?

Well some of them are off the back of ARU funded Super Teams - so to be politically correct so people don't get up set I will call that Reinvestment.

Then I read somewhere ARU looks after travel, and ASIC looks after kit so there shouldn't be allot of other costs - oops i forgot the oranges at half time. I wonder if the Premier clubs only have to worry about the kit and oranges as there shouldn't be many other costs.

 

[p.Tah]

Do they? The only involvement from SS clubs I ever saw was come rep time. Even then it was only in the form of a kit. The coaches were a combination of club coaches as were the team managers. I honestly never saw anything from Randwick outside of that until I entered Colts. Hell, in my age group there were only 2 clubs that formed the rep side.

That's my current experience with my boys. There is some interaction between the Shute Shield club and 'its' junior teams but not much. We joined one club in the belief there a strong connection between junior and senior. I was genuinely surprised how little interaction there was.
The junior clubs in my area do really well because of the parents in the junior club wanting their sons and daughters to have a great time. Few of those volunteers have any affiliation with the Shute Shield club.

I'm not trying to bash the Shute Shield Clubs. I played for one of the clubs and I attend quite a few games each year. I'm just not impressed by the recent PR smear campaign the clubs are attempting.

 

[Train Without a Station]

What I find the most distasteful is it's a deliberately misleading campaign.

It attempts to drum up the support of all the clubs at the level below on behalf of the grassroots, but it's nothing to do with that. It's about the expectation their their elite programs will be funded in the same way they previously have been.

As part of it they imply the ARU is refraining from investing in grassroots, when they are in fact going to double their investment.

Peter Fitzsimons offers more balance, but he talks of the grassroots investment being such a small portion of a misquoted ARU salaries figure, when it's actually going to be closer to 60% of that.

Does the AFL invest 60% of what they spend on AFL staff into grassroots?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

That's my current experience with my boys. There is some interaction between the Shute Shield club and 'its' junior teams but not much. We joined one club in the belief there a strong connection between junior and senior. I was genuinely surprised how little interaction there was.
The junior clubs in my area do really well because of the parents in the junior club wanting their sons and daughters to have a great time. Few of those volunteers have any affiliation with the Shute Shield club.

I'm not trying to bash the Shute Shield Clubs. I played for one of the clubs and I attend quite a few games each year. I'm just not impressed by the recent PR smear campaign the clubs are attempting.

I hope I'm not coming across as bashing the clubs. It's not my intent. I grew up hearing about the Ella brothers et al. from my father who while came from a RL background was a big fan of Randwick and the club. I grew up wanting to play for them and I got to do that. Unfortunately, health issues and a general loss of enthusiam to play ended my adventure in Colts. I still tune in every Saturday (I rarely have the time to go but its on the list of things I want to take my kid brother to) regardless who's playing but especially if it's the Wicks.

I just think from my experience that they should focus on the elite side of things and allow for the development to occur elsewhere. I weigh it up as a simple question. What would I prefer, say the clubs recieving $10,000 each for a total of $120,000 or 1200 kids introduced and playing the game? It's pretty simple in my books.

Another thing is development of the kind many are advocating will inevitably benefit the SS clubs if they choose to engage with the junior/village clubs that fall within their catchment in a more meaningful manner. Featuring at games or running training sessions etc. Could actually go a long way toward creating a connection. That in turn builds a base that will turn up to games, strive to play for the clubs and so on.

 

[RugbyReg]

That's my current experience with my boys. There is some interaction between the Shute Shield club and 'its' junior teams but not much. We joined one club in the belief there a strong connection between junior and senior. I was genuinely surprised how little interaction there was.
The junior clubs in my area do really well because of the parents in the junior club wanting their sons and daughters to have a great time. Few of those volunteers have any affiliation with the Shute Shield club.

I'm not trying to bash the Shute Shield Clubs. I played for one of the clubs and I attend quite a few games each year. I'm just not impressed by the recent PR smear campaign the clubs are attempting.

Varies up here. Let's go around the dial:

Norths: the jnrs and snrs have treated each other terribly traditionally. Unless it's changed of late they are two distinct organisations despite playing at the same ground and wearing the same kit (effectively)
Souths: two organisations playing at two separate grounds (largely) but with a working relationship.
Wests: Just merged snrs and jnrs probably 3 years ago. Seems to be working ok
Easts: Pretty sure that's merged and has been for a few years now. I think they have about 1000 juniors.
GPS: have only just merged in the last few years and I think there's still some teething problems and distrust between the two entities. LArgest club in the SH I believe (when combined) at around 1300.
Brothers: Two separate organisations running quite separately. There have been some efforts to make them work closer but Jnrs pretty much run autonomously (and very effectively). They shared facilities, but the Jnrs have had to find new space because of large numbers. Another of the 1000 players + clubs.
Sunnybank: I'm pretty sure they run as a single entity and do so pretty damn well. Very well funded by the local Sunnyback Sports and Community Club.
Gold Coast / Bond Uni: a new club with no Jnrs. Not sure what formal links they have with GC development pathways.
Uni of QLD: no junior club at all, although there's some strategic link with a couple of local jnr clubs (although its not unique)

So if the intention was to provide funding to the Premier Clubs to support Jnr development then there'd be a shit fight and I reckon only Wests, Easts and the Bank would be able to pull it off.

 

[I like to watch]

What I find the most distasteful is it's a deliberately misleading campaign.

It attempts to drum up the support of all the clubs at the level below on behalf of the grassroots, but it's nothing to do with that. It's about the expectation their their elite programs will be funded in the same way they previously have been.

As part of it they imply the ARU is refraining from investing in grassroots, when they are in fact going to double their investment.

Peter Fitzsimons offers more balance, but he talks of the grassroots investment being such a small portion of a misquoted ARU salaries figure, when it's actually going to be closer to 60% of that.

Does the AFL invest 60% of what they spend on AFL staff into grassroots?

Oh, the irony!
Tell me for the purposes of accuracy,what exactly is the ARU corporate cost.
And what is the current and proposed spend on grassroots?
What are your sources?

 

[dru]

Reg, there is a fundamental difference. While Papworth et al claim to speak generically for "Premier Grade" it is actually just SS. Qld Premier s not trying to arrogate the term "grassroots" especially not at the same time as wanting funding diverted to the tradition Premier clubs.

Train is right, it's quite distasteful.

Also compare the Ramdwick 150 junior to Easts 1000.

There is mo way that Dwyer and Papworth avtually have the grass roots interests at heart whatever they claim or possibly co vince themselves of.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Oh, the irony!
Tell me for the purposes of accuracy,what exactly is the ARU corporate cost.
And what is the current and proposed spend on grassroots?
What are your sources?

The ARU cost is around $16M. The figure he quotes is the parent entity which picks up aspects like the Melbourne Rebels staff I believe, due to the short term funding whilst they found a buyer.

This is based on the ARU annual reports anyway.

 

[barbarian]

Oh, the irony!
Tell me for the purposes of accuracy,what exactly is the ARU corporate cost.
And what is the current and proposed spend on grassroots?
What are your sources?

Current ARU corporate cost = $16m
Current grassroots spend = $5m
Proposed grassroots spend = $10m
.

 

[Dave Beat]

Do they? The only involvement from SS clubs I ever saw was come rep time. Even then it was only in the form of a kit. The coaches were a combination of club coaches as were the team managers. I honestly never saw anything from Randwick outside of that until I entered Colts. Hell, in my age group there were only 2 clubs that formed the rep side.

I know in Queensland many of the Premier Rugby clubs run extensive junior programs were a kid can effectively play for one club from junior through to golden oldies but that's not necessarily true in my experience.

Hmmmm - I like your contribution, always good valid points, so don't take the wrong way!!

In off season, @ around 40 degrees, competing with school holidays;
2 first graders
2 colts,
1 mermaid (ladies 7s player),
plus a Waratah
All displaying the MRU & MJRU logo.
All thought about and developed in the off season.

I drive around now and occasionally see these Blue Shirts, look forward to getting more of them out there.

These sorts of things will bring young kids to rugby, done repeatedly well we will see benefit.

As i have always said, i don't think there should be hand outs I think support should be given for results and doing the right things.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Varies up here. Let's go around the dial:

Norths: the jnrs and snrs have treated each other terribly traditionally. Unless it's changed of late they are two distinct organisations despite playing at the same ground and wearing the same kit (effectively)
Souths: two organisations playing at two separate grounds (largely) but with a working relationship.
Wests: Just merged snrs and jnrs probably 3 years ago. Seems to be working ok
Easts: Pretty sure that's merged and has been for a few years now. I think they have about 1000 juniors.
GPS: have only just merged in the last few years and I think there's still some teething problems and distrust between the two entities. LArgest club in the SH I believe (when combined) at around 1300.
Brothers: Two separate organisations running quite separately. There have been some efforts to make them work closer but Jnrs pretty much run autonomously (and very effectively). They shared facilities, but the Jnrs have had to find new space because of large numbers. Another of the 1000 players + clubs.
Sunnybank: I'm pretty sure they run as a single entity and do so pretty damn well. Very well funded by the local Sunnyback Sports and Community Club.
Gold Coast / Bond Uni: a new club with no Jnrs. Not sure what formal links they have with GC development pathways.
Uni of QLD: no junior club at all, although there's some strategic link with a couple of local jnr clubs (although its not unique)

So if the intention was to provide funding to the Premier Clubs to support Jnr development then there'd be a shit fight and I reckon only Wests, Easts and the Bank would be able to pull it off.

This highlights the fundamental difference between the Queensland clubs and the SS clubs. They for the most part appear to be comprehensive community based clubs where kids could realistically start in the U6s and progress all the way through their playing careers and beyond.

If the SS clubs were come forward with a detailed plan. One that has measurable metricw on performance that stated their intent on developing a junior wing with the goal of 1000+ juniors in 4/5 years then I'd be more inclined to say. Yep, here's some funding go and do it as long as this and only this is the purpose of those funds.

If the plan was comprehensive I would even go a step further an then establish new districts in Western Sydney in places likes Bankstwon, Blacktown, Liverpool, Campbelltown etc. Initially solely as junior districts (they would grow into senior Rugby as the kids do) with the same goal of 1,000 kids. I'd even do it with Subbies clubs but with more smaller targets.

 

[p.Tah]

Dave, was this a Marlin's initiative or is it a private company that runs clinics?

 

[Train Without a Station]

So Dave, how do we end up with a consistent and reliable approach here?

You say let's put KPI's in place for funding.

Now we generally accept your view of the world RE Manly. For the purposes of this we accept WCR's experience that Randwick do nothing but supply jerseys for rep carnivals and we say Parramatta and Penrith are smashed by RL and the work the AFL are doing.

So at the end of 2016 we look at the results and find that Manly have strengthened a rugby stronghold, Randwick have done nothing and things have gone backwards, and despite Parra and Penrith putting in even more work than Manly they've only managed to maintain numbers.

So for 2016, the strong (Manly) get funding, the weak (Parra and Penrith) get nothing and Australian rugby is another year behind whilst not growing or even regressing in a number of areas. And Bob Dwyer and Brett Papworth come out saying this is ludicrous that Manly are the only club receiving funding and they have provided so many Wallabies over the years, as well as a bunch of other historical references, and say that they make Australian rugby money despite there being no evidence to support that fact.

So what happens in 2017 then?

OR there is a bit of success and the next time the ARU or behalf of Australian Rugby try and implement something like the ARC that will reduce the relevance of the Shute Shield, the clubs kick up a stink and say they are the ones growing the game at junior level and threaten to make life difficult again.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Hmmmm - I like your contribution, always good valid points, so don't take the wrong way!!

View attachment 7483

In off season, @ around 40 degrees, competing with school holidays;
2 first graders
2 colts,
1 mermaid (ladies 7s player),
plus a Waratah
All displaying the MRU & MJRU logo.
All thought about and developed in the off season.

I drive around now and occasionally see these Blue Shirts, look forward to getting more of them out there.

These sorts of things will bring young kids to rugby, done repeatedly well we will see benefit.

As i have always said, i don't think there should be hand outs I think support should be given for results and doing the right things.

That's good to see. Hopefully the Marlins can grow it and build the club from juniors through to seniors. I genuinely would not have an issue with funding being directed at getting more kids playing not just sampling but playing Rugby. It's just I have to question a number of the clubs resolve in doing so.

I've said this previously but I do respect your passion for the Marlins and if they were to present a comprehensive plan with measurable metrics to the ARU as per my response to RugnyReg then the ARU should seriously consider it.

 

[Dave Beat]

That's good to see. Hopefully the Marlins can grow it and build the club from juniors through to seniors. I genuinely would not have an issue with funding being directed at getting more kids playing not just sampling but playing Rugby. It's just I have to question a number of the clubs resolve in doing so.

I've said this previously but I do respect your passion for the Marlins and if they were to present a comprehensive plan with measurable metrics to the ARU as per my response to RugnyReg then the ARU should seriously consider it.

Yup.

 

[barbarian]

I'd personally like to see a sum of, say, $250k available annually to junior clubs for individual grants.

Clubs would be able to apply for funding by submitting a fully costed request, and the ARU would grant funding on a case by case basis. Would go towards things like equipment, ground upgrades, training for coaches and administrators, advertising and marketing expenses.

Does such a fund exist at the moment? I'm not involved in junior rugby so don't have much understanding of the funding arrangements at present.
.

 

[Dave Beat]

So Dave, how do we end up with a consistent and reliable approach here?

You say let's put KPI's in place for funding.

Now we generally accept your view of the world RE Manly. For the purposes of this we accept WCR's experience that Randwick do nothing but supply jerseys for rep carnivals and we say Parramatta and Penrith are smashed by RL and the work the AFL are doing.

So at the end of 2016 we look at the results and find that Manly have strengthened a rugby stronghold, Randwick have done nothing and things have gone backwards, and despite Parra and Penrith putting in even more work than Manly they've only managed to maintain numbers.

So for 2016, the strong (Manly) get funding, the weak (Parra and Penrith) get nothing and Australian rugby is another year behind whilst not growing or even regressing in a number of areas. And Bob Dwyer and Brett Papworth come out saying this is ludicrous that Manly are the only club receiving funding and they have provided so many Wallabies over the years, as well as a bunch of other historical references, and say that they make Australian rugby money despite there being no evidence to support that fact.

So what happens in 2017 then?

OR there is a bit of success and the next time the ARU or behalf of Australian Rugby try and implement something like the ARC that will reduce the relevance of the Shute Shield, the clubs kick up a stink and say they are the ones growing the game at junior level and threaten to make life difficult again.

I would prefer you don't tread in parks you don't know about.
A group of us have put this together with the Junior & Senior clubs, we have sought sponsors of which I am one, and put in some considerable hours and thought, and we will review each school term, and do it repeatedly well.

• People wake up and go for a run or gym to keep fit and strong.
• Or they can wake up, eat shit and watch tele all day, because it's to hard to put on a shoe. It their excuse or call.

Club I support is top shelf and this is about rugby, not excuses.