Tier 3.5 - An Alternative NRC

[Rugbynutter39]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...as-rebels-duck-for-cover-20161021-gs7s9s.html

Some more sensible comments coming from QLD Premier Rugby clubs to work with ARU and QRU and need for alignment.

Also mentions talk of the 8 team interstate QLD-NSW club championship not run in direct competition to NRC and Foxsports interested in broadcasting. As long as not run at same time as NRC I would fully support it.

 

[louie]

I would to hear hear the high and mighty Brett Papworth explain why Sydney club rugby as allowed the Western Sydney clubs (Parra and Penrith) to become the whipping boys of the comp.

 

[I like to watch]

Cmon,
You can't hold Papworth responsible for the health of his competitors.
I never heard Alex Ferguson criticised (or his prez) because Reading or Aston Villa were poo.
In any event, Parra are not whipping boys.
Look at the SS ladder, they won 5 & got 6? <7 bonus points

 

[Quick Hands]

I would to hear hear the high and mighty Brett Papworth explain why Sydney club rugby as allowed the Western Sydney clubs (Parra and Penrith) to become the whipping boys of the comp.

In the case of Penrith, it's actually a NSWRU failing. When Penrith first came in to SS, they were provided with DOs and other assistance and they were gradually starting to build. They were able to field 4 grade and 4 colts teams - with 1sts in each being competitive. NSWRU pulled the funds about 10 years ago and the result is there for all to see.

With respect, it's a bit much to expect amateur officials who are probably putting most of their spare time into their own club to work at other clubs.

 

[Quick Hands]

Does he realise that junior clubs actually depend on increasing playing numbers to remain viable (in both a financial and competitive sense), and that these players will eventually flow into the District Clubs? Apparently not, to answer my own question.

And no one has yet explained how a breakaway competition will encourage more kids to play.

 

[wamberal]

I would to hear hear the high and mighty Brett Papworth explain why Sydney club rugby as allowed the Western Sydney clubs (Parra and Penrith) to become the whipping boys of the comp.

You mean the Parramatta who whipped his (and my) club Eastwood in both games this season?

 

[Strewthcobber]

. I don't know how much the ARU spends on Development Officers, but the aim should eventually be to have one DO that is embedded in each Shute club, whose responsibility is the schools/village clubs in the catchment of that side.

The ARU don't employ a huge amount of development officers.

What they do do is supply funding and facilitate the participation fee so that the member unions can employ development officers.

Papworth, NFJ et al know this, which is why their funding letter was so disingenuous.

 

[RugbyReg]

From the Brothers president up here.

 

[NTT]

Heres a thought. We are only 10 months into the ARU's 5 year strategic plan to grow the sport nationally. How bout we give it more time to show results?

The ARU's income is dependent on a multitude of external factors, many of which affect year to year numbers. The ARU cannot be blamed for wider economic influences over its income of which they have no control. The ARU has an obligation to advocate for the entire national interest of the sport. The ARU also has the obligation to reform and restructure where necessary to achieve more desirable outcomes for all participants.

The ARU's 5 year strategic plan may not address and rectify every issue, no matter whether how big or small, but does give a clear indication of where the sport sees growth opportunities in numerous areas over the next 5 years.

Lets give it a chance to produce outcomes.

Its like buying shares. In one months time the investment may lose 10% on the initial investment but over 5 years will gain 30% above the initial investment.

 

[MACCA]

Out of all the noise my humble observatons/views are-

• the shute shield teams and clubs in the similar comps in other states have the history and following already
• the ARU reckons that the entry level to rugby occurs before senior (ie club rugby) at either schools or other comps such as 7s
• clubs reckon (ie papworth, poido etc) they should be part of the development pathway

Solution? why not provide funding to established club rugby channels providing these organisations adopt the ARU mandate-

• it must support a junior comp
• it must host a local development officer
• it must hae direct contact with the local schools/colleges
• it must support womans & 7s
• whatever else the ARU might reasonably request

Performance of the above should be contractually agreed otherwise money isnt forthcoming. Clubs that are strategic to Rugby and require support can be brought along. Other codes do that.
Consolidate the resources, consolidate the pathways, engage the existing heartland, everyone happy.
oops, there goes a pig flying past.

 

[The torpedo]

You don't think Papworth is angry, disjointed and narrowly focussed and you think Pulver is borderline competent. Ok.

Borderline competent isn't technically competent

 

[The torpedo]

I think I believe Papworth about the ARU books actually. Simply because I expect the figures cited by Papworth to be the straight up out of the report figures while Billy's number will be padded out politician/lawyer like with half truths and semantics.

Had a look @ the 2015 ARU report. You seem to be right. Page 61 has revenues & expenses, and expenses has spending on community rugby as $2,368,000 for consolidated entities and $2,366,000 for parent entities, for a combined total of $4,734,000 spending on community rugby. However, in the financial report notes (page 69) it states that community rugby spending was $5,700,000. For the sake of it, I did an average of the two claimed figures of $2,400,000 spent on club rugby by Papworth & co and the $9,200,000 by Pulver and co, which comes out to an average of $5,800,000.

Can anyone here with accounting knowledge tell me what is consolidated entities and what is parent entities and which would be the actual figure spent or whether it was the combined amount of 4.734 million that was the total spending of community rugby by the ARU?

EDIT: link to 2015 report: https://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/aru_web?e=24291087/34741796

 

[Hugh Jarse]

WTF is the Grass Roots of Rugby?

Once that is defined we can then start to compare apples with apples.

What I do know is that Grass Roots is not First Grade footy in the Sydney and Brisbane Premier Club competitions.

Subbies Footy, Country Footy, School (not NSW AAGPS, NSW CAS, or Qld AIC, or Qld GPS), Junior village club footy, ACT & Southern Inland footy at all levels, SA, WA, VIC, Tas and NT footy, and Women's rugby probably all consider that they are at the "Grass Roots". Most of these have no connection with any of the Sydney or Brisbane Premier Clubs who seem to be claiming ownership of the Grass Roots label.

Eastwood, Randwick and the other disgruntled Premier Clubs (noting that some appear to be rather gruntled) are now just part of the pathway and while important in the grand scheme of things, they are just one of the cogs in the Pathway to Gold machine. It can be difficult to some to accept that they may be the fax machine of Australian Rugby. Plenty of people still rely on faxes but there are much more efficient ways to exchange documents than faxing.

 

[I like to watch]

Had a look @ the 2015 ARU report. You seem to be right. Page 61 has revenues & expenses, and expenses has spending on community rugby as $2,368,000 for consolidated entities and $2,366,000 for parent entities, for a combined total of $4,734,000 spending on community rugby. However, in the financial report notes (page 69) it states that community rugby spending was $5,700,000. For the sake of it, I did an average of the two claimed figures of $2,400,000 spent on club rugby by Papworth & co and the $9,200,000 by Pulver and co, which comes out to an average of $5,800,000.

Can anyone here with accounting knowledge tell me what is consolidated entities and what is parent entities and which would be the actual figure spent or whether it was the combined amount of 4.734 million that was the total spending of community rugby by the ARU?

EDIT: link to 2015 report: https://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/aru_web?e=24291087/34741796

The consolidated entity includes the rebels figures as the ARU controlled them for that period.
So expenses were those of the ARU plus expenses for Rebels.
The parent entity is the expenses of ARU only
So you should only count the $2.3 once.
I'm not sure how many times Bill counts it

 

[The torpedo]

I'm not sure how many times Bill counts it

It's like that old accounting joke:

"What's 1 + 1?"
"What do you want it to be?"

 

[paul martin]

The guy is an idiot. Since Pulvers arrival on the scene theres been mass redundancies (twice I believe) and huge company wide pay cuts (including negotiations with RUPA for a reduction in player payments).

You imagine telling 30+ people that they don't have a job anymore, asking for those remaining to work for less and negotiating with the playing body to do the same (with France knocking at the door, suitcase of cash in arm) only for some muppet to give you a spray in the public arena about the salary bill of a company with over one hundred employees. It'd be emotionally shattering even without the criticism and what does Papworth expect? Does he expect the Australian Rugby Union to be run by volunteers because he manages to get the canteen staffed for free at Shute Shield games on Saturday afternoons?

Pulver, at least in terms of getting the business structure under control and efficient, has been top-draw since he came into the office. He's now trying to produce these efficiencies at Super Rugby franchises and elsewhere, and hats off to him. Its the uncontrollables and uncertainties of his governance that are causing the real headaches (I daresay the Shute Shield's prima donna's are one of them).

So there's more bureaucrats than actual Wallabies? This is what's wrong with Australia.

 

[amirite]

So there's more bureaucrats than actual Wallabies? This is what's wrong with Australia.

Of course there is mate, it's a big organisation.

I'd be worried if the entirety of our game (admin, sales, marketing, infrastructure, accounts, etc.) was managed by only 30 people.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This sectional interests in rugby really needs to stop and if Papworth and co have bothered to read comments on here and the roar most rugby followers are sick to death of sectional politics and interests of different rugby factions being played out in public.

I reckon this personally is what is doing more damage than good for our game as if we can't get support from within for our game and new ideas/changes introduced like Viva 7's and more professional pathways what hope do we have. Instead we just have constant criticism of any initiative which just damages the product and ability to be successful for any initiatives introduced.

 

[p.Tah]

I agree the media headlines such as 'the game is dying' provide no motivation for people to watch it or become involved in the game.
Huge fan of NFJ, Poido et al. during their playing days, but this negativity and divisiveness is tarnishing their legacy.

 

[Pfitzy]

I think I believe Papworth about the ARU books actually. Simply because I expect the figures cited by Papworth to be the straight up out of the report figures while Billy's number will be padded out politician/lawyer like with half truths and semantics.

Despite the numbers being released in the annual report?



For all to see?



Even members of the public?




Look, Pappy was always an annoying, favourites-playing prick in his time as an ABC commentator. Nothing is going to change there. Not for him, not for Poido, not for any of the "glory daze" boys who think Sydney Club rugby is just fine to deliver Waratahs Wallaby teams some World Cup glory.

Despite the two decades of professionalism.

Yeah. Let's go back to that.

Tell you what fellas: you want it so much, stick your hands up for ARU CEO and fight the cesspool of politics that you and your ilk are happy to swim in, and make it happen.

Hopefully your years of business acumen mean someone like Fox or one of the FTA networks don't laugh too hard when you throw your toys out of the pram.