• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

ARU fee structure change for 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

TSR

Andrew Slack (58)
Even the usual Pulver supporters and ARU sympathisers on these threads have stayed quiet. No criticism mind you, but they haven't been out there defending the NPF and those who want to implement it with the usual gusto.
Up until now,I haven't been overly critical of Pulver. I think he is in a very tough position. I am very happy with the implementation of the NRC.

I have personally asked for and received assistance from the QRU with a number of things over the last 12 months, so, again I am not anti QRU at all.

However, both Pulver and the QRU, in my view, have shown a poor understanding of the dynamics of lower level rugby.

Despite the commercial realities of modern sport it is my strong view that these guys are responsible for the interests of all Stakeholders. Any decision which causes large numbers of stakeholders to walk away from the game is a failure in their obligations as far as I am concerned.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
I'm very happy with the concept of the NRC,but apart from securing both cash and coverage from Foxtel.
The implementation has been poor IMO.
Let's just remember that entities had to express their interest in a competition,with details as to number of teams etc still to be decided.
The fact that some of the teams created a 20's development squad,without any assistance or encouragement from the ARU reflects poorly on them IMO.

I absolutely agree that the ARU are falling in their obligations to the grassroots.
But whilst Pulver is the face of it,ultimately it's the Board that is responsible.
I'm very much against the makeup of the Board, there appears to be very few of them if any,that has any personal experience in a local Club.
Is it any wonder none of them to appear to value this part of their constituency?
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I'd love to hear the ARU's side of the story on this one. Because I can't for the life of me work out why the hell they are doing this. No-one can. It seems so illogical, so against everything we are working towards.

There must be SOME explanation, surely? Even if it's a shitty 'we're really broke, guys' explanation. I think we are all owed it.
.
 

Brendan Hume

Charlie Fox (21)
Dear Affiliate and Club Presidents,
As you’re aware, Australian Rugby is undertaking significant reform to provide a sustainable future for Rugby at all levels, including community Rugby.
These reforms will provide certainty for the continued funding for grassroots Rugby.
From 2015, individuals will now register; pay to play Rugby; and pay to be insured themselves, rather than being managed through clubs.
This ensures players know where their registration fees are directed and eases the administrative burden on clubs.
This is mandatory national policy, which means players can only take the field after paying their national and state registration fee and national insurance levy.
As you know, affiliates and clubs have the opportunity to add registration fees at a local level to ensure you can continue to provide appropriate services for players. These additional fees are at your discretion and will vary according to your service proposition.
In addition to registration fees (national, state union, club), players must pay an individual levy to be covered by the ARU’s market-leading insurance offering.
This insurance offering provides coverage to players at a rate that is extremely competitive when compared to other major Australian sports. It provides the Australian Rugby family with the assurance that players, coaches, match officials and volunteers will be protected in the case of injury or other incidents.
The cost of this insurance coverage for senior club players in 2015 will be $60, instead of $75 as previously communicated. This represents a 20% cost reduction for individual players. There will be no rebates to clubs and the ARU will be accountable for any shortfall in achieving the required insurance pool.
In summary – the cost to play Rugby in Queensland in 2015 will be:

Competition Category National Participant Registration Fee Note: All money is directed automatically to Member Union State Participant Registration Fee Note: All money is directed automatically to Member Union National Participant Insurance Levy Note: All money is directed automatically to insurance company Total National Participant Registration Cost
Under 6/7 $11 $40 $0 $51
Junior (U8-U18) $27.50 $40 $8 $75.50
Senior $33 $65 $60 $158

We are encouraging players to register online through Rugby Link for the 2015 season.
Competitions and clubs that activate online payment through Rugby Link will allow players to register; pay their national and state registration fee; pay their insurance levy; and pay for any other affiliate or club registration fees in one transaction.
All funds collected through the National and State Participant Registration Fees will be automatically directed to the relevant State or Territory Union and the National Participant Insurance Levy will be immediately disbursed to the ARU’s insurer to protect all participants, clubs, coaches, volunteers and match officials.
The ARU does not receive any financial gain from the Registration Fee or Insurance Levy.
For players who don’t pay their National and State Participant Registration Fee or National Participant Insurance Levy online, the club will be liable for their players’ registration and insurance payments. We strongly recommend that all clubs ask their players to register and pay online.
Further information on changes to individual participant registration is available at www.rugby.com.au/gameplan.
We will need your help to update your stakeholders about these important changes.
Action for you:
Please forward the attached letter from me to your senior players by Friday 9 January 2015 prior to Rugby Link ‘Go Live’ on Monday 12 January 2015.
Kind regards
Bill Pulver
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
That's a horrible letter. It doesn't say why they are doing it at all. Was there a problem with the previous system? We have never had any issues with insurance at all in all the years I've been at my (Sydney subbies) club.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
I'd love to hear the ARU's side of the story on this one. Because I can't for the life of me work out why the hell they are doing this. No-one can. It seems so illogical, so against everything we are working towards.

There must be SOME explanation, surely? Even if it's a shitty 'we're really broke, guys' explanation. I think we are all owed it.
.
It's only illogical if you have any understanding of the impact these decisions will have.
From a bean counters view,or looking at things through org charts,these changes make perfect sense.
If only the ARU were selling widgets,instead of fostering junior/grassroots development,everything would be fine.
 

Brendan Hume

Charlie Fox (21)
That's a horrible letter. It doesn't say why they are doing it at all. Was there a problem with the previous system? We have never had any issues with insurance at all in all the years I've been at my (Sydney subbies) club.

As I read - the explanations are as follows:

"to provide a sustainable future for Rugby at all levels, including community Rugby.
These reforms will provide certainty for the continued funding for grassroots Rugby."

It's nice to read that Bill has considered the cost to clubs of providing the required infrastructure and services to allow people to participate in the game:
"As you know, affiliates and clubs have the opportunity to add registration fees at a local level to ensure you can continue to provide appropriate services for players. These additional fees are at your discretion and will vary according to your service proposition."
It's funny that the proposed mandatory fees aren't varying according to to the service proposition - perhaps because there is no service proposition...

Thankfully grassroots rugby will be in good shape because the Grassroots programs won't miss out -
"For players who don’t pay their National and State Participant Registration Fee or National Participant Insurance Levy online, the club will be liable for their players’ registration and insurance payments"

Hahaha - these guys must have some of the worst PR people in the business. If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious.
 

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
To me, that reads something like:

"We are now charging you. We are not giving you any choice, recourse, or even asking for your input. We are not giving you any more service. However, your club will not play Rugby if you don't abide by these conditions."

If Pulver had an Italian or Russian sounding name, they'd all be up on extortion and racketeering charges.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
As read the letter, I struggle to see what exactly the grass-roots were being provided with and the only service that I can see being provided is:

players must pay an individual levy to be covered by the ARU’s market-leading insurance offering.This insurance offering provides coverage to players at a rate that is extremely competitive when compared to other major Australian sports.

You'd like to think they could get a competitive insurance rate when the chairman is among other things is a director of Aviva plc which is the largest insurance company in the UK and also a director of Macquarie Bank.
 

Druid

Herbert Moran (7)
This line I liked in particular..

The ARU does not receive any financial gain from the Registration Fee or Insurance Levy.

Whilst essentially true it is quite misleading. The way I understand it works is that the ARU granted the state unions $X. The fund is designed to raise $X, and therefore the ARU withdraws the grant of $X. Therefore although none of the NPF goes to the ARU they do directly financially benefit by being able to minimise funding given to the state unions.

Given that the ARU have said this is a "transition", I am getting the impression that the ARU's final position will be not to grant the status unions any money (with the state unions being completely responsible for all development, promotion and administration of Rugby in their state) and being funded by the players in that state through the NPF. Hence all of the money the ARU gets from the Govt etc then going to completely fund the wallabies.

Also, $40 added onto the rego fee by the QRU for an Under 6 is absolutely disgraceful. How can they justify charging the 6 yr old that amount of money just to try out the game and see if he likes it!!!!
 

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
You'd like to think they could get a competitive insurance rate when the chairman is among other things is a director of Aviva plc which is the largest insurance company in the UK and also a director of Macquarie Bank.
The insurance rate is pretty damn close to what it was before (for juniors, as I don't deal with the senior club's breakdown). It's with the same insurer (Gow-Gates) and comes out for a junior club with 20-odd kids per team to be pretty close to the same amount.

So, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, the insurance has zero to do with the whole thing. Especially since it is accounted separately in the fees.

The other thing they're selling is Rugby Link. The new database to replace MyRugbyAdmin. MRA is a reasonable system, and as far as I can tell, those who used a different system (Buddha in Sydney for instance), weren't unhappy with that either.

Another front end to that database has been used the last couple of years, too (Rugby Admin). It appears to have fallen on its face.

Other than that, I'm certain there will be little change to the service provided (or lack thereof).
 

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
We all speculate how players are on. Some more than others.

How much is Pulver on ?
How much is Cheika on? (I had heard than Robbie was on a million bucks per year.)

and the others down there at ARU HQ
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The insurance rate is pretty damn close to what it was before (for juniors, as I don't deal with the senior club's breakdown). It's with the same insurer (Gow-Gates) and comes out for a junior club with 20-odd kids per team to be pretty close to the same amount.

So, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, the insurance has zero to do with the whole thing. Especially since it is accounted separately in the fees.

The other thing they're selling is Rugby Link. The new database to replace MyRugbyAdmin. MRA is a reasonable system, and as far as I can tell, those who used a different system (Buddha in Sydney for instance), weren't unhappy with that either.

Another front end to that database has been used the last couple of years, too (Rugby Admin). It appears to have fallen on its face.

Other than that, I'm certain there will be little change to the service provided (or lack thereof).

So we're essentially getting nothing extra and paying a lot more for it?

Recent correspondence that I've seen indicates that SJRU are either in the process of or already have reactivated Buddha and won't be having anything to do with RugbyLink.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
We all speculate how players are on. Some more than others.

How much is Pulver on ?
How much is Cheika on? (I had heard than Robbie was on a million bucks per year.)

and the others down there at ARU HQ
Pulver's and the board's renumeration is in the annual report each year.

From memory Pulver is on $700k. The chairman and board members have taken half pay (so $30k and $10k per year)

Cheika had the ARU bent over a barrel so if he's any sort of negotiator, any guess is probably too low
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
We all speculate how players are on. Some more than others.

How much is Pulver on ?
How much is Cheika on? (I had heard than Robbie was on a million bucks per year.)

and the others down there at ARU HQ

I don't begrudge Cheika and Pulver what they're being paid (whether Pulver should be the CEO is another matter). It's their full-time jobs. I do object to directors who in most cases have either 6 or 7 figure salaries from other sources accepting one cent in this time of alleged financial crisis.

I'd certainly be interested in who else was on the payroll, although in fairness, Pulver has chopped quite a bit from the middle-management area.

I did note on the ARU report link that Strewcobber supplied a couple of pages back that about 20% of ARU expenditure is listed as "other". I'd love to know what this entails. I recall going to Manly AGMs and a retired banker who was also a life member, used to grill the Treasurer every year about the "other" column. I recall him saying that there was a threshold above which items should be put into their own column and not lumped into "other". Not sure if this still applies, but I'm sure it was a lot lower than 20%.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
The insurance rate is pretty damn close to what it was before (for juniors, as I don't deal with the senior club's breakdown). It's with the same insurer (Gow-Gates) and comes out for a junior club with 20-odd kids per team to be pretty close to the same amount.

So, that has nothing to do with it. In fact, the insurance has zero to do with the whole thing. Especially since it is accounted separately in the fees.

The other thing they're selling is Rugby Link. The new database to replace MyRugbyAdmin. MRA is a reasonable system, and as far as I can tell, those who used a different system (Buddha in Sydney for instance), weren't unhappy with that either.

Another front end to that database has been used the last couple of years, too (Rugby Admin). It appears to have fallen on its face.

Other than that, I'm certain there will be little change to the service provided (or lack thereof).

my info is that the ARU's premium is the same this year as last so any difference will be kept by it
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
So once we dismiss the great insurance deal red herring, what else are the grass roots getting for the NPF?

I also find it staggering that some state unions are in the business of participation fees too. Full marks to the NSWRU for not doing so. Let's hope they muscle up and call Mr Larrett on his bluff and go alone on registration and insurance.
 

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
my info is that the ARU's premium is the same this year as last so any difference will be kept by it

Last year, we paid the insurer directly, so that can't be quite right. That said, I understand the idea of what you're saying and I believe you're correct. The total will likely be less than the ARU collect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top