• 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.

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
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.

my further understanding is that none of the "stakeholders" meet again prior to the ARU deadline issued to the NSWRU.
What is the ARU's compromise outcome - they'll lose face and credibility if the deadline for compliance gets shunted?
And if the NSWRU, the Tahs shareholder, remains in alleged breach of its relationship with the ARU what happens to the Tahs???
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
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.

I've heard it pretty heavily implied that the funding for development officers that was previously part of various community rugby programmes and the member union grants will not be paid for by the ARU unless the funding is found from the community, next year at least.

The development officers have not been sacked yet so far.

You can do the maths.
 

Brendan Hume

Charlie Fox (21)
my info is that the ARU's premium is the same this year as last so any difference will be kept by it

And any shortfall in the overall pool will be required to be met by it (the ARU) The reduction in the insurance fee for seniors to $60 from $75 means there will be no rebate for clubs who met a minimum player threshold (30 players I believe).
The ARU don't get it though - the problem is the introduction of a single insurance fee which must be paid before playing, as well as the $33 (and the state levy) being required up front. The individual insurance was a mechanism to make players pay those other levies. It replaces the $200 per team levy when insurances were team based - rather than making that an extra $1760 (based on 20 senior players) - $660 for ARU levies and $1300 for state levies (in Qld) - they have gone after the individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Hit23

Frank Row (1)
I have played at 3 clubs in my time. The first was a large premier in Brisbane. The second was a medium sized club (3-4 senior teams) on the Gold Coast predominantly consisting of uni students and currently play for a small country Club which struggles to find 2 teams and last year even one when travelling long distances. It is a given that with population density like Brisbane/ Sydney the large clubs may take a small hit but this would be sustainable. As I've stated prior on page 8 I think this will be the end of my current small club. What concerns me most is that even clubs with 3 to 4 senior teams will struggle. We had a system at this club where you could pay by weekly instalments provided you paid given amounts by given dates. This seemed to work. Try telling 100 odd uni students that they have to come up with 153 dollars UPFRONT and then fees for the club/kits/field maintenance etc just to run on in week one of the competition. It won't happen. It's concerning when even medium sized clubs are at risk of failing. Pulver better wont be able to show his face outside of headquarters if this goes ahead.
 

Hit23

Frank Row (1)
On top of that we lost our development officer position last year as we were amalgamated with the adjoining region. Our current DO is now 200 kms away. We have gotten minimal development since these changes. So essentially we are going to be paying more to still get nothing.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Pulver better wont be able to show his face outside of headquarters if this goes ahead.

I'm not sure that Pulver gets out too much anyway, beyond VIP lounges at Wallaby tests, Sydney Uni colts and Shore school that is. Sadly I don't think there's any danger of him appearing at your club - which is part of the problem. And when the chairman has the same pedigree, he's not likely to do much about it either.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
O So essentially we are going to be paying more to still get nothing.

Which is the problem with the NPF for all of us. I accept absolutely that this will hit country clubs and smaller clubs in the cities harder than others, but everyone is taking a big hit and getting nothing for it.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
So we're essentially getting nothing extra and paying a lot more for it?

My guess (because the ARU has been completely negligent in advising stakeholders of what is happening) is that fees have increased so that there is a guarantee that money can still flow to grassroots rugby. People may think they're getting nothing because their small club might not get a direct grant but money must be being spent to keep each competition running and ensure that qualified referees are available etc.


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.

The 20% that this referred to was in a pie chart showing the breakup of how the ARU spends their money. More specific details are available in the financial statements. There are still large expenditures in fairly generic categories (like "corporate") which contain everything from rent to salaries etc. but this is certainly standard practice in financial reports.

------------

The ARU has been awful in explaining what is a fairly dramatic change of policy. It doesn't work to put through a substantial change that appears entirely negative and then not explain it in detail. There is no clear picture of why the change needed to happen (although presumably it is because the ARU is in financial dire straits) and there is no explanation of how exactly the funding model works.

The only thing that is obvious to grassroots rugby administrators is that fees will increase substantially for players and the way it is structured will make it very difficult to have players who want to give rugby a try or fill in for a game or two.

If you're going to make people eat a shit sandwich because that is the only viable option available, you need to explain why and exactly what is involved. People will generally be a lot more understanding of why they have to fork out more money or find alternative ways to do something if they're kept fully informed.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The ARU has been awful in explaining what is a fairly dramatic change of policy. It doesn't work to put through a substantial change that appears entirely negative and then not explain it in detail. There is no clear picture of why the change needed to happen (although presumably it is because the ARU is in financial dire straits) and there is no explanation of how exactly the funding model works.

The only thing that is obvious to grassroots rugby administrators is that fees will increase substantially for players and the way it is structured will make it very difficult to have players who want to give rugby a try or fill in for a game or two.

If you're going to make people eat a shit sandwich because that is the only viable option available, you need to explain why and exactly what is involved. People will generally be a lot more understanding of why they have to fork out more money or find alternative ways to do something if they're kept fully informed.

The part I have made bold is a fairly damning indictment of any administration. Hopefully the answer isn't that they don't really know how the funding model will work, but I suspect it might be.
 

Brendan Hume

Charlie Fox (21)
...a guarantee that money can still flow to grassroots rugby. People may think they're getting nothing because their small club might not get a direct grant but money must be being spent to keep each competition running and ensure that qualified referees are available etc.
I can't speak for competitions apart from my own. Our competition is fully self funded - we (the clubs and players) pay to manage the competition, pay our referees, pay our own development staff, pay to maintain our own facility. Our competition does not receive a cent in direct funding. We may get some funding from the QRU indirectly through Queensland Country for our senior rep program. Most other rep is funded by the players themselves and partly by the competition.

It may be true that the ARU and States are doing some of those things that you mentioned - if they are, then the competition that they are assisting needs to do a better job at being sustainable, and building the support structures to enable them to do those things for themselves. That's where the ARU and States should focus their attention, working with successful competitions and sharing knowledge on building sustainable grassroots competitions using the volunteers who make these things work.

I said a number of posts back that these are the non-cash assets that the ARU and States have - thousands of volunteers who give their time to assist in growing a game that they love. There are also non-cash assets that the ARU could use to assist those volunteers with their jobs - sending a few quality players off from various competitions to training camps with the professionals, provide a few match day experiences to volunteers, send the analyst to the bush to record a first grade game and get some sports science students and coaches involved in the basics of game analysis using video...

There are so many positives that can be utilised to improve the game, but it seems the ideas well has run dry.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Any idea if this will impact Golden Oldies?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

One assumes that as they are participants, then they wil pay the NPF and as they require insurance, they will also pay the NIL.

That's what I call being taxed from the cradle to the grave. When Pulver gets the chop, he should be made Taxation Commissioner;)
 

Brendan Hume

Charlie Fox (21)
That's the other really disappointing thing. The information paper that was sent out mentions nothing about Women's, u19, Golden Oldies or other formats of the game. Currently unions that wish to hold 7s tournaments have to pay additional insurance levies to do this (this is only a recent phenomenon) - there's no discussion on the effect here, nor any discussion about club, referee or volunteer public liability.
With reference to Golden Oldies, I think they are currently treated under a separate system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Wheatman

Chris McKivat (8)
Thanks Brendan. I was curious with all the other competitions, as well as Golden Oldies how it would all fit in (or if it does). Holding back on rant at this stage as you've covered most of what I would say (except on the Downs it wouldn't surprise me to see more clubs with player number issues and not just the one team towns)

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top