The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Quick Hands]

The ARU is a body made up of the state unions.

To expand the ARU's responsibility, presumably you'd need to take it away from the NSWRU and other state and district unions.

I guess the flipside is could the professional game be run without the ARU?

10 or 15 years ago the NSWRU used to fund SS as far as I can remember and it did so through system of tied grants; i.e. for a GM, for a Dev. Officer, for colts etc. They did this because they wanted the clubs to be more professional as they recognised that better run clubs would produce a better competition an better players. At some point the ARU seems to have taken over this funding, I would be interested in why, but one assumes it was some sort of interchange of roles and reponsibilities between ARU and NSWRU.

 

[Quick Hands]

My idea is pretty simple. Build the base. Not strengthen the semi-fucking elite. Build the TV product level, as this will provide further money to build the base.

By build the base, focus on the juniors. Development resources, days subs reductions will encourage more junior players.

Let the clubs that want to pay players stand on their own 2 feet. With more juniors the code will grow much more than it ever would focusing on the top 12 clubs in Sydney.

Instead of trying to hold on to the top peg in a diminishing code perhaps be happy to be less important, but in a much stronger code.

Doesn't having strong district clubs help build the base?
Doesn't a strong competition (in whatever city) help to build profile and involvement at community level?
Accepting being less important, doesn't mean that club rugby should be abandoned.

You seem to continually assert that there's something wrong with a governing body supporting (financially or otherwise) lower levels.

Every link in the chain has to be as strong as possible and if so, we end up with a strong game.

You seem to have developed this Hockeyite notion of lifters and leaners - but sometimes for the greater good people or organistions need subsidy or support from above.

But you see, this ARU cut isn't part of a grand strategy or plan for the game, it's just a cost cutting measure that the ARU thinks it can get away with. Just like the $200 levy was a sneaky little charge on people who couldn't resist.

Let's have a plan from the ARU with a coherent strategy about how the game should be run, organised and funded from top to bottom. Sadly, that's what we won't see - what we'll continue to see is ad hoc decisions from the ARU which is probably the worst run part of the game (How many million have they lost in 10 years?)

 

[Braveheart81]

10 or 15 years ago the NSWRU used to fund SS as far as I can remember and it did so through system of tied grants; i.e. for a GM, for a Dev. Officer, for colts etc. They did this because they wanted the clubs to be more professional as they recognised that better run clubs would produce a better competition an better players. At some point the ARU seems to have taken over this funding, I would be interested in why, but one assumes it was some sort of interchange of roles and reponsibilities between ARU and NSWRU.

How has it taken over the funding?

The ARU provides a bit over $1m a year to the NSWRU plus another $1.8m in "staff and associated program expenditure for community rugby programs in NSW."

 

[Crashy]

Thinthe Waratahs pay 5% of their revenue to NSWRU, with a high water mark.
I have heard the Tahs are looking at $1 million profit this year so by my rudimentary maths, that means NSWRU get an extra $100k this year.
A pity that the Shute Shield is now affiliated directly to the ARU so would assume this extra funding goes to NSW subbies and juniors etc.

 

[Quick Hands]

How has it taken over the funding?

The ARU provides a bit over $1m a year to the NSWRU plus another $1.8m in "staff and associated program expenditure for community rugby programs in NSW."

I don't know, which is why I'm asking the question.

It seems to be the ARU which has withdrawn funding to clubs, therefore I assume that the ARU had taken over funding. If this is not correct please set me straight. It's been the premise of the last 10 pages of this thread.

 

[Strewthcobber]

From the NSWRU Annual Review

Significant changes in the state of affairs
From 1 January 2012, the Australian Rugby Union Ltd (“ARU”) decided to pay the Premiership Rugby Clubs their funding
grants directly, and not through the New South Wales Rugby Union Ltd (“NSWRU”) as per prior years. This resulted in a
reduction of ARU funding revenue and corresponding Premiership rugby grant costs of $1,000,000 on the NSWRU’s
statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 31 December 2012. The ARU also reduced their funding to NSWRU
for the management of the Premiership competition by $118,280 in 2012.

Note also that the NSWRU still provided another $477,163 to "Premiership Rugby" in their accounts for this year

 

[Inside Shoulder]

From the NSWRU Annual Review


Note also that the NSWRU still provided another $477,163 to "Premiership Rugby" in their accounts for this year

a brilliant piece of marginalisation - the NSWRU can actually kick up a stink and get some traction (TWAS would support their complaints) lets cut out the middle man and no one will give a shit.
JON by Sir Humphrey Appleby out of Long term view

 

[Highlander35]

Aren't there 4 or 5 Unions in NSW as well? Surely that's a waste of resources and inefficient? I'll admit I'm very ignorant and am happy to concede if there's a good reason for it.

 

[Quick Hands]

Aren't there 4 or 5 Unions in NSW as well? Surely that's a waste of resources and inefficient? I'll admit I'm very ignorant and am happy to concede if there's a good reason for it.

All state unions receive something from the ARU. To suggest as some have (not you), that this is not so is disengenuous. One would assume that such funding is according to some type of formula based on playing number or number of clubs and/or need.

Although when dealing with the ARU, assuming that there is a formula or some sort of coherent system may well be optimistic on my part.

 

[Quick Hands]

From the NSWRU Annual Review


Note also that the NSWRU still provided another $477,163 to "Premiership Rugby" in their accounts for this year

Thanks

 

[Train Without a Station]

Doesn't having strong district clubs help build the base?
Doesn't a strong competition (in whatever city) help to build profile and involvement at community level?
Accepting being less important, doesn't mean that club rugby should be abandoned.

You seem to continually assert that there's something wrong with a governing body supporting (financially or otherwise) lower levels.

Every link in the chain has to be as strong as possible and if so, we end up with a strong game.

You seem to have developed this Hockeyite notion of lifters and leaners - but sometimes for the greater good people or organistions need subsidy or support from above.

But you see, this ARU cut isn't part of a grand strategy or plan for the game, it's just a cost cutting measure that the ARU thinks it can get away with. Just like the $200 levy was a sneaky little charge on people who couldn't resist.

Let's have a plan from the ARU with a coherent strategy about how the game should be run, organised and funded from top to bottom. Sadly, that's what we won't see - what we'll continue to see is ad hoc decisions from the ARU which is probably the worst run part of the game (How many million have they lost in 10 years?)

Am I saying abandon it? I'm saying don't support those who have means of supporting themselves. If there's money to be thrown out there it should be through the levels that cannot support themselves as well - juniors.

You're kidding, or Sydney is vastly different to every other state, if you think Shute Shield in anything like it is in the past decade is bringing in new players and fans.

You make out like the ARU through on that $200 like Mr Burns stealing candy from a baby with delight. I doubt they had any desire to do so. The NSWRU absorbed it, at the expense of ARU funds. So it sounds like the levy was more of a reduction in grants in a round about way.

Yes the ARU have made mistakes at time but how can you kick them for losing money when even in 2014 they were still pumping $330,000 directly to the clubs? Perhaps if they hadn't dumped so much money into Shute Shield over the years they'd have lost less money? But further to the point, it's now basically a different organization to the one that frittered away the 2003 World Cup windfall. I say that due to the huge staff turn over. Do you blame Abbot for Gillard's policies? Likewise were you blaming her for Howard's?

Right now since Pulver has been on board a line in the sand has been drawn. Surely they're not perfect, but they're making hard decisions in the best interests of the game, not just the game in 12 clubs in greater Sydney. If the Sydney clubs learn to run like the Canberra, Perth and Melbourne clubs have managed to exist, and like many NSW Cup, QLD Cup, VFL, SANFL, WAFL and NEAFL Clubs do they and the game will be better off.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You're kidding, or Sydney is vastly different to every other state, if you think Shute Shield in anything like it is in the past decade is bringing in new players

You mean attracting new kids, I assume?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yes.

I mean new kids playing because they see Shute Shield. I don't mean village clubs which would still be there otherwise that are attached to a Shute Shield club.

 

[Braveheart81]

Aren't there 4 or 5 Unions in NSW as well? Surely that's a waste of resources and inefficient? I'll admit I'm very ignorant and am happy to concede if there's a good reason for it.

Yes, but that's the reality of volunteers running most levels of rugby.

It doesn't make sense for the people running a specific competition (say the Sydney Junior Rugby Union) doing all the work but not having the power to actually decide on what they do.

It would be a beaureaucratic nightmare if every decision had to be run by people at NSWRU who knew little to nothing about the detail of the issue they were being asked to decide on.

 

[Quick Hands]

Am I saying abandon it? I'm saying don't support those who have means of supporting themselves. If there's money to be thrown out there it should be through the levels that cannot support themselves as well - juniors.

You're kidding, or Sydney is vastly different to every other state, if you think Shute Shield in anything like it is in the past decade is bringing in new players and fans.

You make out like the ARU through on that $200 like Mr Burns stealing candy from a baby with delight. I doubt they had any desire to do so. The NSWRU absorbed it, at the expense of ARU funds. So it sounds like the levy was more of a reduction in grants in a round about way.

Yes the ARU have made mistakes at time but how can you kick them for losing money when even in 2014 they were still pumping $330,000 directly to the clubs? Perhaps if they hadn't dumped so much money into Shute Shield over the years they'd have lost less money? But further to the point, it's now basically a different organization to the one that frittered away the 2003 World Cup windfall. I say that due to the huge staff turn over. Do you blame Abbot for Gillard's policies? Likewise were you blaming her for Howard's?

Right now since Pulver has been on board a line in the sand has been drawn. Surely they're not perfect, but they're making hard decisions in the best interests of the game, not just the game in 12 clubs in greater Sydney. If the Sydney clubs learn to run like the Canberra, Perth and Melbourne clubs have managed to exist, and like many NSW Cup, QLD Cup, VFL, SANFL, WAFL and NEAFL Clubs do they and the game will be better off.

You have been saying abandon it haven't you? Haven't you been saying that the ARU should let the clubs fall over and the players would then go to subbies clubs, who would in your view then replace the defunct district club?

SS is actually better now than it was a decade ago in terms of crowds and the standard at the top is too. Not so long ago Uni were miles in front, but some of the others have lifted their standard - and continue to do so.

The $200 levy was totally discretionary on the part of the ARU it's hardly being imposed on people who can afford to pay is it. Whereas at least some ARU directors are on 6 or 7 figure salaries, but still need to trouser between $20,000 to $32,000 from the ARU. Who could most afford a levy I ask?

At least you admit that the ARU have made mistakes, but on the standard that you are applying to clubs, they should be allowed to fail and another entity will take their place. (If the soccer experience is anything to go by, this isn't such a bad option as it may result in government assistance on the condition of board and governance restructure)

I'm actually astonished that you think that alone in Australian sport, SS clubs are receiving some support or subsidy from their governing bodies.

 

[Ash]

The ARU is broke. They are cutting money everywhere. Why you think that $28k funding to the Shute Shield clubs is sacred, I do not know.

The sad fact for the SS clubs is that the funding would have inevitably gone, anyway. I doubt the ARU ever had intentions of funding comps in Sydney, Brisbane, greater ACT area, Melbourne and Perth. With the Super XV sides now all concentrating their players in the local comps, the local comps will improve over time and the Sydney and Brisbane comps will eventually supply a lesser porportion of players.

The guys up in arms are all heavily involved in SS clubs and can only see funding removed that they see as deserved. Well, I am sure the ARU would love to give more money to all levels of rugby, but sadly they cannot. As BH81 stated previously, the relevance for the SS and Brisbane Premier Rugby comps is slowly diminishing for various reasons, and with there being a major money issue, funding has been cut.

The belief that the fat cats in the ARU are stuffing their pockets with the money is, as I pointed out, incorrect as the ARU have been desperately laying people off and cutting wages as well. For instance, Pulver alone earns a lot less than half of the obscene wage of JON, and the board of directors, who are supposed to be paid $40k for the chairman and $20k for the board members (set as the recommended anount for corporations), have halved their payments.

I will repeat this has been going around and around for pages, but at the end of the day the following is true (as far as I am aware):
1. the ARU is nearly broke (and would have probably gone broke without the increased TV deal)
2. they have cut costs everywhere, including an ill thought out and silly junior levy
3. SS clubs are a very important part of player development, but that importance will be slowly diminished somewhat by the NRC and rise of other captial city competitions
4. the ARU, as a result of all of the above, has cut funding to SS clubs (which was probably inevitable anyways, but has happened sooner than expected)

 

[Dave Beat]

The ARU is broke. They are cutting money everywhere. Why you think that $28k funding to the Shute Shield clubs is sacred, I do not know.

The sad fact for the SS clubs is that the funding would have inevitably gone, anyway. I doubt the ARU ever had intentions of funding comps in Sydney, Brisbane, greater ACT area, Melbourne and Perth. With the Super XV sides now all concentrating their players in the local comps, the local comps will improve over time and the Sydney and Brisbane comps will eventually supply a lesser porportion of players.

The guys up in arms are all heavily involved in SS clubs and can only see funding removed that they see as deserved. Well, I am sure the ARU would love to give more money to all levels of rugby, but sadly they cannot. As BH81 stated previously, the relevance for the SS and Brisbane Premier Rugby comps is slowly diminishing for various reasons, and with there being a major money issue, funding has been cut.

The belief that the fat cats in the ARU are stuffing their pockets with the money is, as I pointed out, incorrect as the ARU have been desperately laying people off and cutting wages as well. For instance, Pulver alone earns a lot less than half of the obscene wage of JON, and the board of directors, who are supposed to be paid $40k for the chairman and $20k for the board members (set as the recommended anount for corporations), have halved their payments.

I will repeat this has been going around and around for pages, but at the end of the day the following is true (as far as I am aware):
1. the ARU is nearly broke (and would have probably gone broke without the increased TV deal)
2. they have cut costs everywhere, including an ill thought out and silly junior levy
3. SS clubs are a very important part of player development, but that importance will be slowly diminished somewhat by the NRC and rise of other captial city competitions
4. the ARU, as a result of all of the above, has cut funding to SS clubs (which was probably inevitable anyways, but has happened sooner than expected)

What is missing is a common plan, to grow and develop - we aren't seeing this.
Some posters are say SS goes and play may disburse to various clubs and we are suppose to hope.
A business needs a plan, at the moment it appears very there is not one - rugby is a team sport - maybe ARU needs to involve the teams.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No Dave. We are saying IF it went, to justify why the ARU should not need to subsidize it if it's not self sustaining.

 

[Dave Beat]

No Dave. We are saying IF it went, to justify why the ARU should not need to subsidize it if it's not self sustaining.

I have to question whether the Rebels have been self sustaining, plenty of reports that some years it hasn't been ???
But do we say can it, no there is value in plans and vision and we can hope.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Dave just tell me how many expansion teams in sports have managed to be self sustaining?

The AFL for example is pumping hundreds of millions into the Gold Coast and GWS over a decade or more.

You do understand the whole concept of an investment right? As the game gains profile the market is more lucrative for sponsorship and broadcast numbers which helps the Tv deal. In addition the profile builds the junior participation which leads to more players.

The difference is Melbourne may be self sustaining, based on the decades of decline the SS probably won't as a whole.