Australian Rugby / RA

[barbarian]

How do you get to that conclusion? This is saying the ARU commissioned a report that supported everything in the arguments behind the SS & Prem clubs, and pretty much blows out of the water all the speculation in this thread:

So now you've got the Clubs telling you, RUPA telling you and even the ARU's own reports telling you.

But nope still not convinced.

I'd tell him to shut his trap because that analysis is surrounded by him once again dragging the ARU board through the dirt and accusing them of embezzlement. (Edit: the same ARU they want to come to the table and give them cash).

He has accused them, in no uncertain terms, of ignoring the Club report because they wanted more money for themselves. This is a big allegation and could be seen to be defamatory. Would you let me publish an article on G&GR where I accused the ARU of embezzling cash as Papworth has?

And even in this 'hidden' report from a 'senior ARU source', only one point is really new:

- As important were the financial numbers, where on average the Sydney and Queensland clubs were annually investing a total of $12.45 million (Sydney: $7.91m; Qld: $4.54m) in their respective clubs and competitions not including the significant commitment by volunteers.

This is a big point, and supports his argument. If we could see a breakdown of this it would be fantastic, and how that figure was devised - is that just Premier clubs, or clubs all over Sydney? He says 'Sydney' and 'Queensland', which seems strange. Does he mean 'Sydney' and 'Brisbane' or 'NSW' and 'Queensland' - this stuff matters.

He's got form on misreading financial numbers (the $20 million salary bill at HQ, for example), so this needs to be clarified.

But then he goes back to flinging shit. I'm not sure why you are surprised we all view Papworth with a skeptical eye, because so far he hasn't proved to be the most trustworthy source on these matters.

And judging by the comments on the forum and blog, I am far from the only person who remains unconvinced by the Club's arguments.
.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think the quote that I have pasted above is the most critical.

Nobody has issue with the prospect of clubs being funded. If every level is better the game is better as a whole. With limited funds, being directed that way at the expense of other vital areas, they do.

Surely focusing on the measures that will expand the fan base and subsequently revenue should be prioritized. Because the only way to go from having limited funds, to having greater funds is to do so.

We will never, not be able to find people to play professional rugby. We'll poach leaguies or import players if we absolutely have to (though not ideal).

We cannot import fans and TV viewers though. As long as we focus on increasing the scope of developing professional players rather than developing fans, we will never grow and this argument will be had every couple of years without the situation changing.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I find the discussion about who does what player development a little amusing.

I can only speak about the Sydney environment where many speak in glowing terms about the part of the pathway that they are associated with as if it was the most important component of the overall system.

Junior Village clubs introduce kids to rugby, and teach the basics. IMHO the foundation skills of our game are learned in the Under 11s - Under 14s. This is the domain of the Village Clubs. They give kids a love for the game, and they develop the people who end up giving back so much to the game as volunteers much later in their life.

District clubs run rep teams for the NSW State Champs. Some clubs are running off season programmes for their rep teams, but these are by and large a local Junior Club Joint Venture that don't receive a lot of support from their District Club apart from the licence to wear the district club colours at the State Carnival. Many Districts (Village Club Joint Ventures) have quite limited preparation (3 or 4 training sessions and 1 or 2 trials) for the 3 - 5 games they will play over the June Long Weekend. Is this really player development? There is not a great correlation between kids being successful at State Champs and later State Under 20 selections.

Some clubs now run summer academies, but they are competing against the user pays Junior Gold Cup.

Private Schools invest their time and effort in the 1st XV, 2nd XV and 16A and 15A teams, the rest of the teams are more or less run for fun, and there is nothing wrong in playing rugby just for fun with your mates. The School seasons are about 10 games long. The better Schoolboy players may receive "development" by being selected for their Association U16 or Open rep team. Usually a trial, and one or two training sessions followed by 3 or so games. The top 46 get selected for NSW for National Championships and they have a couple of training days before the week long National Tournament. Most of those kids are already in some form of talent squad not related to their School or Premier Club. The CHS lads are usually already in the Colts machine. Who is claiming development responsibility for these lads? Schools, School Associations, District Clubs or Junior Village Clubs? It seems to me that there is not a lot of genuine development done here.

NSW JRU and SJRU run various age group representative teams. Their season varies from 0 or 1 games for NSW JRU U17 to 4 or 5 for the SJRU U16's in a good year. For the U14's & U17's, it is a Sydney v Country JRU match and that is about it. The traditional NSW JRU U17 v ACT JRU match seems to have been superseded by the ACTJRU support for U17 Junior Gold Cup programme.

The SRU have sometimes produced a Sydney U19 Colts team for a one off game, often with no training sessions and it usually does not include the most talented U19 players. Despite this criticism, it does give an opportunity for some previously unheralded players to showcase their talents and abilities.

The SRU clubs could legitimately claim that they invest in development of their colts. Most clubs have long pre-seasons for their elite groups, and then there is an 18 week season with no time off for School holidays. This can be too tough for some. Undermining that claim is the fact that the "chosen ones" in the U20's are not seen by their clubs until about round 5, with those lucky enough to make the Australian 20's not being seen until the end of July.

Then there are the super talented folk like Hooper, Jones, Beale, Kellaway, et al who go nowhere near a SRU Club Colts or Grade (in the case of the first 3 mentioned above) programme. What development have the SRU clubs pumped into those folk?

The best players will rise to the top despite the state of the pathway. Occasionally we may need to look in an unusual place for that talented athlete but we will find them, whether they have come through the SRU system or not.

Every little bit helps with no one entity having a mortgage on player development. It is what it is, and the components have to learn to live with each other. Our system may not be perfect, but then based on Test Results neither is the NZL, SAF, ENG, WAL or any other Tier 1 Nations development system and structures.

What keeps Rugby going in Australia is the millions of volunteer manhours willingly donated for the love of the game. Where and how are these volunteers developed, and what are the ARU, State RU's and clubs doing to ensure that there will continue to be a plentiful supply of these folk for the future.

 

[I like to watch]

I think the quote that I have pasted above is the most critical.

Nobody has issue with the prospect of clubs being funded. If every level is better the game is better as a whole. With limited funds, being directed that way at the expense of other vital areas, they do.

Surely focusing on the measures that will expand the fan base and subsequently revenue should be prioritized. Because the only way to go from having limited funds, to having greater funds is to do so.

We will never, not be able to find people to play professional rugby. We'll poach leaguies or import players if we absolutely have to (though not ideal).

We cannot import fans and TV viewers though. As long as we focus on increasing the scope of developing professional players rather than developing fans, we will never grow and this argument will be had every couple of years without the situation changing.

I see that for many people,SS is how they identify with Rugby,whether it's attending games,watching it on TV,or just following from a distance.
A weakening in the SS can only reduce interest in the game.
Saying that the SS can be replaced,doesn't take into account how many people would drift away.
The huge dispute about grants is not about money,it's about recognition.
Clubs have learnt to live without their $100k grants.
BP hardly acted in good faith with the SS clubs,he came to them & asked for their assistance in establishing NRC franchises.
Let's not rewrite history,had the SS clubs not embraced the NRC,it would never have got legs.
So just after most of the SS clubs invested $$ they didn't have into the NRC,BP eliminates the remaining subsidy on the basis of short term budget issues.

Now, those issues have dissipated it's not just "we have allocated those funds elsewhere", it's "I'm not giving you guys money to piss up against a wall"

Who wants to be treated like they are a bunch of Cowboys that will just waste any money they might be granted?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Let's not rewrite history,had the SS clubs not embraced the NRC,it would never have got legs.
So just after most of the SS clubs invested $$ they didn't have into the NRC,BP eliminates the remaining subsidy on the basis of short term budget issues.

Well let's not.

There are 4 Sydney teams. Without Gordon, Manly, Warringah and Norths there would be no Rays. I think they are the best organized Sydney team with the most logical break up.

The Stars are funded by Warren Livingstone.

The Eagles are funded by a group of businessmen under the NSW Country name aren't they?

The Rams are majority funded by a private consortium aren't they?

In 3 of these cases this appears to be money that's only come about due to the NRC, not the Shute Shield Clubs allocating their budget towards this (in the Rays case it appears so).

Where the players come from is almost irrelevant. They follow opportunity. No player is going to opt not to play NRC because they're club does not have a team they are officially linked to.

 

[Dave Beat]

I see that for many people,SS is how they identify with Rugby,whether it's attending games,watching it on TV,or just following from a distance.

This is one over TWAS better posts

Nobody has issue with the prospect of clubs being funded. If every level is better the game is better as a whole. With limited funds, being directed that way at the expense of other vital areas, they do.

Surely focusing on the measures that will expand the fan base and subsequently revenue should be prioritized. Because the only way to go from having limited funds, to having greater funds is to do so.

We will never, not be able to find people to play professional rugby. We'll poach leaguies or import players if we absolutely have to (though not ideal).

We cannot import fans and TV viewers though. As long as we focus on increasing the scope of developing professional players rather than developing fans, we will never grow and this argument will be had every couple of years without the situation changing.

He highlights the important of Australian rugby, and the importance stimulating the required catalysts to get the best growth.

 

[barbarian]

Who wants to be treated like they are a bunch of Cowboys that will just waste any money they might be granted?

Good post ILTW, and I think that's been Pulver and co's key failing in this.

With such a large pile of money, to completely blackball the clubs in such a way was never going to end well.

Though Papworth's actions don't exactly help the perception the clubs are 'cowboys'. They could really get mileage by taking the high ground and being 'adult' about the situation while the ARU took the petty, childish route.

But now it appears to have flipped, with Papworth and Dwyer wildly swinging haymakers while the ARU maintain a relatively dignified silence.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest problem with Papworth's continued rantings is that he's doing so from a position of weakness and only further weakening his position.

He, as a mouthpiece for the Shute Shield needs to take the high ground as Baabaa has suggested. Clearly Pulver's worst move was the comment that the clubs would piss the money up against the wall. That was a poor thought bubble that should never have been said. At the end of the day this is as much about politics as it is about facts, fairness and reason.

I don't see what benefit Papworth could get from dragging out a report from 2009 and try and use that against the CEO who commenced in 2013.

 

[kiap]

He's got form on misreading financial numbers (the $20 million salary bill at HQ, for example), so this needs to be clarified.

But then he goes back to flinging shit. I'm not sure why you are surprised we all view Papworth with a skeptical eye, because so far he hasn't proved to be the most trustworthy source on these matters.

And judging by the comments on the forum and blog, I am far from the only person who remains unconvinced by the Club's arguments.
.

Papworth is going in boots and all, to say the least. Good on him for having a go for his club and cause. But as you say, not everyone is uncritically getting on board. Put it this way, I wouldn't be hiring him to prepare my balance sheets.

Regarding the $12.45m though, I think we can assume that figure is for the Premier clubs - given the NSW and Queensland premier clubs were the main subject of the report. The report is unlikely to be made public so we can crunch that number in lieu.

That's an average expenditure of around the $500-600k range per club. Papworth, in one of his his earlier articles, had put Eastwood's season spend at the time as around that mark. A handful of other clubs have published annual reports. So that's great, these clubs are half million dollar clubs!

Your mileage may vary but, for mine, I don't think this average (as assumed) is especially revelatory.

The question at hand is still the ARU's distribution of dollars. How much, if any, should go to the Shute clubs - and for what purpose?

 

[I like to watch]

Well let's not.

There are 4 Sydney teams. Without Gordon, Manly, Warringah and Norths there would be no Rays. I think they are the best organized Sydney team with the most logical break up.

The Stars are funded by Warren Livingstone.

The Eagles are funded by a group of businessmen under the NSW Country name aren't they?

The Rams are majority funded by a private consortium aren't they?

In 3 of these cases this appears to be money that's only come about due to the NRC, not the Shute Shield Clubs allocating their budget towards this (in the Rays case it appears so).

Where the players come from is almost irrelevant. They follow opportunity. No player is going to opt not to play NRC because they're club does not have a team they are officially linked to.

Yeah the Rams are predominantly funded independently.
How do you know what Uni invests in Stars,and whatvWicks & Easts in the country franchise?
In any event had the SS not reduced their season by a month,the NRC was a non goer.
Fact.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yeah the Rams are predominantly funded independently.
How do you know what Uni invests in Stars,and whatvWicks & Easts in the country franchise?
In any event had the SS not reduced their season by a month,the NRC was a non goer.
Fact.

Really?

If there had been a clash players would have been left to decide are they going to play in the back end of SS or try and attempt to make the higher level. I doubt any NRC players don't have Super Rugby aspirations.

 

[I like to watch]

Yeah really.
The NRC teams are heavily populated with players from SS finalists.
You really think guys who have played all year will walk away at the sharp end of the comp,to join a new team in a new comp that no one knew would even last the season?
For no money!
It's easy to sit back now & say the NRC is great & was always going to be.
But at the time,no one knew how it was going to pan out.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Shit - easy answer

WE NEED MORE MONEY !!!!!!

Morph Super Rugby into a Trans Tasman one and watch the dollars roll in.

Everyone can share

 

[Braveheart81]

Shit - easy answer

WE NEED MORE MONEY !!!!!!

Morph Super Rugby into a Trans Tasman one and watch the dollars roll in.

Everyone can share

Would 4 times as many people watch Waratahs v Highlanders next Friday night if the competition contained only Australian and New Zealand teams to make it a viable product for FTA in Australia?

Whilst that might be a better competition for Australian viewers, I don't see how it would lead to a big increase in the overall revenue the competition could generate.

 

[Gagger]

Though Papworth's actions don't exactly help the perception the clubs are 'cowboys'. They could really get mileage by taking the high ground and being 'adult' about the situation while the ARU took the petty, childish route.

The biggest problem with Papworth's continued rantings is that he's doing so from a position of weakness and only further weakening his position.

From a comms strategy perspective, incorrect IMO.

The status quo position here will be for the clubs to get nothing, as per the 'previewed' ARU plan.

For the clubs to 'be adult' and not make noise acquiesces to the status quo.

This is why the ARU has been silent - apart from refuting the Louis Vuitton red herring because they knew it would play to 'the clubs are unhinged' narrative.

In fact the ARU have been so silent, that they haven't even released the 5 year plan that by their own timeline in the previewed deck, should have been publicly available by end Feb. Their play is to drag this on as long as you can without giving oxygen and wait for it to die out.

The clubs have no other recourse - there are no shareholders, regulators or binding contract to enforce a conversation and change. This is where the leaked report and Super Rugby allegations are (whether planned or not by Papworth) smart strategic moves as they both illicit the need for response for the ARU to join the conversation, even if by denial, thereby giving it more oxygen.

This is why I find so much of the defence of the ARU position in this thread bizarre. Each time a piece of evidence has come through from the club side of the argument, it's been challenged as either 'using the wrong tone' or asked for even more detail ("i'd like to see that broken down" - LOL), when the ARU side of the argument has provided absolutely none! In fact, Papworth has gone as far as putting his neck on the line with big allegations (more data) and we get "how dare he!", while the ARU say nothing!

 

[RugbyFuture]

Let me put a small cent in and I'll tell you all my unnecessary and unwanted opinion in more detail later.

Papworth is from the same club as the very senior official who once said that the success of the Eastwood club was due to them being able to "keep the asians out" in front of me (obviously he didn't realise my heritage)

Some of the clubs are far from being good-willed, integrated with their communities and contributing to the greater good of rugby.

 

[barbarian]

For the clubs to 'be adult' and not make noise acquiesces to the status quo.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make noise. From a comms perspective I agree that it's in their best interests that they do.

I just think it needs to be the right kind of noise.

They should focus their message on the things they bring to Australian rugby. They need to position themselves as an indispensable link in the chain, and one that we all cannot afford to weaken. The economic contribution is one aspect of this, as is the way they develop players (using examples of guys that have genuinely been ‘made’ by the Shute Shield clubs). Talk about the ‘pathway’, which generally does include time at a Shute club, and give direct examples of where ARU funds can help young players become better.

But when you go off and start comparing the ARU to Wall Street bankers and quoting Tolstoy you distract people from your argument AND further piss off the people holding the money. You lose on both counts.


I think the strategy should involve getting the public on your side, but without totally destroying the relationship with the ARU. I fear Papworth is veering dangerously close to doing the latter in pursuit of the former.
.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Has Papworth detailed what he or the other clubs would spend the grants on?

 

[Gagger]

Has Papworth detailed what he or the other clubs would spend the grants on?

QED

 

[Gagger]

I'm not saying they shouldn't make noise. From a comms perspective I agree that it's in their best interests that they do.

I just think it needs to be the right kind of noise.

They should focus their message on the things they bring to Australian rugby. They need to position themselves as an indispensable link in the chain, and one that we all cannot afford to weaken. The economic contribution is one aspect of this, as is the way they develop players (using examples of guys that have genuinely been ‘made’ by the Shute Shield clubs). Talk about the ‘pathway’, which generally does include time at a Shute club, and give direct examples of where ARU funds can help young players become better.

But when you go off and start comparing the ARU to Wall Street bankers and quoting Tolstoy you distract people from your argument AND further piss off the people holding the money. You lose on both counts.


I think the strategy should involve getting the public on your side, but without totally destroying the relationship with the ARU. I fear Papworth is veering dangerously close to doing the latter in pursuit of the former.
.

You think his first article would have gone viral if it was written as above?

You personally didn't like the tone - perhaps because you didn't like the content - but it's undeniably achieved.

I think both were well written and engaging from a content perspective and actually made many of the points you listed above.