ARU fee structure change for 2015

[TSR]

But can they afford the boots, mouth guard, shorts, socks + the increased insurance fee. It is not like rugby has ever been free to play - it just got dearer and a lot of us are concerned as to where the breaking point is. I admit,I don't actually know I am just concerned. Personally, I accept that there has to be some increase - for me it is a matter of how it is being applied and justified (and the very poor process of consultation and implementation).

I do believe there is a lack of equity and lack of flexibility in the up front, individual fee structure. I have seen it referred to as a 'user pays' system - but in my view it is the opposite. Our juniors play a condensed season as we simply wouldn't get the players during league season. Our u17s may only play 5-6 games, but even such a short season has helped created a link between the juniors and our seniors. This scheme proposes that they pay the same as a junior playing in a full 10 - 15 game season.

Likewise, a user pay system would allow flexibility for a senior player the pay according the actually number of times he takes the field - not pay in full up front before he has set foot on the field.

I hope you are right Fat Prop and that I am jumping at shadows but I am already aware of a number of senior players who have said they are changing codes or just not playing due to the increases. I understand at least 2 of our rival clubs are looking at pulling out of reserve grade in our comp due to player loss and one club has apparently stated they will fold.

One top of that, I've heard through the grape vine that the Longreach and Mount Isa comps will cease - hopefully just idle threats, but we will see soon enough. Hopefully your cynicism is well placed.

 

[Chris McCracken]

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.

An old-fashioned wealth redistribution? It may well work. But there is not intent signalled from the ARU to do any such thing here.

 

[Braveheart81]

An old-fashioned wealth redistribution? It may well work. But there is not intent signalled from the ARU to do any such thing here.

No. Just a system that sets fees at an appropriate level but accepts that not everyone will be able to afford them and makes allowances for that.

Much more sustainable than keeping prices low because there is a feeling that some people won't be able to afford a price increase.

 

[fatprop]

For context, my brother pays $300 per season for his daughter to play soccer plus being required to buy their jersey and the rest

 

[barbarian]

Yeah soccer can be obscene. My mates play the equivalent of Subbies, and have to fork out $450 for a season, and have to pay for all their gear and attendance at club functions.

At my Subbies club we pay $250 and for that you get shorts, socks and a polo, as well as numerous events where entry is free with some sort of bar tab as well.
.

 

[Brendan Hume]

I still maintain that insurance operates in a commercial market. The ARU uses the club numbers to get the best deal for the clubs, and if clubs want a per team levy, that's what the ARU needs to get quotes on.

The National Participant Registration Levy is about supporting grass roots rugby at the same level as has been done to date. This model has a number of flaws
1. Assumes grass roots funding is good value for money and is effective
2. Does nothing to address any problems with the grass roots service model
3. Doesn't ask the recipients of the services provided by the funding if they are required

In my opinion, the ARU and/or States should be providing services commercially to the sub-unions who administer the game. Those sub-unions can collect the levies from their participants directly or through their clubs. The ARU/States can provide benchmarks for servicing juniors, seniors and volunteers that need to be met, and the sub-unions must meet those or forfeit their rights to manage the competition and allow the ARU/States to do that.

A one-size fits all fee where the participants don't get a say in what they are paying for is a terrible idea.

Community Rugby has traditionally been highly geared toward volunteer management, low cost and participant focused, and those volunteers have a high level of ownership of their competitions - with a same-same but different because you have to pay us now model, those volunteers feel cheated - at least I do, because I think my club could spend the same money better than it's being spent by those organisations now.

 

[Chris McCracken]

No. Just a system that sets fees at an appropriate level but accepts that not everyone will be able to afford them and makes allowances for that.

Much more sustainable than keeping prices low because there is a feeling that some people won't be able to afford a price increase.

That would be magnificent. However, I don't think I could come up with a reliable way of doing that. So I wouldn't ask the same of the ARU.

 

[Chris McCracken]

For context, my brother pays $300 per season for his daughter to play soccer plus being required to buy their jersey and the rest

That becomes a moot point at a club where many of the the kids play Rugby precisely because they can't afford to play soccer or hockey.

 

[Chris McCracken]

A one-size fits all fee where the participants don't get a say in what they are paying for is a terrible idea.

This is the position I take. I have just finished our club's letter to the ARU on the matter. I'll post it here once it's been approved to be sent, too. It is a pretty long read, but goes into the issues at length.

We can all accept a requirement to increase our financial commitment, but the way it is implemented makes life very difficult for some clubs.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We can all accept a requirement to increase our financial commitment

why?

 

[Chris McCracken]

why?

Because it might well be plain necessary. Rugby is one of very few sports where the national body doesn't take a cut.

The point is that, if the ARU needs to start charging, can give concerted reasoning, and is honest about why, it is quite reasonable to charge fees.

None of this has been the case, though.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It might be reasonable but that would depend on the reasons.
The ARU is not living beyond its means at the grass roots level.

 

[happyjack]

The fee issue is driven by declining ARU revenue and increased professional costs resulting in the approx $5M in member union participation funding to be withdrawn from the states. To replace this levies have been put in place.
If an Association of Australian Rugby Clubs Inc. was established as a mutual that clubs affiliated to rather than state unions you would be assured that revenues raised from clubs were preserved for betterment of clubs. The ARU and the 5 franchise unions could take their meagre assets and the professional game and please themselves.
Insurance for clubs could be negotiated at a base level for Public Liability as well as minimum death and permanent disability for players (at a team levy) with individuals having the right and obligation to enable and top up for non-medicare expenses, income protection etc. if they wish.
The oathway would not be affected as club players are free agents to professional sports anywhere in the world.
With the IRB (sorry World Rugby) now providing development for Tier 2 and Tier 3 nations there is a structured system of coach and referee education and accreditation available on their website. The ARU services in this area are now outdated and irrelevant in that there is no competitive tension to a 3rd grade coach in Manly doing the same accreditation as a coach in South Africa.
There would be a couple of steps back in some areas but there is enough intellect in the community game to service and develop itself. You only need to look at areas such as Townsville and the Sunshine Coast to see that isolation can have benefits as their competitions and clubs are well run and realistic to the level of Rugby they provide.
I see no reason why volunteers in community clubs should be funding the ARU, state unions or professional franchises. We can do that by buying tickets to the games, merchandise and watching it on TV if they give us reason enough to do so.
Participating in the club game is not an invitation to be taxed for revenue with no identifiable or tangible benefit or return.

 

[RugbyReg]

HJ so no affiliation to the states or ARU at all? No link to the reds or wallabies?

No pathways or just ones you've created?

Grassroots rugby is just an entirely isolated entity purely about participation only?

 

[Braveheart81]

The fee issue is driven by declining ARU revenue and increased professional costs resulting in the approx $5M in member union participation funding to be withdrawn from the states. To replace this levies have been put in place.

In every other year money has flowed from the professional game to the grassroots via the state unions.

If the ARU can get their house in order and get the professional game back to a stage where surpluses are created and distributions continue to flow to the grassroots, surely that is in the best interests of the grassroots.

Why would you decide you don't want money next year and forever more because it isn't forthcoming this year?

The grassroots are being asked to pay more money to keep themselves running and this has been explained terribly by the ARU. They are not being levied to prop up the professional game though. That is complete fantasy if you look at the financials and where the money flows.

Grassroots rugby in Australia desperately needs more investment and participants are being made to contribute more to ensure that happens because currently, the ARU can't afford to fund it.

 

[Chris McCracken]

The grassroots are being asked to pay more money to keep themselves running and this has been explained terribly by the ARU. They are not being levied to prop up the professional game though. That is complete fantasy if you look at the financials and where the money flows.

This is an important point. However, it is the ARU's fault that this myth is being perpetrated. By explaining so poorly what the new levy is for, they leave people to make up their own stories.

Personally, I don't think they know what it's for. They've just attempted a zero-sum budget for 2015, worked out the shortfall, divided it by whatever number of players they have and charged it out.

Grassroots rugby in Australia desperately needs more investment and participants are being made to contribute more to ensure that happens because currently, the ARU can't afford to fund it.

I think this is where there is a disconnect. To say the ARU 'funds' grassroots Rugby is a misnomer. Just as it is to say they don't fund it. The reality is that they fund elements of it which, depending on your location or level, you may or may not get any benefit from. The discontent seems to be from those who see little, if any ARU-supported functions.

 

[Braveheart81]

This is an important point. However, it is the ARU's fault that this myth is being perpetrated. By explaining so poorly what the new levy is for, they leave people to make up their own stories.

Personally, I don't think they know what it's for. They've just attempted a zero-sum budget for 2015, worked out the shortfall, divided it by whatever number of players they have and charged it out.



I think this is where there is a disconnect. To say the ARU 'funds' grassroots Rugby is a misnomer. Just as it is to say they don't fund it. The reality is that they fund elements of it which, depending on your location or level, you may or may not get any benefit from. The discontent seems to be from those who see little, if any ARU-supported functions.

I agree with all this and the biggest problem seems to be in the explanation.

Like much of politics, if you're going to do something unpopular you need to explain clearly why it is needed. It's not good enough to try and let it slip through or say that it isn't really a substantial change and people shouldn't worry about it when it clearly is.

The ARU does provide funding to the grassroots both directly through various community rugby programs and indirectly through distributions to the state unions.

There seems to be a misconception that because an individual club doesn't get a cheque from the ARU or their state union each year that no money is being spent helping their competition run.

 

[Quick Hands]

This is an important point. However, it is the ARU's fault that this myth is being perpetrated. By explaining so poorly what the new levy is for, they leave people to make up their own stories.

Personally, I don't think they know what it's for. They've just attempted a zero-sum budget for 2015, worked out the shortfall, divided it by whatever number of players they have and charged it out.



I think this is where there is a disconnect. To say the ARU 'funds' grassroots Rugby is a misnomer. Just as it is to say they don't fund it. The reality is that they fund elements of it which, depending on your location or level, you may or may not get any benefit from. The discontent seems to be from those who see little, if any ARU-supported functions.

As I've said all along, this isn't part of an overarching strategy it's just a cash grab.

I agree, they haven't explained what the new levy is for, because they don't know themselves.

There are a couple of possible reasons why there is no overall strategy to fund, administer and grow the game in this country. The first is that the task is beyond the ability of those charged with running the game and the second is that such a strategy might limit the power and influence of certain sectional interests. The third possibility of course is that both reasons are applicable.

 

[I like to watch]

There Seems to be a misconception that because an individual club doesn't get a cheque from the ARU or their state union each year that no money is being spent helping their competition run.

That misconception is not helped by BP's analysis that the pain threshold for aspiring rep players parents is $600.
If you underand that your zone is self sufficient financially,and your kids have never seen a development officer, and you are asked to fork out $600 for any ARU aligned rep program.
It's not hard to see how misconceptions arise.
From my personal experience in more than 10 years,the only thing that I perceive my kids got from the ARU,were access to category c tickets before the public,in the days when Bled cup tickets were a hot item.

 

[Brendan Hume]

HJ so no affiliation to the states or ARU at all? No link to the reds or wallabies?

No pathways or just ones you've created?

Grassroots rugby is just an entirely isolated entity purely about participation only?

Isn't that what happened in NSW? The Waratahs licence being operated independently?
With the community game being such a small part (in total turnover) of the ARU and states total business I would think there is some sense in separating the two.
Is wouldn't have to mean you wouldn't retain a geographic affiliation to your state or the Wallabies - it would mean they wouldn't need to spend much money on grassroots, mainly overseeing pathways, and promotional stuff.