• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
Next year is the year that the ARU has to survive before the increase in TV rights comes in.

Will be interesting too see their profit / loss this year, and their forecast profit / loss for next year, which, being a world cup year, should be really painful.

Anyone know the ARU's current debt position as well?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
So the clubs that say they are the third tier despite bringing on no revenue to the game are now complaining there existence isn't being subsidised?

I'm not sure that all of the clubs think that they're the 3rd tier of Australian rugby. Some of there more deluded supporters might, but I think that argument has been won and lost. It's club rugby and that's all it is - albeit a reasonably high standard of club rugby. Seeing as 66% of professional rugby players come through the Sydney and Brisbane clubs, you'd think they might be organisations worthy of ARU support. It's not as if the game is going that well at the grass roots that we can afford for these clubs to shrink or fail.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Looks like the ARU is still struggling for cash.

But some would tell us that there is nothing wrong with the current administration and Bill Pulver is the man to lead Australian rugby into a new golden age. But as most of the ARU powerbrokers have come through the GPS system, most will never appreciate the hard slog of grass roots club rugby.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
It bad grass roots funding has been cut. But part of the problem is it's always going to the wrong place. Some NEAFL clubs are more profitable than super rugby teams. The AFL puts the funds in junior AFL and part of the problem is that this money has been spent on senior clubs which run for their own profit, when it should be spent on junior rugby.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The most damning comments in the article are from Brett Papworth:

They have not made one decision for the long-term health of the game that I remember,” Papworth said.
“We have supposedly a very intelligent, commercially minded board who don’t see the blatantly obvious.
“They have lost their way … they are the guardians of the game and I don’t think any of them give that a thought.”
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
How is that damning? A guy with an interest conflicting with the decision made by the ARU to cut funding has made a claim biased by his own view.

The ARU have implemented the junior gold pathways and the NRC as close to self sustaining. I'd consider them decisions for long term health.

Nobody's saying they are doing a bang up job, but if Papworth in his role as Eastwood boss used his energy building sponsorship and revenue for his club like NSW Cup, Qld Cup Rugby League teams and state league AFL teams instead of whinging that their hand outs are being cut (Do the ARU still pay for the SS ABC broadcasts?) perhaps clubs would be better off.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
It bad grass roots funding has been cut. But part of the problem is it's always going to the wrong place. Some NEAFL clubs are more profitable than super rugby teams. The AFL puts the funds in junior AFL and part of the problem is that this money has been spent on senior clubs which run for their own profit, when it should be spent on junior rugby.

I agree that our whole funding structure needs to be looked at. If this action was part of an overarching strategy, where money and resources were allocated to the grass roots, there would be little opposition.

Unfortunately, there is no overarching strategy that I can detect from the ARU board and its CEO on any topic. There's certainly no coherent strategy to grow the game or even maintain our current postion (which gets a little worse every year)

Some will say that as long as the Wallabies are going well we'll be right, but the continuing decline at the grass roots club level is Sydney will hit eventually.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
How is that damning? A guy with an interest conflicting with the decision made by the ARU to cut funding has made a claim biased by his own view.

The ARU have implemented the junior gold pathways and the NRC as close to self sustaining. I'd consider them decisions for long term health.

Nobody's saying they are doing a bang up job, but if Papworth in his role as Eastwood boss used his energy building sponsorship and revenue for his club like NSW Cup, Qld Cup Rugby League teams and state league AFL teams instead of whinging that their hand outs are being cut (Do the ARU still pay for the SS ABC broadcasts?) perhaps clubs would be better off.

They have not made one decision for the long-term health of the game that I remember,”

They have lost their way … they are the guardians of the game and I don’t think any of them give that a thought.”

They sound pretty damning comments to me.

EDIT: Just because he has an interest doesn't make him wrong.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
What would be the decision to improve the long term health of the game? Greatly reduce the share of revenue for the players and pour it into the grass roots?
It might improve participation levels and help create more good players to head overseas so they can earn a realistic salary.

The ARU is making decisions to improve the pathway of juniors into professional rugby. They're doing this in spades really.

Reconciling amateur and professional sport is difficult. The percentage of total revenue paid to players is pretty consistent from sport to sport. If the overall revenue of the sport isn't sufficient to create enough surplus to pour into the amateur ranks, what do you do?
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
So the clubs that say they are the third tier despite bringing on no revenue to the game are now complaining there existence isn't being subsidised?

TWAS - to try and capture your recent posts in one - i picked this one.
1. A number of Shute Clubs provide various types of support to Grass Roots community clubs as it is these clubs that will provide the players over the coming years.
2. you quote above, you seem to forget that it is these clubs that have provided a number of players that are currently running around with the Rebels.

Not taking sides hear but the way the media has brought this to our attention it is the ARU screwing Australian Rugby.
Can the Wallabies grow?
Can the Waratah's grow?
But club rugby certainly can and that will push greater numbers higher. You need to feed the growth not starve it (that's how animals become extinct). Whether it be a new subies side, whether it be penrith 3rd grade colts, or whether it be Allambie Jets mini rugby - we need to feed the growth.

IMO (only mine) i think it would be more economical if the ARU supported Shute Shield clubs develop their community grass root clubs. It would be different for VIC / WA / ACT.



Isn't being subsidised - some of these clubs kicked the can for $200k+ to get the NRC up and running and that feeds up not down.

As i have said the gap between ARU & Australian Rugby seems to be widening, we need to feed the growth.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
They kicked money into the NRC to strengthen themselves and maintain relevance.

Don't act like what they do to grassroots is altruistic. The only reason they do is to benefit themselves. The clubs are built on junior subs after all.

No amateur level clubs from other sports are propped up universally the way rugby clubs are.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
It bad grass roots funding has been cut. But part of the problem is it's always going to the wrong place. Some NEAFL clubs are more profitable than super rugby teams. The AFL puts the funds in junior AFL and part of the problem is that this money has been spent on senior clubs which run for their own profit, when it should be spent on junior rugby.


I can't speak for other peoples clubs but getting club funds for the juniors is always a bitch. The seniors think they are the be all end all of the club. We separated the juniors and the seniors some years back and played under the same club logo and colors but established different commitees and finances. The juniors thrived and the seniors came back on their knees begging for reunification. The juniors had enough fund raising clout that every players insurance and fees were covered in full and the juniors could tour at no expense. We had kids from all over the community playing for us. The rugby club was a safe place for them (many of these kids had shit family lives) and we were able to establish good relations with the public school next door with access to the school bus and such so everybody could get to game day.

Shit it was a good set up. Those days are long gone though.
 

Tah and feathered

Watty Friend (18)
Anybody who thinks that senior clubs support junior clubs they are delusional. Junior clubs are what supports the senior clubs. Juniors will survive without seniors. Seniors won't without juniors.
Where do the juniors go if there are no seniors? League
My understanding of the ARU funding was that clubs could then employ a head coach or a fulltime GM. Over the years as the funding was cut clubs started cutting the head coach or GM to part time roles or only employing them for X amount of months per year. With the funding cut to zero will clubs now go back to volunteer roles in 1st grade coacing role and limited admin capacity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top