A very tacky development

[Freddo Frog]

Investec sponsors the entire tournament, not just the Scots team. And yes Rob42 is right, the teams involved last year all had the Investec logo on their jerseys.

I don't think sponsorship is a bad thing if it helps more comps/gala days etc become viable events, which leads to a stronger competition base. Events like the this 7's tournament allows the boys to pit themselves against a much broader range of players, which in my view can only be a good thing. Schools wouldn't be able to justify spending parents school fees on this stuff, so sponsorship seems a logical way forward in creating more opportunities for the boys.

 

[Bowside]

I'm happy with sponsorship for school level as long as the sponsors are for the competition as a whole so funds can be divided amongst school teams according to whether they actually need financial help. This collective way of doing things is a better alternative to teams having funds just for themselves which creates a "haves & have nots" scenario which is the bane of most sports at club level.

There would be far less sponsorship if it was structured like this. Why would say a small law firm or plumbing business sponsor schoolboy rugby in general rather than just the school that the business owner sends their kid to?

Lots of the smaller sponsorships would simply disappear.

Every 3rd party dollar that go's into supporting rugby is one less dollar the ARU has to spend. Instead of trying to bring everyone down the aru should be spending money to improve the standard of the 'have-nots'.

Scots probably got this Timomatic bloke on a package deal to do this event and the grade 9 and 10 dance.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

If the parents of kids only sponsor because their kids play then I can see that support disappearing as soon as the kid leave school. That cant be a long term solution for sponsorship.

I'd prefer sponsors who love the game for the game & are not simply in it because their kids are. One team gets more support & becomes a big fish in a small pond. I cant see how that helps.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Bowside and Angry - I mostly agree.
Most of the teams that are going to play in this comp will play without Investec's help - and if there are some deserving teams/schools who can't afford 10 jerseys then i have no issue - but send the money where its needed - don't prop up a school with a rugby tradition that needs no help. The picture is of a scots boy.
if its for the good of the game as a whole where was this money when the school from Wiley Park was on its way to Japan for a world competition? Thats really supporting the game and not a few spoilt private school kids whose parents can, almost all, afford another rugby jersey (assuming a different one is needed) for this event.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/02/11/rugby-union-still-alive-in-western-sydney/

 

[Bullrush]

If the parents of kids only sponsor because their kids play then I can see that support disappearing as soon as the kid leave school. That cant be a long term solution for sponsorship.

I'd prefer sponsors who love the game for the game & are not simply in it because their kids are. One team gets more support & becomes a big fish in a small pond. I cant see how that helps.

The way that most schools work however means that every year that some kids leave, other kids will start. And the anecdotal evidence so far suggests that the large majority of these kids also have parents......

Sorry - I couldn't resist

 

[random2]

the best thing about this thread is everyone trying to figure out who Timomatic is

 

[AngrySeahorse]

The way that most schools work however means that every year that some kids leave, other kids will start. And the anecdotal evidence so far suggests that the large majority of these kids also have parents......

Sorry - I couldn't resist

 

[CTPE]

The inclusion of a commercial logo on a school's rugby jersey should be viewed by anyone with a concern for a proper emphasis on schoolboy rugby as a most unwelcome, not to say tasteless, development.


Thats not what schoolboy rugby is about.

How much of Grammar's annual budget is directed towards their rugby programme? For that matter what $$$ to Joeys, Kings, View or New kick in?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

How much of Grammar's annual budget is directed towards their rugby programme? For that matter what $$$ to Joeys, Kings, View or New kick in?

Im sure i dont understand the point you are making. However my point is this: school rugby is an adjunct to education - it is not a stand alone profit centre. Whatever $$$ are kicked in at other schools they come from the fees and government grants. Traditionally events like this would be used to raise money by holding a cake stall, jumping castles perhaps even a donkey ride.
Its a sad development when a all of this is foregone in favour of a foreign merchant bank ploughing dirty mullah into it.....I suppose the crap that process entails is seen by some as preferable to picking up donkey shit but at least donkey shit is good for the appalling turf at Scots.

 

[matty_k]

When I was in my very early years at View I remember that the Schools were going along this path. I vaguely remember in 1996 they had an Adidas kit and remember hearing something about them sponsoring the team. I think Joey's had a sponsor for the season as well. After that GPS pulled the pin on sponsorship because as discussed above, it deviated from schooling part of going to school.

I would like to caveat my above comments with; I am not 100% on this. Its just something I remember vaguely from my school days...

I can't remember who had Adidas but Joeys did have a small Classic logo in the middle of their chest in 1996 since they made the jerseys.

 

[CTPE]

Im sure i dont understand the point you are making. However my point is this: school rugby is an adjunct to education - it is not a stand alone profit centre. Whatever $$$ are kicked in at other schools they come from the fees and government grants. Traditionally events like this would be used to raise money by holding a cake stall, jumping castles perhaps even a donkey ride.
Its a sad development when a all of this is foregone in favour of a foreign merchant bank ploughing dirty mullah into it.....I suppose the crap that process entails is seen by some as preferable to picking up donkey shit but at least donkey shit is good for the appalling turf at Scots.

The point is that most GPS schools kick in next to nothing towards their rugby programmes from their fees and grants revenue. They instead benefit from the fundraising efforts of the schools rugby supporter groups which are comprised in the main of parents of boys playing rugby and to a lesser extent old boys. Most of these groups have an annual rugby lunch or dinner where they generally raise the bulk of their monies. Joeys have a very big function as do Newington. Scots hold one as well generally on the day before their first home game. Sponsorship of these events and the other acvtivities of the rugby supporter groups is growing with plenty of sponsors banners now seen at some schools home games and a plethora of advetisements also regularly appearing in many match day programmes.

It is the rugby supporter groups and not the school hierarchy that are driving the sponsorship of rugby activities - many of their members are in business themselves, understand how to generate sponsorship and have the necessary connections to do so. Some rugby supporters groups are no doubt better at doing it than others and ultimately much depends on the extent of approval given to their activities by the relevant school. Scots have been very good at it in recent years but Newington have probably now surpassed them. I'm not sure if Grammar have a rugby supporters group but you would probably know whether they do or not.

Despite all this I think you'll find that the AAGPS prohibits sponsor logos on school rugby jerseys in their competition. I can't see a Macquarie Bank logo appearing on a Grammar jersey in my lifetime nor a Mercedes logo on a Shore or Kings jersey. The 7's comp at Scots however is not an AAGPS competition so no prohbition applies.

 

[Ageing Parent]

RE : CTPE "...... The 7's comp at Scots however is not an AAGPS competition so no prohbition applies."

CTPE, your comments ring true – and I think you will find that the Investec sponsorship of this tournament is specifically related to this tournament only, which is supplemented by a huge volunteer effort from the rugby support group at TSC.. The Investec funding over the last 2 years ( and this is the 3rd year of a 3 year deal, I believe) allowed the school to undertake a program to raise the profile of 7’s rugby at school level. With interstate teams now participating in the event, it is slowly gaining momentum, one hopes. Given that 7’s rugby is now part of the Olympic program for the 2016 Olympics, investing a bit of effort in this area using external funding seems a reasonable thing – and given that as one previous poster surmised, it then hopefully doesn’t take away valuable resources from other school academic activities.
It is quite possible that some of the lads who participate in this sort of tournament may further their sporting careers via 7’s as a lead in to other things….
It will be interesting to read any posters comments after the event….and whether “Automatic” vs the Pipes & Drums might be a worthy finale ??

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not sure if Grammar have a rugby supporters group but you would probably know whether they do or not.

You'd think I would know, wouldnt you? I dont.
The reason is that it was made crystal clear about 2 years ago that it was not a welcome "society" at the school. Teachers were not permitted to attend the annual dinner of the friends of grammar rugby and the suggestion that members of FOGr raise money for kit, a new scrum machine etc. was rejected: FOGR was told not to raise any money. The committee was effectively disbanded....every so often an event is held with some input from FOGR - but no fundraising is permitted.
Of course, if the school permitted fund raising then before you know it grammar old boys and parents would be taking as much interest as every body else and the current headmaster would lose control of the destiny of the school.
Hobby horse dismount.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Despite all this I think you'll find that the AAGPS prohibits sponsor logos on school rugby jerseys in their competition. I can't see a Macquarie Bank logo appearing on a Grammar jersey in my lifetime nor a Mercedes logo on a Shore or Kings jersey. The 7's comp at Scots however is not an AAGPS competition so no prohbition applies.

Well here's a twist (which only occurred to me when you connected MacBank to Grammar - funny how these neurones fire): until mid 2011 David Gonski (of the gonski report) was the Chairman of Trustees at Grammar and an Old Boy who has presided over the demise of all sport at the school. Among the many corporate hats worn by the best self promoter in the business (Coca Cola Amatil; ASX etc.) is that he is a director of Investec!!

I need a lie down I am getting so angry!

 

[Bowside]

You'd think I would know, wouldnt you? I dont.
The reason is that it was made crystal clear about 2 years ago that it was not a welcome "society" at the school. Teachers were not permitted to attend the annual dinner of the friends of grammar rugby and the suggestion that members of FOGr raise money for kit, a new scrum machine etc. was rejected: FOGR was told not to raise any money. The committee was effectively disbanded....every so often an event is held with some input from FOGR - but no fundraising is permitted.
Of course, if the school permitted fund raising then before you know it grammar old boys and parents would be taking as much interest as every body else and the current headmaster would lose control of the destiny of the school.
Hobby horse dismount.

Sounds like a huge mistake by the school.

Parental support is integral to successful school sporting programs. Planning to fail if you ask me.

 

[Swarley]

Sponsorship in school rugby is now commonplace. Nudgee's Ross Oval frequently has display Mercedes Benz cars and other corporate sponsors throughout match programs, marquees etc. Take a look at the link, this is one of the more extreme examples:

http://www.mbbrisbane.com.au/conten..._Partnerships/St_Joseph_s_Nudgee_College.html

 

[suckerforred]

Sponsorship in school rugby is now commonplace. Nudgee's Ross Oval frequently has display Mercedes Benz cars and other corporate sponsors throughout match programs, marquees etc. Take a look at the link, this is one of the more extreme examples:

http://www.mbbrisbane.com.au/content/australia/retailer-4/mbbrisbane/en/home/passengercars/home/news_offers/news_events/Mercedes-Benz_Brisbane_Partnerships/St_Joseph_s_Nudgee_College.html[/quote]

And dare I ask how many of the students in that photo are on scholarships?

 

[Swarley]

Pretty sure that 3rd from left is Sean McMahon, current Aus 7's representative.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Sponsorship in school rugby is now commonplace. Nudgee's Ross Oval frequently has display Mercedes Benz cars and other corporate sponsors throughout match programs, marquees etc. Take a look at the link, this is one of the more extreme examples:

http://www.mbbrisbane.com.au/conten..._Partnerships/St_Joseph_s_Nudgee_College.html

Well, Scots are no longer the most tacky private school in Australia.

I recognise a difference between this and having Macdonalds sponsor schools, up to a point.

Nudgee is a better example of the problem than Scots because it is such a prodigious producer of Wallabies and so its very easy to see what MB get out of an association with such a successful rugby school.

However, the implied endorsement by the kids, including those in this photo, is exploitation: clearly the school gets something in return but what do the kids get that they wouldn't have got anyway? if the school cant afford its rugby program then one of a number of problems must be present:

• they dont have a properly set budget;
• they think they can buy success;
• the fees aren't high enough;
• they're spending too much on rugby

Anyone of these should be solved at its root - and if they dont have these problems to "justify" the sponsorship then its even more exploitative of the children.
The link above reveals that the state and federal government pays about $7,300 per student @ Nudgee to achieve Naplan results which are below many of the public schools with which it supposedly shares its demographics. This sugests to me that the 4th bullet point is the problem.
I wonder how the taxpayers feel about sponsoring kids to learn to play rugby when evidently the place is seen to be a good marketing opportunity for Mercedes Benz - a perceived luxury brand to which the majority of people, by definition, cannot (and some do not) aspire? Something is not quite right here.
The chaser kind of summed it up

 

[Freddo Frog]

IS, what is it about Scots that you deem to be so tacky? It's already been stated that Investec sponsors the entire 7's tournament and the teams all wear jerseys with their logo. It's hardly 'exploitation', I doubt the kids could care less what was written on their jersey for the day; but who knows, they may even feel good about their efforts being worthy of professional sponsorship.

Scots (or any school) would be hard pressed to sell the idea of spending that sort of money out of the school fees, to the parents who pay them, on a rugby tournament. You said yourself in your post above that schools should be inherently about learning; they're not mini rugby academies and nor should they be. So school fees go towards the learning side of things; the schools individual rugby support groups raises the money to fund their own rugby programs; and sponsors are needed to put on these big tournaments that benefit boys from teams from all over Sydney.

As it happens, Scots puts the event together, and it seems to be a very well-run event producing a large amount of interest in 7's rugby, giving the players a great hit-out before the start of the season. It's a win-win as far as I can see.