The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position

[Quick Hands]

I think it would make it difficult for any of them to carry out their day to day activities.

Who makes decisions? Who can spend money?

Most of these people are just volunteers, not employees so it would be very difficult to manage.

The same people who spend the money and make the decisions now would spend it, there would just be less layers of bureacracy to get from top to bottom. You can still have paid staff, they just work for the ARU.

 

[Braveheart81]

The same people who spend the money and make the decisions now would spend it, there would just be less layers of bureacracy to get from top to bottom. You can still have paid staff, they just work for the ARU.

Let's say we're talking about a country rugby union. They would currently be an association with office bearers and would have meetings, operate a bank account etc.

If you tried to bring those people under the umbrella of the ARU it would be very difficult to manage. You could leave them with a bank account that those certain people could still operate but on what basis would they be making decisions? It would be hard to delegate them authority to do certain things but not others without a reasonably complex agreement.

The ARU would also be liable for decisions that those people made if the ARU is the governing body. It would require a huge amount of oversight from the ARU to make sure everything is done right and doesn't leave them in a massive hole. Now, a subsidiary union might go bankrupt and require a bail out like we've seen in the past, but the ARU could always say no.

The situation now is far from perfect but it is pretty much a fact of life as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Having two separate self accounting and governing entities (incorporated Associations) running NSW Junior Rugby and the National Junior Rugby hasn't stopped them from having a dispute over moneys.

Ultimately it looks like those who should be beneficiaries (kids) will be missing out on a fair chunk of funds.

 

[Braveheart81]

Having two separate self accounting and governing entities (incorporated Associations) running NSW Junior Rugby and the National Junior Rugby hasn't stopped them from having a dispute over moneys.

Ultimately it looks like those who should be beneficiaries (kids) will be missing out on a fair chunk of funds.

I don't know if you can really say the second part is true. I don't think any of the organisers have actually been paid. It is likely that the money has just been spent. Probably on the kids.

In this sort of situation, the NSWJRU would be its own entity to run state championships etc.

You would then have the AJRU or whatever it is which probably just runs the national championships. This would be a collective of people from the other unions. From the sounds of what you've said, the same person is the president of both.

Now the AJRU probably didn't have any money and to run the event required contributions from other unions. NSW puts money in with some sort of agreement. The AJRU runs the event, spends the money and NSW doesn't get it back.

I don't think this situation is any less likely to happen if you tried to bring all these bodies under the ARU. It just makes it very hard to delegate authority to the volunteers who actually run these organisations.

All these associations are run on the smell of an oily rag and if anything, the people involved would be the most aware of how little money they have to work with. I think they would be far more likely to have cost blowouts if they were suddnely brought under the ARU and then thought that they had far easier access to money.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I do not think that bringing the AJRU and NSW JRU under one umbrella would actually have prevented this dispute over funds. The issue in this instance seems to be founded in governance.

Entity 1 believes that it loaned money to Entity 2 with an expectation that the loan would be repaid in due course. An appropriate entry as such was made in the financial records of Entity 1 as a consequence.

Entity 1 has no evidence of any terms and conditions that may be associated with the transaction between them and Entity 2. Entity 2 doesn't seem to be particularly forthcoming as to the terms and conditions or circumstances of the alleged loan. Perhaps it actually was a grant from Entity 1 to Entity 2. Entity 1 seems to believe differently.

Often the less money there is involved, the more accountability, transparency and governance there is within an organisation. For that reason, I do not support a centralisation of funding to the ARU for all the little empires in rugbydom.

I do think that there is scope to reduce the amount of seagulls fighting over the limited number of chips though, particularly when there are not enough vounteers available to run all the seagulls, to an extent that one person has to perform the duties of President of two of the incorporated associations simultaneously.

There were some promising words written about rationalising/reorganising and improving governance of Junior Rugby within the Arbib Report. Not a lot of actions seem to have resulted subsequently.

Instead we have NSW JRU and AJRU arguing over $25000, instead of working together to grow and develop rugby at grass roots level.

 

[Quick Hands]

Let's say we're talking about a country rugby union. They would currently be an association with office bearers and would have meetings, operate a bank account etc.

If you tried to bring those people under the umbrella of the ARU it would be very difficult to manage. You could leave them with a bank account that those certain people could still operate but on what basis would they be making decisions? It would be hard to delegate them authority to do certain things but not others without a reasonably complex agreement.

The ARU would also be liable for decisions that those people made if the ARU is the governing body. It would require a huge amount of oversight from the ARU to make sure everything is done right and doesn't leave them in a massive hole. Now, a subsidiary union might go bankrupt and require a bail out like we've seen in the past, but the ARU could always say no.

The situation now is far from perfect but it is pretty much a fact of life as far as I'm concerned.

But it's the ordinary, amateur club officials who spend the bulk of the money of jumpers, shorts, socks, footballs, goal-post pads etc. Whether it's Manly, Dubbo, Armidale, Wollongong or wherever. Why does it take 3 levels of administration to get the money from the ARU to the club? Couldn't that money be better spent of development officers instead of middle managers?

 

[p.Tah]

A summary in this Weekend's Financial Review on the financial situation of Australian rugby.

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/dire_state_of_the_union_jRwAubx8YUBBFWdpmvuADN

Wouldn't it be nice if a well heeled rugby enthusiastic reading the article was motivated to help the game out of this financial challenge.

 

[Quick Hands]

Such as a former CEO?

Interesting that he has a "non disparagement agreement" in place. Was he expecting to be criticised?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Such as a former CEO?

Interesting that he has a "non disparagement agreement" in place. Was he expecting to be criticised?

by the Echo shareholders?

 

[I like to watch]

He just pulled their pants down in every respect,but to be fair his predecessor had the same clause.
So it's possible it's our venerable board that is petrified about being commented upon.
JON was quick to note that he advised the board about the cash running out 4 odd years ago.(which makes his very,very generous leaving bonus quite puzzling).

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The Pulveriser says this about the $200 club levy: "Now, the difficult sell for me is that they haven’t created the problem; it isn’t their fault. But I’m asking them to help."

I'm pretty sure that the clubs don't feel that they have been asked to help. If they had been asked, perhaps more innovative ways to raise the necessary funds may have been suggested, or at least there may have been less resistance. No one likes being dictated to, and especially after the budgets have been done and rego fees set for the year. $200 isn't much but it is the principle that sucks.

This statement/attitude grates: "Those enjoying it, participation in the game, should be the ones helping bail us out. "

Did "those enjoying the game" enjoy the benefits that others got from running the game into the ground?
Somehow the expectation is that they have to bail the peak body out.of a crisis caused by that bodies ineptitude.

JO'N has to shoulder much of the blame, but previous Board Members should also be held to account.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What these people don't understand is that historically, for better or worse, we, the lovers of the game for its own sake, who in one form or another fostered it over decades when no one loved it, acquiesced in the imposition of a professional layer on top in 1995.
The professional layer took the century plus of volunteer contributions and "leveraged" a commercial enterprise from it.
They had implied license to do so but that does not lessen the fact that the game they were seeking to leverage was a community game which had been sustained by its community.
The professional game only exists and could only exist because of the amateur game.
It should not be our role to support them: they have no reason to exist other than to foster the game. They took our community game, squandered it and now want another lick.
Their priorities are arse about.

 

[wamberal]

Inside Shoulder,

What was the alternative to professionalism? "They" were us, people just like us, who loved rugby and knew that it would only survive if we went professional. I know some of "them", one in particular has given many thousands of hours of unpaid service to the NSWRU and then the ARU over the years, because he loves the game. Incidentally, he is also a former Wallaby who played a lot of club rugby at a struggling club.


"They" did not take your community game. Rugby belongs to all players and supporters, old chap. It is not your game. It is our game, including those who work as volunteers at all levels.


The way things are now is the product of a lot of factors, but blaming "them" (whoever they are) is a pretty peurile thing to do.

 

[wamberal]

He just pulled their pants down in every respect,but to be fair his predecessor had the same clause.
So it's possible it's our venerable board that is petrified about being commented upon.
JON was quick to note that he advised the board about the cash running out 4 odd years ago.(which makes his very,very generous leaving bonus quite puzzling).

Do you honestly, sincerely, believe that JON was paid more than his contractual entitlements?


I would bet London to a brick on that his "generous leaving bonus" was agreed to as part of an overall package. If you can do better than those who re-hired him, put your application in the next time there is a vacancy.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we all had enough of it, we would all be gazillionaires.

 

[TOCC]

People have a right to criticise, especially with the likes of JON who did receive a sizeable payout in his second stint.. Whether it was contractual or not isn't the point, it was still a massive amount considering the performance of the ARU through his tenor..

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Of course he was contractually entitled to what he got: that is Exhibit A in the case against the ARU for stuffing the game.

 

[Quick Hands]

This statement/attitude grates: "Those enjoying it, participation in the game, should be the ones helping bail us out. "

That particular statement stuck in my craw as well.

My understanding is that private schools are not being asked to pay the $200 levy. The same private schools that can pay Directors of Rugby and Sports Scientists.

Aren't they enjoying participation in the game?

Are they being asked to bail out the ARU?

The original statement from the ARU said that the levy was $200 per team, but the article says $200 per club. The communication from the NSWRU indicating that it would pay the levy on behalf of its clubs also suggested $200 per team.

 

[wamberal]

Of course he was contractually entitled to what he got: that is Exhibit A in the case against the ARU for stuffing the game.

Oh, right. What would you have done? Who would you have hired?

 

[I like to watch]

Do you honestly, sincerely, believe that JON was paid more than his contractual entitlements?


I would bet London to a brick on that his "generous leaving bonus" was agreed to as part of an overall package. If you can do better than those who re-hired him, put your application in the next time there is a vacancy.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we all had enough of it, we would all be gazillionaires.

Performance bonuses for an employee leaving mid contract are definitely not a black and white issue.
Even if it was,what KPI's could possibly warrant 100% of his bonus entitlement?
We have done all this before,how can you justify that any CEO is entitled to earn more than the business he runs?

 

[barbarian]

My understanding is that private schools are not being asked to pay the $200 levy. The same private schools that can pay Directors of Rugby and Sports Scientists.

Aren't they enjoying participation in the game?

Are they being asked to bail out the ARU?

But the ARU don't run the game in schools, be they public or private. So they can't make them pay a cent, and rightfully so.

The ARU can only levy competitions which they administer, those being club competitions.
.