ARU fee structure change for 2015

[Chris McCracken]

I won't bet my life on it, but I think it will be OK. The developers of RugbyLink are a good outfit and they do Cricket, Netball, Tennis and Golf Australia. I'm assuming the ARU is using their infrastructure. If they're using MRA's infrastructure, it might be a bit more of an issue.

OK, I've just logged in and am a bit underwhelmed.

 

[namtrak]

I have heard an affordable fixed price to cover max of 30 per team in a much better deal. Should be something out next week

This sounds promising

 

[Jaghond]

The keen Hound nose is itching..........
An interesting information release from SJRU might be in the offing.....
Hopefully some good news to get the 2015 season underway for grass roots rugby in Sydney.
The Hound

 

[Dingasden]

A letter was issued to junior Sydney clubs today by SJRU which sets out 2015 fees for minis & 10s to 18s. Net fees capped at $11 per player for minis & $27.50 for 10s - 18s which is after SJRU & NSWRU subsidising of part for levies & costs 2015 only. Insurance capped at $140 per team for juniors which is to be paid through NSWRU. This is a much better outcome than that proposed by ARU & all those involved from SJRU & NSWRU should be congratulated. NSWRU Have sought assurance from the ARU re 2016 & future fee increases being capped at CPI & ARU have confirmed ongoing support in area of rugby development. Very detailed & well explained letter by Tony Fisher from NSWRU.
Now we just await a deal & fees for senior players. lets hope it's along same track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris McCracken]

Hopefully CJRU and CRU will have similar plans.

 

[Jaghond]

Dinga
I think Mr Fisher is currently President of SJRU....but if he has managed to negotiate this minefield successfully, perhaps he is worthy of a seat at the NSWRU table.......

 

[Brendan Hume]

. Insurance capped at $140 per team for juniors which is to be paid through NSWRU.

This is cheaper than 2014 isn't it? While it seems a good outcome, I'm concerned that all decisions from the ARU have been reactionary, from the initial proposal to the negotiated outcome. Rather than provide an outline of problems and enlist the community to drive the outcomes for community rugby, we still don't have a clear picture of what is required to make community rugby work, or what the support of community rugby will look like this year or for the near future.
It all could have been done so much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dingasden]

Dinga
I think Mr Fisher is currently President of SJRU..but if he has managed to negotiate this minefield successfully, perhaps he is worthy of a seat at the NSWRU table...

Then I've just promoted him!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dingasden]

This is cheaper than 2014 isn't it? While it seems a good outcome, I'm concerned that all decisions from the ARU have been reactionary, from the initial proposal to the negotiated outcome. Rather than provide an outline of problems and enlist the community to drive the outcomes for community rugby, we still don't have a clear picture of what is required to make community rugby work, or what the support of community rugby will look like this year or for the near future.
It all could have been done so much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed we can only hope they've learnt from it all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaghond]

I note that one of the elements of the "result" is that all parties ( from an SJRU perspective, anyway) are to meet in March - with a view to commence working on detemining the anticipated 2016 year costs and how they can best be met.
This is a laudable task - and if they can get it completed swiftly enough - should allow all parties to move into the 2016 season with a large degree of certainty ( ie - having things in place well & truly before 2016 season rego fees etc are discussed and set at the Village Club level - which normally happens in Nov / Dec)

If I gauge things correctly, most reasonable people accept that the user pays system - provided that it is established with full & frank openness & clarity (which has been sadly lacking in the past) - is the one which they will have to deal with moving forward, and that provided people can see wharere their hard earned $$ are being spent, most people seem to accept this ( my anecdotal feedback only, it must be said)

It does seem that when people are actually pushed to the limits........change often occurs as a result. Lets hope that any changes that come about here are for the better too.

Lastly - a twitching hound's nose senses that Mr Pulver may well also be invited to attend the March all clubs meeting ( SJRU Village Clubs) ...and if so, I hope that he does attend. I believe that he is a more than reasonable chap - and it would certainly be to his benefit to see & hear what the groundswell of "opinion" is trying to tell him.

One thing that I was taught from an administration perspective - as you move up "the ranks" - whether it be in school, sport, your career or whatever - always keep an ear to the ground & never get to far away from the frontline soldiers / workers - as they will tell you in very plain and clear language what works & what doesn't ! The trick then is taking that information & combining it with the desired business outcome - and filtering out what "upper level / middle menagement" may be trying to pass off as the best way forward - toachieve an optimal solution.

Fo Mr Pulver, that means ( I hope) - the continued growth & success of rugby union as a sport at the community level, as well as at an elite level.

I am glad it's him & not me !

 

[Gnostic]

Jaghond, you obviously never worked in government, the whole point of promotion up the ranks apart from the money was so you didn't have to associate with the unwashed lowlifes at the front line.

 

[Qsource]

Interesting article about reaction to fees from subbies rugby. From last month, so I apologise if you've read it or it's out of date

http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/rugby/story/251185.html

 

[Brendan Hume]

Is there any documentation around the SJRU outcome (press release or official correspondence)? Also, has there been any decision on the result with senior rugby in NSW through Subbies or NSW Country?
Any news from ACT & Southern NSW - they had a high state imposed levy (similar to Qld) - but haven't heard any outcomes other than consternation from the clubs.

 

[Keiran]

Well as the ACTJRU introduced individual rather than per team competition fees (at a substantially higher end cost) last year I don't see them digging in like the SJRU.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Well as the ACTJRU introduced individual rather than per team competition fees (at a substantially higher end cost) last year I don't see them digging in like the SJRU.

That's interesting. Was there a negative reaction in registrations or such?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

After taking my nephew to a movie my cynicism over a 35 dollar rego/insurance fee stopping anyone or 100 for senior (a booze bill from one drinking session) being a real major issue is rather high

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Chris McCracken]

After taking my nephew to a movie my cynicism over a 35 dollar rego/insurance fee stopping anyone or 100 for senior (a booze bill from one drinking session) being a real major issue is rather high

It may surprise you hear this, but there are a lot of people who don't go to movies or go out drinking because they can't afford it.

There are also people who can afford it, but not all at once.

There are also adults who may be able to afford it, but keep their kids out because it's perceived as too expensive.

It's not about whether people can afford it, anyway. It's about whether people will pay it. If people decide to pull themselves out (or worse - their kids) based on this, the ARU will not suffer. They will turn a profit from this. The clubs, however, will bear the brunt of the decreased subscriptions.

Economics is not all about affordability.

 

[fatprop]

It may surprise you hear this, but there are a lot of people who don't go to movies or go out drinking because they can't afford it.

There are also people who can afford it, but not all at once.

There are also adults who may be able to afford it, but keep their kids out because it's perceived as too expensive.

It's not about whether people can afford it, anyway. It's about whether people will pay it. If people decide to pull themselves out (or worse - their kids) based on this, the ARU will not suffer. They will turn a profit from this. The clubs, however, will bear the brunt of the decreased subscriptions.

Economics is not all about affordability.

I understand the economics of price on demand, and yes there are some that may baulk. But people who can't afford the fee, probably can't afford the boots, head gear, mouth guard and shorts needed either.

 

[Braveheart81]

If the professional side of the game isn't going to produce adequate surpluses to fund investment in the grassroots side of the game then it is only natural that the grassroots needs to be generate enough revenue to be more self sufficient.

This new system seems like a big jump in fees in a single year and has certainly been explained terribly by the ARU but keeping fees at bargain basement levels to make it affordable for those that can least afford it is a pathway to being underfunded and broke.

Popularity wise, rugby is in a position where it unfortunately should be more expensive to play than sports like AFL and soccer which have bigger participation and generate more efficiencies through economies of scale.

Raising fees across the board and then from that having funding available to assist lower socio-economic clubs and players would be a better way forward in my opinion.

 

[Chris McCracken]

I understand the economics of price on demand, and yes there are some that may baulk. But people who can't afford the fee, probably can't afford the boots, head gear, mouth guard and shorts needed either.

This discussion goes back a long way on here. If you have a look back at those posts, you'll see where that has been covered at length. But the TL;DR is this:

- Until now, clubs have had the ability to help players who can't afford their fees through deferment, etc. This is not an option anymore. This includes ways in which gear and travel are sorted out.

- Part time players will have to pay the whole lot up front and it will not be cost-effective for them.

- The fee is too much in one hit.

The problem has never really been the fee itself, but the way it has been implemented.