Tier 3.5 - An Alternative NRC

[p.Tah]

It's Nick's turn. Guess what it actually is about Club Rugby after all.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...evolt-in-club-rugby-union/7947490?pfmredir=sm

Edit: great timing guys. When we should be talking about the upcoming NRC grand final the media coverage is hijacked by this. Oh wait. Nothing to see here.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm sick of this crap.
Rather than engaging in dialogue directly they're playing through this media. Again.
It's the politicking and white anting in rugby that will eventually drive me from this game.
So disappointed.

It's always been my biggest frustration with Australian rugby. The amount of small minded politicking that goes on in our game drives me crazy. It makes everyone look pretty bloody unprofessional.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It's Nick's turn. Guess what it actually is about Club Rugby after all.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...evolt-in-club-rugby-union/7947490?pfmredir=sm

Edit: great timing guys. When we should be talking about the upcoming NRC grand final the media coverage is hijacked by this. Oh wait. Nothing to see here.

It's always been about club Rugby. These guys have an innate inability to think beyond their own elite little groupings (I'm talking about the individuals in the article. I don't pretend to believe they are representative of the clubs that are backing the NRC).

The game isn't suffering because these clubs aren't having cash thrown at them. It's hurting further down the line. At the junior club level. Something these clubs have little if anything to do with.

 

[I like to watch]

.

If all the ARU staff salaries are included under Corporate then that is where Development Officer salaries will appear as well.

Providing more explanation can be done through the notes to the accounts which is the case here.

Giving a true and fair picture of the enterprise's operations is definitely what the audited financial statements are meant to do. I would argue that they wouldn't do that if costs were reallocated to areas which are deemed better from a PR standpoint based on criteria outside of how expenses are ordinarily categorised.

Except it's not the case here.
The explanatory notes are contradictory ,and quote different figures to those recorded in expenditure.
It makes it hard to be confident about any of the figures quoted.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It's always been about club Rugby. These guys have an innate inability to think beyond their own elite little groupings (I'm talking about the individuals in the article. I don't pretend to believe they are representative of the clubs that are backing the NRC).



The game isn't suffering because these clubs aren't having cash thrown at them. It's hurting further down the line. At the junior club level. Something these clubs have little if anything to do with.

Two things like in response of interest to me...

1. The ARU chief concedes he would like to see Australia's Super Rugby clubs in better financial shape.
"We'd like to have less loss-making enterprises in the professional side of the game to free up more funds for the community game," says Pulver.

My response - yes they are starting to look at how to streamline/share costs.......why taken a crisis to move quicker bit disappointing but better late than never...but they are acting....


2. Pulver says the ARU's strategy of increasing its presence in public schools, and attracting juniors through the non-contact Viva7's rugby, is working.​

"We need young kids, boys and girls coming into the game and then they'll flow straight into the club system and hopefully with the right development pathway, one day play for their country," Pulver said.

My response - like to see stats on viva 7's participation and thumbs up if getting good response - like to know more about how increasing presence in public schools and whether getting real traction or this is we are just speaking to public schools.


I personally though do like the idea of a Summit if reviews all the issues in bigger picture view as just looking at one issue in isolation is waste of everyone's time imo...Secondly who would be at this summit....as should be representative of all key stakeholders ie media/broadcasters (including those who don't cover rugby), juniors, clubs, Super Rugby, Wallaby, other sports administrators to give an outside view, leading sports consultant(s), marketing expert...as multiple problems at multiple levels that need to be fixed so needs different views/solutions....

 

[Braveheart81]

You realise that the notes that you quote,contradict the amount recorded?
You can't tell anything with inconsistent information.
Except it's not the case here.
The explanatory notes are contradictory ,and quote different figures to those recorded in expenditure.
It makes it hard to be confident about any of the figures quoted.

The notes provide additional details because they can provide explanations that a number in an income statement can't.

A line item called Community Rugby references the amount that has been directly spent on whichever expense accounts in their GL they have grouped under Community Rugby.

Other items which involve some aspect of community rugby expenditure might be grouped elsewhere because for example they refer to the salary of a person and all salaries are grouped elsewhere (under Corporate).

An expense item might be part of two subsets in terms of your internal reporting (management accounts) but clearly can only be in one category on an income statement otherwise it doesn't reflect the result.

You then can use the notes to the accounts to provide more detail regarding particular areas of interest because either they're not entirely explained in the P&L or BS or are an extraordinary item.

I'm really not sure if you're being wilfully obstinate or genuinely don't get why there is a difference.

Unfortunately RH the ARU executives and board will still have their heads shoved up their arses while all and sundry are telling them to pull their heads out and face reality.

I think this is rubbish. Everyone is well aware that the ARU are under significant financial pressure and those running it are being challenged just to keep Australian rugby solvent across various timeframes.

A bunch of former Wallabies who don't have access to the financial data required to make decisions are taking potshots from afar and spouting a popular opinion (that the ARU are terrible in everything they do). Clearly there are significant issues and the problem areas are obvious for all to see. None of them have a solution aside from spend more money on those areas.

Facing reality is maybe accepting that the game is under a lot of pressure in Australia and that perhaps the people working for the organisation or who are on the board have some expertise in what they do and far greater awareness of the state of the game around the country in terms of participation, support and financially because they have access to much more data than anyone else does.

 

[RugbyReg]

I hope these former wallabies and coaches are representing club rugby and not just premier rugby. If there's going to be any extra funds towards club rugby I think it should be mostly towards Jnr club rugby.

Don't see the point of funding premier clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

NF-J indicates 'a revolt' could be on the cards:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/nick-farr-jones-warns-of-revolt-in-club-rugby-union/7947490

 

[p.Tah]

Simon Poidevin tells ARU to take former players' letter seriously or risk 'tears'

So after de-Flowering the ARU in 2007, they want to Pulverise it now. Same crap different decade. Must be part of their 10 year plan.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The notes provide additional details because they can provide explanations that a number in an income statement can't.



A line item called Community Rugby references the amount that has been directly spent on whichever expense accounts in their GL they have grouped under Community Rugby.



Other items which involve some aspect of community rugby expenditure might be grouped elsewhere because for example they refer to the salary of a person and all salaries are grouped elsewhere (under Corporate).



An expense item might be part of two subsets in terms of your internal reporting (management accounts) but clearly can only be in one category on an income statement otherwise it doesn't reflect the result.



You then can use the notes to the accounts to provide more detail regarding particular areas of interest because either they're not entirely explained in the P&L or BS or are an extraordinary item.



I'm really not sure if you're being wilfully obstinate or genuinely don't get why there is a difference.









I think this is rubbish. Everyone is well aware that the ARU are under significant financial pressure and those running it are being challenged just to keep Australian rugby solvent across various timeframes.



A bunch of former Wallabies who don't have access to the financial data required to make decisions are taking potshots from afar and spouting a popular opinion (that the ARU are terrible in everything they do). Clearly there are significant issues and the problem areas are obvious for all to see. None of them have a solution aside from spend more money on those areas.



Facing reality is maybe accepting that the game is under a lot of pressure in Australia and that perhaps the people working for the organisation or who are on the board have some expertise in what they do and far greater awareness of the state of the game around the country in terms of participation, support and financially because they have access to much more data than anyone else does.

Yes I don't know if I agree with some of the points but do agree with an open letter that suggests just the solution is just to spend more on grass roots is the solution is not really helpful. Unfortunately Papworth despite his honest intentions is about as strategic as our pet cat.

There are a whole multitude of reasons why rugby is struggling which is why a strategic approach which defines the problems and root causes and provides a clear strategic response with priorities and roadmap to address is what is required. ARU are under pressure and need help but just having the help of bunch of former past players and coaches entrenched in rugby's past is not the answer.

I would suggest a better alternative to a summit is for the ARU to engage a leading sports consultancy to lead on a strategic review of Australian rugby which involves consulting all key stakeholders (which would involve them also consulting other outside leading sports influencers/administrators who could add insights into what is required for developing a successful sporting product), and facilitating coming up with a robust strategic and financial plan with a clear roadmap for implementation to generate sustainable growth for Australian Rugby.

Rugby has big problems and needs professional help and looking inward for all the solutions won't work as those entrenched in rugby's amateur past won't provide all the answers, needs some outside facilitation and input.

 

[Braveheart81]

The ARU did a strategic review in 2015 which was released in April 2016. It lays out a 5 year plan from 2016-2020.

 

[p.Tah]

The ARU did a strategic review in 2015 which was released in April 2016. It lays out a 5 year plan from 2016-2020.

http://www.rugby.com.au/en/news/2016/04/11/09/30/new-five-year-strategy-for-australian-rugby

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The ARU did a strategic review in 2015 which was released in April 2016. It lays out a 5 year plan from 2016-2020.

Yes was thinking about that - who was involved in facilitating the production of this as had a lot of gaps for my mind which commented on in the past. But otherwise agree that this is the process that should be followed

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yes was thinking about that - who was involved in facilitating the production of this as had a lot of gaps for my mind which commented on in the past. But otherwise agree that this is the process that should be followed

And might add as I have commented see evidence of ARU executing against this strategic plan and hence a little less critical of ARU compared to Papworth and others... I am actually a little more positive efforts being made to enact real change then ever seen before....and yes recent actions by ARU helped to change my stance...

 

[RugbyReg]

NF-J indicates 'a revolt' could be on the cards:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/nick-farr-jones-warns-of-revolt-in-club-rugby-union/7947490

A bit of an empty threat this one. What do we think a club revolt would look like? Remembering that the ARU have only previously funded, what, 20 clubs? The other couple of hundred across the country I don't think will jump to the support of the prem rugby clubs.

 

[I like to watch]

The notes provide additional details because they can provide explanations that a number in an income statement can't.

A line item called Community Rugby references the amount that has been directly spent on whichever expense accounts in their GL they have grouped under Community Rugby.

Other items which involve some aspect of community rugby expenditure might be grouped elsewhere because for example they refer to the salary of a person and all salaries are grouped elsewhere (under Corporate).

An expense item might be part of two subsets in terms of your internal reporting (management accounts) but clearly can only be in one category on an income statement otherwise it doesn't reflect the result.

You then can use the notes to the accounts to provide more detail regarding particular areas of interest because either they're not entirely explained in the P&L or BS or are an extraordinary item.

I'm really not sure if you're being wilfully obstinate or genuinely don't get why there is a difference.

Thanks for the homily of how it works in theory.
Talking about GL's and subsets is irrelevant when discussing what they publish in their annual report.
Explanatory notes are supposed to give greater clarity. In this instance,they quote totally different numbers than the recorded expenditure.Why these figures are vastly different is not properly addressed.
For you to contend this is not contradictory is absurd.

 

[Strewthcobber]

A bit of an empty threat this one. What do we think a club revolt would look like? Remembering that the ARU have only previously funded, what, 20 clubs? The other couple of hundred across the country I don't think will jump to the support of the prem rugby clubs.

Reg any idea why the Queensland Prem sides aren't as vocal around this issue over the last few years as the Shute Shield teams? Is it just a personality thing?

They never got as much money, so do they not miss it as much?

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes I don't know if I agree with some of the points but do agree with an open letter that suggests just the solution is just to spend more on grass roots is the solution is not really helpful. Unfortunately Papworth despite his honest intentions is about as strategic as our pet cat.

There are a whole multitude of reasons why rugby is struggling which is why a strategic approach which defines the problems and root causes and provides a clear strategic response with priorities and roadmap to address is what is required. ARU are under pressure and need help but just having the help of bunch of former past players and coaches entrenched in rugby's past is not the answer.

I would suggest a better alternative to a summit is for the ARU to engage a leading sports consultancy to lead on a strategic review of Australian rugby which involves consulting all key stakeholders (which would involve them also consulting other outside leading sports influencers/administrators who could add insights into what is required for developing a successful sporting product), and facilitating coming up with a robust strategic and financial plan with a clear roadmap for implementation to generate sustainable growth for Australian Rugby.

Rugby has big problems and needs professional help and looking inward for all the solutions won't work as those entrenched in rugby's amateur past won't provide all the answers, needs some outside facilitation and input.

Well, if they did indeed consult and take advice from people in other sports, they would find the same things cropping up again and again:

1. Grass roots development being club based rather than schools based

2. A national club competition of 8-10 teams on a home and away basis (including a women's version)

While I certainly don't think that Papworth et al have all the answers, I think it's worth listening to what they say.

And while I don't think that the ARU have all the answers either, it needs to be acknowledged that they have made some progress - Viva 7s being one.

 

[Quick Hands]

Reg any idea why the Queensland Prem sides aren't as vocal around this issue over the last few years as the Shute Shield teams? Is it just a personality thing?

They never got as much money, so do they not miss it as much?

I think the days of the ARU funding clubs is well and truly over - in terms of the ARU though, it was really only done on any scale in between the ARC and the NRC.

State unions may well have provided a share of funding based on different criteria - noting that in times past the the clubs were afiliated to and directly involved in running their state unions.

Money needs to be spent on development (which isn't the same as teams). If funding or resources are to go to clubs (any clubs) they need to be tied grants based on set outcomes rather than a bucket of cash.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Same old lies.

Sydney "Premiership Rugby" does not produce 65% of professional players.

They once did. This is no longer the case.

I agree with Reg. Any funding that thevARU can afford should be directed right into junior rugby.