Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Summary (correct me if I'm wrong): the only group not paying the participation fee and the insurance levy is the schools, and of those schools that play 99% are private schools.
ARU fee structure change for 2015
- Thread starter namtrak
- Start date
- Status
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
I think you are correct. But I will say that public schools have weekly competition teams. At least they do here. I hope they do elsewhere, too.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
I don't think we should be trying to have schools pay. They manage their own insurances and provide great exposure for the game. I DO think though that the states and the ARU should do more to provide more opportunities for school comps, and opportunities for players outside the traditional private schools arena. I often look at Townsville as a great example where we have numerous schoolboys picked up on U20 contracts and senior contracts in the NRL, yet we have had a handful of players make Qld Schools teams. The player quality exists in the regions and outside the private school comps, but the pathways to play don't exist at the same level.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
SJRU are demanding a full-time seat on NSWRU Board, plus other assurances. NSWRU won't implement the NIL and will source their insurance if necessary, but seem to have buckled on NPF.
It seems there will be no NSW state levy of any description and the distinct possibility that the NPF will be offset and only $11 for all 6s-18s.
It seems there will be no NSW state levy of any description and the distinct possibility that the NPF will be offset and only $11 for all 6s-18s.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
Thanks for the information. It's really interesting to see the response from various organisations. I think the insurance levy has its flaws and is much more workable as the incumbent 'per team' levy, but I think at $60 per senior and $8 per junior it was probably workable if there were some allowances made for the most loosely organised clubs (eg large number of part timers, shift workers, etc), and yet it seems the insurance is the biggest sticking point for many people.
The point in the SJRU letter on the value proposition, I think, is the biggest issue by far - insurance is a market based industry and market forces will always determine the costs to the consumer. A unilateral Registration Levy with no documentation can do anything (as it has in Qld, ACT and WA with significant 'State' levies imposed).
Good luck to them. I believe the Queensland Country member unions are meeting today to coordinate the path forward for their members.
Jaghond
Ted Fahey (11)
BH,
A (usually) reliable snout has indicated that SJRU communicated to Clubs last weekend - "that many issues had been resolved - but not all - and that they would be issuing a further update / statement sometime this week"
I believe this was also linked to a communication from the "ARU Rugby Link Team" - suggesting that all (SJRU) clubs could start using Rugbylink for their 2015 Club registrations from 12/1/15. Not sure if this went to Clubs Aus - wide ??
From the commentary in the SJRU letter above ( in QH's post) - and to use that wonderful catch phrase from The Castle - it may be appropriate for someone from Club land to "tell them their dreaming, son"....
A (usually) reliable snout has indicated that SJRU communicated to Clubs last weekend - "that many issues had been resolved - but not all - and that they would be issuing a further update / statement sometime this week"
I believe this was also linked to a communication from the "ARU Rugby Link Team" - suggesting that all (SJRU) clubs could start using Rugbylink for their 2015 Club registrations from 12/1/15. Not sure if this went to Clubs Aus - wide ??
From the commentary in the SJRU letter above ( in QH's post) - and to use that wonderful catch phrase from The Castle - it may be appropriate for someone from Club land to "tell them their dreaming, son"....
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think the present mood is to acquire the jousting sticks, whatever the cost, and use them in a manner for which they were not designed.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
The communication was sent out this week. Administrators have been given their login details. Not sure if, or when players will receive correspondence asking them to register on Rugby Link.
To me, the only reason the ARU/States have gone down the path of individual insurances is to allow them to impose the Participant Registration levy. There is no other benefit that I can see in individualising the insurance. It's the same method employed last year with the $200 team levy, attaching that to the insurance, but they are bypassing the clubs to eek out a more substantial amount (around $2k per team in QLD).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Also interesting to note that various stakeholders put their objections to Mr Larrett in writing as far back as June and were ignored. It's taken a groundswell of anger from the grass roots to get anything changed.
Even though they seem to have given some ground on the NPF, the NSWRU deserve some credit for their support of grass roots rugby in this state.
I hope the SJRU get the board spot and also get the funding for DOs and other resources.
I hope the fight is not over and the ARU are forced to back track further, particuarly in other states, where it seems that the some state unions haven't really reflected the anger at the NPF by their grass roots.
Even though they seem to have given some ground on the NPF, the NSWRU deserve some credit for their support of grass roots rugby in this state.
I hope the SJRU get the board spot and also get the funding for DOs and other resources.
I hope the fight is not over and the ARU are forced to back track further, particuarly in other states, where it seems that the some state unions haven't really reflected the anger at the NPF by their grass roots.
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
I like NSWRU more and more each year.
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
I'd actually prefer that SJRU and CJRU were somehow able to both have representation. Not that this pertains directly to what we're talking about.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
I'd've very interested in some of that correspondence. I'm really interested to know who knew about the proposed changes and why they were so blind to how they would affect clubs.
It certainly looks like the NSWRU have at least listened to the stakeholders there, which is great.
I will say however that I don't think the ARU should be collecting this money AND I don't think they should be funding development staff at all. Their support should be high level - education and structural support rather than 'on the ground' DOs. Competitions need to find ways to support their own development staff. Modelling sustainable competitions is the only way to create long term success for the grass roots, the ARU should simply be supplying the fertilizer - it would appear they have it in abundance there
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Country JRU have made the same demand for board representation.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
A lot of the people running various rugby administrations have very little experience in club rugby. They've often come through the private school systems and into grade clubs. They simply have no real first hand comprehension of what it takes to run a junior club (particularly one in a non-traditional rugby area) or in a city subbies club or its country equivalent.
Mr Larrett and co probably gave the objections no thought and belived that they could simply steam roller the thing through. When he leaves the ARU, he could probably get a gig in Hockey's office
I did not read that into those posts. I understood from the emails that the SJRU have not yet committed to either Buddha or Rugbylink and that further discussions are occuring and further communication will be issued. I think the email from the ARU was just the ARU trying to "impose" their system and put pressure on clubs/unions to adopt Rugbylink and not co-ordinated with any SJRU communication.
Dingasden
Ward Prentice (10)
That's correct. RugbyLink has not been tested & understandably many are concerned it could fall over come competition time. It's looking more like Buddha will be the system of choice at least for 2015. There should be something more on this by Monday.
More importantly It also looks like positive news coming soon re an agreement on 2015 club levies & insurance for SJRU & possibly wider club rugby community
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
Any idea what that news might be? I heard yesterday that the NSWRU may be going with the individual insurance, but it will be capped at 30 players per team?
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
I won't bet my life on it, but I think it will be OK. The developers of RugbyLink are a good outfit and they do Cricket, Netball, Tennis and Golf Australia. I'm assuming the ARU is using their infrastructure. If they're using MRA's infrastructure, it might be a bit more of an issue.
Dingasden
Ward Prentice (10)
I have heard an affordable fixed price to cover max of 30 per team in a much better deal. Should be something out next week
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Status