Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[WorkingClassRugger]

The One problem with Papworth is that there is very little (none?) response from the Shute Shield world or SRU suggesting he pull his head in. The resulting discussion centres on the claimed egregiousness of the ARU, absence of funding (not limited funding), absence of action (not too little too late, or inappropriate action, or better ways). In nearly all cases it is an over-reach.

@ Quick Hands. I do owe you an apology. It just happened to be your post at my snap point. Straws and camels stuff. I respect the guys like yourself at the coal face actually implementing and doing. I also recognise that clubs like the Marlins are proactive drivers for rugby in Aus.

Some thoughts :

• The NSW Premier grade covers something like 2,500 players, focussed on the Eastern strip of Sydney. There are something like another 7,500 players in Sydney. Those 7,500, focussed in western Sydney, need to be addressed but currently are not engaged in or represented by Premier Rugby.
• There is no doubt that experiences and abilities from clubs like the Marlins is important. Surely we must find some way of harnessing that ability for application outside of "traditional rugby" areas.
• This almost inevitably means a change in how Premier Rugby works - given that there is no current mechanism for non-traditional clubs to enter Premier. I am not a fan of promotion/relegation, but perhaps a representational system where non-grade clubs are aligned with the Premier?
• Those premier clubs then to set up systems and help establish growth at the grass roots. Funding would be needed, an approach to the ARU/NSWRU to assist such a transformation might meet more interest than some of the stuff we are seeing from Papworth/Dwyer/Fitsimmons
• All to be worked through where possible using the ARU 5 Year Strategic Plan
• Waratahs Ltd to be more effectively engaged in the process - currently players are associated with the various Premier teams, extend this to see them engaged as the face of Rugby within in of these club "groups".
• Some visibility is required so that the funding from these groups is used to supports those groups.

If you were to go down the path of using the district clubs I would also look at regions of the city that area under served and look to either identify a club or establish one with the intent of eventually elevating them to the Shute Shield.

For example, looking at the Macarthur region of Sydney. The area I was raised and currently live. A rapidly growing region with two clubs. A region that will in the next 15 years effectively doubled its population when taking into account present projects. Two clubs.

I would look toward say the Campbellfown Harlequins and alot them 'development' status with the intent of transforming them into the regiojs district club. Then I would do exactly as I have been suggesting above. Providing funding looking to greatly exapnd the number of clubs amd playing base in the region.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I want to make it clear. I am an avid fab of club rugby. I have been tuning into the Saturday SS game for as long as I can remember. I thoroughly enjoy it. I absolutely understand the club allegiance side of the spectrum. My issues relate more to the narrow view some Papworth, Dwyer and Co. Take on the subject.

We are in furious agreement about that. I love the club game like you and I also agree that Papworth et al are talking their book a bit too much and that this kind of political infighting (which seems to be a disease in Australian rugby) will hold the game back here.

 

[Dave Beat]

We are in furious agreement about that. I love the club game like you and I also agree that Papworth et al are talking their book a bit too much and that this kind of political infighting (which seems to be a disease in Australian rugby) will hold the game back here.

Man - you have highlighted something that is at the very crux of our problems. If i had cash to invest this would have me not investing. PM being sent

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Man - you have highlighted something that is at the very crux of our problems. If i had cash to investment this would have me not investing. PM being sent

If I had the cash to invest it would have me looking to do so as an independent concern.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm talking about funds directly distributed for the express purpose of developing these structures. It wouldn't come out of the respective clubs current or future budgets and success and failure won't determine the clubs survival.

Quite frankly I don't care in Many Warringah JRL doesn't have 12 junior clubs. I only care about developing strong participation structures in our game. I'll note when I talk about participation I'm referring to actual regular competition not gala days or one off visits.

Perhaps 12 clubs might be too many. Perhaps a participation number might be more ideal. Say, each district club must have 3,000 registered participants by the end of the five year period. I'd go as far as to offer each district the right to keep the registration fee's from each player in their district (minis insurances etc). With at least half that number being juniors. I make no apologies for the ambitious nature of my posts. We need a little ambition in this game but just being willing to eek out our megre place will not move the game forward at all.

Ultimately, the goal of greatly expanding the playing base below the district level is as much as club building as it is about participation. If the clubs were to recieve this funding and use it for its purpose, work hard on achieving its targets and importantly create the connection between the village clubs and the larger district clubs. Then I believe we'll see a much healthier game all round.

Yes, 12 clubs is too many. I cited rugby league as an example of the issues faced in this area. We don't have the population of the Macarther region, so placing an arbritrary number of 12 junior clubs is a silly idea

I'm sure that you have the best interests of the game at heart, but plucking figures like minimum 12 clubs or 3,000 participants isn't realistic.

And yes we should only be talking about regular competitions.

I realise that there isn't such a connection between village juniors and district clubs in some areas, but it's not the case in this area. I wouldn't presume to set targets in your area or anywhere that I didn't have information about demographics etc.

Setting unachievable targets just sets anything up for failure.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why the angst over player payments?
Papworth's article is not about getting funding to pay club players, presently the ARU gives no money to premier clubs.
It's about recognising that the current structure is broken, and that all the people with a say,are earning a living from the game,and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Because it seems to me like a key point of angst between the ARU and the clubs. The ARU believes that any additional funds that the clubs have at their disposal ends up in the hands of players rather than paying for development and/or facilities etc. The Shute Shield does have a history of paying players when they can and paying to recruit people from other clubs when funds allow for it.

If the clubs want to be considered part of the grassroots of rugby in this country and benefit from whatever small amounts of funding are available at certain times it seems like a good step to take.

I think the whole vested interest thing is a furphy. Do you really think the ARU are paying most of their staff over the odds? Is there some alternate reality where the ARU becomes entirely staffed with volunteers so there is more money to spend on grassroots?

Or do you think the long game for the clubs is to continue firing broadsides from Papworth etc. and create the most adversarial relationship possible?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yes, 12 clubs is too many. I cited rugby league as an example of the issues faced in this area. We don't have the population of the Macarther region, so placing an arbritrary number of 12 junior clubs is a silly idea

I'm sure that you have the best interests of the game at heart, but plucking figures like minimum 12 clubs or 3,000 participants isn't realistic.

And yes we should only be talking about regular competitions.

I realise that there isn't such a connection between village juniors and district clubs in some areas, but it's not the case in this area. I wouldn't presume to set targets in your area or anywhere that I didn't have information about demographics etc.

Setting unachievable targets just sets anything up for failure.

According to Wiki there are 263,000 people living in the Northern Beaches Council area. My target is barely more than 1% of the total population of the area. Even taking into account the current playing population in the area surely that's not too much of a stretch.

You talk about setting up to fail. I disagree. Perhaps in say the five year period those targets aren't met. Okay. But perhaps they managed to get half that number. Excellent. Let's look at what worked and what didn't both for this region and others and start again looking to reach that 3,000 mark. I also mentioned looking at approaching it more regionally than just purely on an individual club basis. Maybe 3000 per club is unachievable. But may within a region that two clubs occupy might be.

Something that's always bothered my about this game in this country. When we talk growth its more about etching out small gains. This idea that we're a niche sport and that's all we can ever aspire to. That's rubbish.

I've watched many, many interviews of hugely successful people and something has resonated with me in their own personal philosophies and that is they all have a similar attitude. That being 'plan small, fail small. Plan big, fail big'. Now right away many are imagining disaster and ruin but that's because many misinterpret what is being said.

If you plan to only engage say 200 new players over X period of time and fall short. You fail and the net benefit is minimal. But if you play to say engage 20,000 new palyers but only manage 2/3 of that number even though you failed you've come out with a greater net win.

Three thousand may be a tough ask. I disagree that it's impossible but that doesn't mean we should give it a shot.

 

[Quick Hands]

According to Wiki there are 263,000 people living in the Northern Beaches Council area. My target is barely more than 1% of the total population of the area. Even taking into account the current playing population in the area surely that's not too much of a stretch.

You talk about setting up to fail. I disagree. Perhaps in say the five year period those targets aren't met. Okay. But perhaps they managed to get half that number. Excellent. Let's look at what worked and what didn't both for this region and others and start again looking to reach that 3,000 mark. I also mentioned looking at approaching it more regionally than just purely on an individual club basis. Maybe 3000 per club is unachievable. But may within a region that two clubs occupy might be.

Something that's always bothered my about this game in this country. When we talk growth its more about etching out small gains. This idea that we're a niche sport and that's all we can ever aspire to. That's rubbish.

I've watched many, many interviews of hugely successful people and something has resonated with me in their own personal philosophies and that is they all have a similar attitude. That being 'plan small, fail small. Plan big, fail big'. Now right away many are imagining disaster and ruin but that's because many misinterpret what is being said.

If you plan to only engage say 200 new players over X period of time and fall short. You fail and the net benefit is minimal. But if you play to say engage 20,000 new palyers but only manage 2/3 of that number even though you failed you've come out with a greater net win.

Three thousand may be a tough ask. I disagree that it's impossible but that doesn't mean we should give it a shot.

But that's not what you said, you said that district clubs MUST have a minimum of 12 junior clubs, which is very different from working towards goals.

While Manly and Warringah both seek to grow the game in our areas, this area isn't the problem. The problem is the great mass of Sydney which has little or no junior club rugby and little or no relationship with a district club. That's where the resources need to go.

 

[dru]

I think the whole vested interest thing is a furphy.

Have to wonder why intelligent fans are happy to go with a challenge to the ARU over vested interest but dont seem to ask the same regarding the bloke making the claim.

 

[half]

My understanding four proven methods of developing or say increasing participation rates are:

1.Having a National Domestic Competition
2.Having pathways, from grass roots well organised and run local district competitions, via senior sides
3. Rep sides to the National Domestic Competition.
4. Being on FTA commercial TV, for part of the product, for the best available games.

I am not close enough to the in’s and out’s. However what does make me despair at times is how poorly we attach to these levels, especially when we see what our competition does in these areas.

1.What is our National Domestic competition, the 5 Super Rugby sides, the 8 NCR teams or do we hope the NCR will moth into some copy of the Curry Cup and if so for what purpose.

2.Our pathways compared to other codes are poor with connections to SS at best having a pass but a credit level or distinction level a long way off.

3.From our rep sides and SS to say NRC or Super Rugby, IMO quite good, so it’s not all bad.

4.Our only product on commercial FTA is what we call our tier 3, SS games and if you give any through to this its beyond crazy/ { I love my SS BTW}

Yet we can’t seem to come together, to many chieftains, to many know all’s,

WE have four years now to develop what I would call a conceptual framework to develop a whole of Rugby approach, with everyone involved and agreeing.

Gallop and before him Buckley took four years to get agreement from the various soccer tribes for their FFA Cup and NPL. They are both well ahead of schedule in what the outcomes were expected.
It’s an excellent example to tread softly but with a firm and fair hand. The issues of Pap and the Woodes, the shorten calendar of the NCR, the school / park issue, getting everyone pushing in the same agree direction.

That’s my ultimate advise to Bill,

 

[Train Without a Station]

QH I agree that you can't nevessarily make one size fits all KPI's, but your comments on the regions and Dave's comments rightfully asking if the ARU was listed, would you invest, leads me to a question.

If 3000 junior players across the region is not at all possible in 5 years, from and ROI point of view, why would you invest in that region?

My club on the Gold Coat where there is no competition above under 14s has around 500 players alone. 6 clubs like that and you're at 3000 players.

We can't say this about the ARU, and then expect these organisations to make investments that don't see returns - that's how they get into a position where you would not invest in them, in the first place!

And that's why I defend the ARU's reduction and removal of funding originally. Clearly it was not seeing a return. The game didn't just fall apart in 2013. It steadily declined.

Now I'm not saying $$$ is the return. That will be the end result of measurable improvements in players and fans.

 

[half]

QH I agree that you can't nevessarily make one size fits all KPI's, but your comments on the regions and Dave's comments rightfully asking if the ARU was listed, would you invest, leads me to a question.

If 3000 junior players across the region is not at all possible in 5 years, from and ROI point of view, why would you invest in that region?

My club on the Gold Coat where there is no competition above under 14s has around 500 players alone. 6 clubs like that and you're at 3000 players.

We can't say this about the ARU, and then expect these organisations to make investments that don't see returns - that's how they get into a position where you would not invest in them, in the first place!

And that's why I defend the ARU's reduction and removal of funding originally. Clearly it was not seeing a return. The game didn't just fall apart in 2013. It steadily declined.

Now I'm not saying $$$ is the return. That will be the end result of measurable improvements in players and fans.

I agree and why I reacted to the Pap posts being made by some.

Everyone needs to do their bit. Rugby has many people telling or expecting others to do the heavy lifting.

I see it as kinda the local committee to help grow the game not only organise the training kits.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

But that's not what you said, you said that district clubs MUST have a minimum of 12 junior clubs, which is very different from working towards goals.

While Manly and Warringah both seek to grow the game in our areas, this area isn't the problem. The problem is the great mass of Sydney which has little or no junior club rugby and little or no relationship with a district club. That's where the resources need to go.

I was talking hypothetically and then mentioned another alternative. My point is, we need to set somewhatvambitious targets and then devise plans to achieve them. Perhaps my language was a little too strong but my message I think was clear. We need to look toward developing greater connection between all levels of the community game as well as overall participation growth.

We're actually agreeing with each other in many respects. You're final paragraph is very poignant to both our arguments. My intent is to primarily expand junior rugby and while I mentioned 1/2 those numbers being juniors I'd be happy if the majority were.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH I agree that you can't nevessarily make one size fits all KPI's, but your comments on the regions and Dave's comments rightfully asking if the ARU was listed, would you invest, leads me to a question.

If 3000 junior players across the region is not at all possible in 5 years, from and ROI point of view, why would you invest in that region?

My club on the Gold Coat where there is no competition above under 14s has around 500 players alone. 6 clubs like that and you're at 3000 players.

We can't say this about the ARU, and then expect these organisations to make investments that don't see returns - that's how they get into a position where you would not invest in them, in the first place!

And that's why I defend the ARU's reduction and removal of funding originally. Clearly it was not seeing a return. The game didn't just fall apart in 2013. It steadily declined.

Now I'm not saying $$$ is the return. That will be the end result of measurable improvements in players and fans.

My point is that 12 clubs and/or 3000 players are completely arbitrary numbers based on no research as to what each region's population and resources are.

In certain places, it could be argued that it's better having slightly less clubs, each running multiple teams in each age group than it is having more clubs running one team. It allows juniors to play at a level appropriate to their size and/or skill level.

There's very few people arguing for the return of grants/funding from the ARU. It just ain't going to happen. Most people at the grass roots want support from the ARU in terms of resources and development, not cash.

 

[Quick Hands]

Have to wonder why intelligent fans are happy to go with a challenge to the ARU over vested interest but dont seem to ask the same regarding the bloke making the claim.

But the thing is Dru, for most of us Brett Papworth is an irrelevance. If I didn't visit these threads, I'd honestly have absolutely no idea what his views are. He's President of Eastwood and a former Wallaby, as such he's entitled to his views. Most of us don't agree with most of what he says, but he's entitled to say it.

I think he's on the wrong track in terms of the NRC and that he will be proven to be wrong in the future.

Plenty of people (including me) are wrong in what we think sometimes, Papworth is wrong on this.

 

[I like to watch]

Because it seems to me like a key point of angst between the ARU and the clubs. The ARU believes that any additional funds that the clubs have at their disposal ends up in the hands of players rather than paying for development and/or facilities etc. The Shute Shield does have a history of paying players when they can and paying to recruit people from other clubs when funds allow for it.

If the clubs want to be considered part of the grassroots of rugby in this country and benefit from whatever small amounts of funding are available at certain times it seems like a good step to take.

I think the whole vested interest thing is a furphy. Do you really think the ARU are paying most of their staff over the odds? Is there some alternate reality where the ARU becomes entirely staffed with volunteers so there is more money to spend on grassroots?

Or do you think the long game for the clubs is to continue firing broadsides from Papworth etc. and create the most adversarial relationship possible?

the ARU's driver in stopping SS subsidies was to save money.It was disingenuous to suggest that it ceased payments,as it believed this money was going to player payments .
They could simply have attached KPI's for each beneficiary, if that was the reason, but clearly they didn't.
The only furphy, is your extrapolation that Papworth suggests all ARU staff members are superfluous.
Clearly, he is speaking about the myriad of high performance employees across the various bodies across the country.
It's hard to argue that they are adding value.
U20's ....uncompetitive
7's ....pfft( don't mention the women, or maybe you should.....the number of numpties attached to the men,dwarf the numbers attached to the women, look at the results of each!)
Every a Super franchise is under performing
Test ..ouch

It's very easy to look at the CEO who is lapping it up in Rio,and then on the piss at the races on Grand final day, and conclude that he is totally disconnected to Rugby grass roots.

The long game?
Brett Papworth is not a spokesman for all SS clubs,you shouldn't infer that he is.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No ILTW it's not hard to argue they are adding value.

It's hard to argue they are out performing their competitors.

They are not one and the same.

Just because they haven't been part of great results it does not mean that without them the teams and players would not be worse off. It just means they have not added the same value as others in other nations. But we don't know what those others are paid and what resources they are given.

 

[wamberal]

It's very easy to look at the CEO who is lapping it up in Rio,and then on the piss at the races on Grand final day, and conclude that he is totally disconnected to Rugby grass roots.

Yep, its the sort of inference that a Pauline Hanson could make. Easy, and wrong.


For starters, do you believe that the CEO of the Australian Rugby Union should attend all Grand Finals? Or only the Sydney one?

What about the other capitals, or even the country? What about the subbies? Presumably if you were CEO you would be out with the real grass-roots, not just the fat cats of Sydney's north shore and the Camperdown Corporation?


And are you so certain that his "day out at the races on the piss" was not work-related? Might he have been with a sponsor, or some other stake-holder?


Or might it have been a personal outing. Maybe for his wife.


I suppose if you were CEO of the ARU you would work 7 days a week. But most enlightened organisations allow their executives a bit more freedom of choice.

 

[Lindommer]

I can confirm Billy P WASN'T on the piss at Sunday's NRC match at North Sydney Oval. Although he was connected to rugby grassroots. Good enough for you, Iltw?

 

[I like to watch]

Yep, its the sort of inference that a Pauline Hanson could make. Easy, and wrong.


For starters, do you believe that the CEO of the Australian Rugby Union should attend all Grand Finals? Or only the Sydney one?

What about the other capitals, or even the country? What about the subbies? Presumably if you were CEO you would be out with the real grass-roots, not just the fat cats of Sydney's north shore and the Camperdown Corporation?


And are you so certain that his "day out at the races on the piss" was not work-related? Might he have been with a sponsor, or some other stake-holder?


Or might it have been a personal outing. Maybe for his wife.


I suppose if you were CEO of the ARU you would work 7 days a week. But most enlightened organisations allow their executives a bit more freedom of choice.

The ARU organised a corporate function at the races on GF day,can you get more disconnected than that?