Australian Rugby / RA

[I like to watch]

SS professional aspirations?
The Wicks P & L shows payments/incentives to players about 10% of their turnover,which seems typical of most clubs.
What is the strategy regarding the development of professional players in Australia?
Where do guys like Horwitz & Kellaway improve their skills so they are ready for Super Footy in the absence of the SS?
Playing subbies will do nothing to improve them,as they don't have the funds to provide professional standard coaching & fitness that most SS clubs invest in.
Look at each clubs P& L,most of the costs are coaching/administration/players gear & strapping costs.

 

[Strewthcobber]

SS professional aspirations?
The Wicks P & L shows payments/incentives to players about 10% of their turnover,which seems typical of most clubs.
What is the strategy regarding the development of professional players in Australia?
Where do guys like Horwitz & Kellaway improve their skills so they are ready for Super Footy in the absence of the SS?
Playing subbies will do nothing to improve them,as they don't have the funds to provide professional standard coaching & fitness that most SS clubs invest in.
Look at each clubs P& L,most of the costs are coaching/administration/players gear & strapping costs.

Don't think anyone has advocated getting rid of SS teams?

Some (including the ARU apparently) believe that limited $$$ are better spent on funding development officers, Schools and age group pathways, NRC and super Rugby teams to develop our pro players.

I think that there are good arguments against that, but frankly using Horwitz and Kellaway as your examples, who have been in the ARU system all the way through, isn't going to convince anyone.

The better arguments is picking up those late bloomers who haven't cracked anything by their early twenties. SS clubs could certainly argue they have a role to play there. Pretty small piece of the pro player pie though.




Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

That's my point, the ARU system of picking winners at an early age doesn't work without the SS.
They have both been in the payroll since School & without the SS they would have been limited to opposed sessions with the Tahs,hardly ideal.
Funny you mention the NRC,the comp BP begged the SS clubs to both fund & administer 4 of the franchises.
Now these same people can't be trusted with any ARU $$ without pissing it up against a wall!

 

[Braveheart81]

What is the strategy regarding the development of professional players in Australia?
Where do guys like Horwitz & Kellaway improve their skills so they are ready for Super Footy in the absence of the SS?

Why would it cease it exist without the minimal funding injection the ARU and NSWRU are able to provide?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

SS professional aspirations?
The Wicks P & L shows payments/incentives to players about 10% of their turnover,which seems typical of most clubs.
What is the strategy regarding the development of professional players in Australia?
Where do guys like Horwitz & Kellaway improve their skills so they are ready for Super Footy in the absence of the SS?
Playing subbies will do nothing to improve them,as they don't have the funds to provide professional standard coaching & fitness that most SS clubs invest in.
Look at each clubs P& L,most of the costs are coaching/administration/players gear & strapping costs.

I'm not advocating for the abolition of the structure. It still serves a purpose. My argument is that the Shute Shield clubs need to develop their own business plans in order to become self sufficient. They have a conduit in the form of the Ch7 deal to do so and need to collectively work together to develop their sponsorship/viewer bases accordingly. No other club competition has this, the ARU are even providing funds in support of it.

Ultimately for me it boils down to this. If its a choice of providing clubs a grant of say $100,000 each or using those funds to get another say 10,000 kids playing the game. It's a no brainer. The kids every day of the week.

 

[kiap]

Where people are saying that the ARU is removing a tradition of direct funding to the Premier Clubs, is this accurate? I dont know the answer to this, but outside of the Shute Shield, how much has ARU directly funded Premier Clubs in other States than NSW? My understanding is little.

To be fair to club proponents, the ARU has provided extra direct funding for a number of years, with a step up around 2002 and some other funding even before. There was probably a decade and a bit of pump-priming before the winding back and phase-out of the last few years.

This ARU cash was where the "Premier Rugby" concept came from. It applied to first and foremost to NSW, then Qld (and later lesser amounts trickled down to some other states).

In the days when we had no national competition, it was an initiative to bridge the experience gap to Super Rugby (sound familiar? - there's not much that's new in Australian rugby - you can go back for decades and the hot topics then are eerily similar to the ones now).

What was initially intended was a short and intense "premier" competition in the second half of the season when the Super 12 was finished and many of those players were available to clubs. And it went ahead for a couple of years. Teams from outside Sydney and Brisbane (Canberra, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast) got some of the funding as well to play in these comps.

The original Premier Rugby concept didn't last that long. The split seasons in Sydney and Brisbane went after a few years, the Tooheys New Cup went by the wayside a few years later. By 2007, the introduction of the ARC marked the final ebb, although the "Premier" name stayed around as a legacy.

The fact that the ARC spent over its budget and was canned kept the money flowing to the clubs for a few more years (I won't go into the politics of this here). Of the out-of-town teams, only the Gold Coast remains, after a name change and injection of private university funding.

With the reinstatement of the national comp as the NRC, the premise for the national body to directly fund the respective club comps of each state no longer exists.

That's not to say that the club comps should disappear. Far from it, we still need these competitions. But they should be administered (and funded where needed) by the NSWRU, QRU, ACTSNSWRU, and so on.

 

[dru]

EDIT: this was prepared before I saw kiaps post. Very good mate.

I still see an elephant in the room which is being ignored. Right wrong or indifferent, the ARU has endorsed the NRC as the third tier of professionalism, and present it as a National competition. There is plenty of discussion as to whether this was the most appropriate mechanism. Much of it from "the traditional clubs" of NSW - which I take to mean the SS teams running down the eastern strip of Sydney. I realise that my interpretation is in error with many individuals, but as a statistical cohort I think its pretty accurate.

Either we turf the achievements of this new third tier or we work with it. I recognise that the Shute Shiled is the most successful quasi pro competition below the formal three tiers, and understand their desire for more. But I dont think it works. I'm for working with the NRC, which possibly means change across that "traditional" world of rugby.

The funds that are available from the ARU should imo be distributed a) to support the unions; b) to keep the top two tiers healthy; c) to continue developing the third tier.

"Traditional club"; "Shute Shield team" take your pick, but they are low on the priority scale for direct ARU funding. Ditto Premiership clubs elsewhere, though they are not at this stage complaining. The Premier Clubs are welcome however to put a case forward to their Union for support if there is a legitimate argument, such as supporting late bloomers, or any other matter.

The reason the NSWRU is looking for direct funding to clubs is presumably they cant justify more funding either.

 

[I like to watch]

Why would it cease it exist without the minimal funding injection the ARU and NSWRU are able to provide?

It wouldn't.it was in response the previous posters premise that any funding at all by the ARU to SS clubs was contrary to the best practice in the development of pro players in Australia.

 

[Dave Beat]

With respect to your sleight of hand regaring my origins, you think a Qlder has no entitlement to comment on the requested direct funding which is not offered anywhere else? If the Qld Premier Clubs were in the news with faux outrage to Pulvers response (you're not pissing ARU money against the wall) I'd be saying the same thing.

All of your above is sweet with me.

I don't want money pissed up against the wall either, and I don't agree with hand outs.

I have no issues with fair communications between states (of which yours have been), I referenced that because I was wondering why you were chatting about SS.

As I said above, payment for hard work, and results - most punters on here received payment for hard work and meeting results.

People cant sit on there asses and wait for the respective stateRU to make it happen - that job is to big, so why not engage the clubs and grow the profile of rugby in every Premier Club suburb (and surrounds).

 

[dru]

I'm not normally in the habit of cross referring from Gr&G to Roar, so appreciate if the mods close this post as inappropriate.

Spiro has expanded on the recent SMH article on Bob Dwyer disagreeing with Bill Pulver on funding to "the rugby clubs" by which he actually means the Shute Shield clubs. The comment section is fascinating, especially the input from TWAS (who many here would be familiar with).

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/18/bob-dwyer-lays-boot-aru-sydney-club-rugby/

 

[TOCC]

Would SS/QPR clubs be willing to cease all player payments if the ARU were willing to provide grants again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Beat]

Would SS/QPR clubs be willing to cease all player payments if the ARU were willing to provide grants again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We'd have to shift this thread to the player exodus thread then.

Clubs being sensible is what is key.

 

[TOCC]

We'd have to shift this thread to the player exodus thread then.

Clubs being sensible is what is key.

So you think player payments by SS and QPR clubs are preventing players from taking up contracts up overseas... What sort of player payment would stop a player from accepting an overseas contract?

Player payments by clubs are a massive issue, they are unregulated and the consequences are an arms race to retain and recruit the best players, forcing clubs to pay more then the market would otherwise dictate. This isn't healthy for the game, especially when you have certain Super Rugby contracted players also in receipt of match payments from SS/QPR clubs, these players are already on $60k - $150k and are now getting paid extra for their club matches, they are getting paid twice for the same job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Beat]

So you think player payments by SS and QPR clubs are preventing players from takin up contracts up overseas.

Player payments by clubs are a massive issue, they are unregulated and the consequences are an arms race to retain and recruit the best players forcing clubs to pay more then the market would otherwise dictate. This isn't healthy for the game, especially when you have certain Super Rugby contracted players also in receipt of match payments from SS/QPR clubs, these players are already on $60k - $150k and are now getting paid extra for their club matches, they are getting paid twice for the same job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I said clubs being sensible is the key.

I have said work needs to be done, and Premier Clubs should not be neglected.

I have always looked to refer to Premier Clubs - not SS clubs.
I have always looked to refer to each state - not just NSW.

I'm in small business, and I'm Self Employed - you work hard, you get reward. I have said
Each State RU needs to use the Premier Clubs to grow our game.
I have also said the Premier Clubs should get an earned $grant.

 

[Braveheart81]

The disconnect is between Bob Dwyer's view that essentially the grade clubs in Sydney and Brisbane through their history of being the clubs that Wallabies played for and therefore having some sort of ownership over a portion of the revenue generated by the professional game (Wallabies and Super Rugby) and the modern reality that is that they are often not going concerns without external funding.

I understand their side of the argument but the problem is that history isn't a good enough reason to keep funding them. A somewhat similar issue happened in the AFL where struggling clubs like Melbourne basically said that the AFL mustn't allow them to go broke and fold because essentially they are part owners of the AFL and what the AFL has created. They however have a much better case for making that argument because they have been and are a direct part of that competition that generates the vast swathes of revenue their sport enjoys. The problem with the Shute Shield clubs is that they aren't part of anything that produces revenue.

No one denies that the Shute Shield clubs perform an important part of being a strong competition which is where a lot of young players earn their straps on the way to becoming professional players (or get experience whilst being on professional contracts with the Super Rugby teams). The problem is that of the limited pool of funds available, what is this worth to the ARU?

Club rugby would still exist if you turned off all the funding. Clearly it would take a dive and some clubs would presumably fold and the standard would drop. How much it would drop would be the question however. The players not playing Super Rugby each week would still be playing somewhere. Players leaving school and hoping to play professional rugby would still be playing somewhere. Players who are never going to be professionals but want somewhere to play rugby at a decent level are still going to be playing rugby.

If the funding was spent elsewhere on getting more kids playing the game, what would that achieve instead? If you had more players coming through wanting to play as adults would that create a stronger club rugby competition than the one that exists now where there are some player payments? Would increasing the number of players bring more players and interest to those clubs and allow them to expand again because they had the ability to create more revenue?

It's a very difficult equation to balance because there is a very limited pool of money and spending it on one area denies it from another.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Would SS/QPR clubs be willing to cease all player payments if the ARU were willing to provide grants again?

Think the much more interesting question is what the clubs would/will do when the funding is cut.

They really aren't spending much $$$wise, but it is a lot relative to their profit/losses. And increasingly, the money is being spent on scholarships at university.

So do the clubs cut spending elsewhere to keep their recruitment and competitive advantage?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Think the much more interesting question is what the clubs would/will do when the funding is cut.

They really aren't spending much $$$wise, but it is a lot relative to their profit/losses. And increasingly, the money is being spent on scholarships at university.

So do the clubs cut spending elsewhere to keep their recruitment and competitive advantage?

Having just read Randwicks annual report according to the profit/loss statement they received no money from either the ARU or NSWRU for last season. It also noted that their revenue generated from games at Coogee Oval is less than $100,000 and their sponsorship totals to $529,000. Those are two of the areas they need to address in my opinion.

 

[dru]

I dont have a problem with the clubs funding players for whatever purpose. ARU grants to do that is a different matter.

I see a comment that there are no acadamies for players past U20? As long as funds can permit it, Id love that gap to be filled. Open academies available to the clubs that want it. No exclusivity though unless they build the academy themselves.

We shouldnt forget that a more successful and visible rugby world may well assist the Premier clubs in gaining other sources of funding, eg local advertising ans sponsorships.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Having just read Randwicks annual report according to the profit/loss statement they received no money from either the ARU or NSWRU for last season. It also noted that their revenue generated from games at Coogee Oval is less than $100,000 and their sponsorship totals to $529,000. Those are two of the areas they need to address in my opinion.

Took a big loss last year though, so it appears they didn't really make a decision one way or another

I would think that's actually a pretty decent amount of sponsorship - especially when you compare it with lots of the other clubs (particularly out west) and their own previous accounts. Looking at the past years the sponsorship dollars really do ebb and flow.

Looking at those accounts - when times get tough what tends to happen is the staff members/admin get cut. It's really the only way to make a significant dent in their expenses.

 

[Braveheart81]

When you boil it down though, the clubs are essentially existing on the goodwill of people involved with the clubs. How much of that sponsorship money comes from the businesses of people actively involved in the clubs and how much return do they get on that sponsorship?

My guess is that it is a lot more of an emotional investment in something they care about than a sound business decision in most cases.